Is it wrong to be gay?

[Magewout]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Like Squeek said, bestiality is illegal because an animal cannot consent. So, that argument is void.

So what about those dogs that hump everything? I'd assume they are very much approving of sex with any kind of creature.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Magewout

So what about those dogs that hump everything? I'd assume they are very much approving of sex with any kind of creature.

What about kids who are thirsty and try to drink the drain cleaner? Just because they do something doesn't mean they know exactly what it is they are doing. Consent has to be informed to count.

[Squeek]

If this is seriously the best argument you can come up with for why two people in love with one another cannot get married, then you really need to check where your morality stems from.

This is pathetic.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Squeek

If this is seriously the best argument you can come up with for why two people in love with one another cannot get married, then you really need to check where your morality stems from.

This is pathetic.

The only "legitimate" argument I can see stems from religion. But, then again, I always believe in separation of church and state.

Any other argument is effectively out the window.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

The only "legitimate" argument I can see stems from religion. But, then again, I always believe in separation of church and state.

Any other argument is effectively out the window.

Apart from religious reasons, gay couples raising children falls outside the social norms, so to maintain the status quo, same-sex relationships "should" be disallowed from having children.

[MrGiggles]

Originally Posted by Magewout

So what about those dogs that hump everything? I'd assume they are very much approving of sex with any kind of creature.

I just looked at this thread from like a month ago why are we still discussing this holy ****.

I made my opinion clear that I don't think the status quo is the best we can do in terms of bestiality, and Rubix made it clear why its chances of being legalized are so low they're negligible.

EDIT: wait nevermind I just realized this stemmed from bobeck's rofl comparison of homosexuality and bestiality. I'm not even sure what kind of thought process leads to that comparison.

[bobeck]

@Devonin. I am not and have not been saying that Homosexuality and Bestiality are identical. My point is to prove that the same reasons advocates use to make homosexuality right are also the same reasons that can be used to approve acts of bestiality and other morally reprehensible acts.

To the rest who are hung up over the issue of consent. If I'm correct, you are saying that the only moral issue separating acts of homosexuality from acts of bestiality is the issue of consent. So then putting consent aside, (just assume consent was not an issue) would you then approve of bestiality?
Remember that consent is much more a legal than a practical definition, and it's not unfeasible to create some type of consent laws in regards to animals, as consent is not limited to verbal communications. Consider the dog who rolls over when petted, would that not constitute consent?

And finally, for those accusers who show little knowledge by calling bestiality rape. It is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for bestiality to be classified as rape.
Consider the Californian statutory penal code SECTION 261-269. It starts with
"Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:" *feel free to view the rest http://davismaar.org/definition.htm

notice the requirement of a person, and most states have something similar to this effect. For this very same reason one who kills a cat can not legally be charged with a homicide even though a killing occurred, because a homicide MUST occur between a human being.

[Izzy]

I would be ok with bestiality if they could give consent.

Also that isn't the definition of rape.

Pretty sure you are just trolling though. I don't think anyone is that backwards minded.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Apart from religious reasons, gay couples raising children falls outside the social norms, so to maintain the status quo, same-sex relationships "should" be disallowed from having children.

Not sure if you're hashing your own argument or someone else's, but just because something isn't the status quo doesn't mean it's harmful. There's nothing saying, for example, that a child cannot be raised by a single parent, or his uncle, or his aunt, or anyone else for that matter -- so clearly the STRUCTURE of the family isn't against the law. Two men or two women would be just as acceptable. The whole "children need a mother and father" argument is total BS.

Kids who grow up with homosexual parents turn out no different than kids with heterosexual parents. What matters is love and stability -- not gender -- from parents. Plenty of heterosexual kids don't "turn gay" when they have gay parents, unlike what some people wonder about. I can think of far worse circumstances for a kid to grow up in that have nothing to do with the sexuality of their parents (things that actually have negative effects such as abuse/neglect/lack of education/poor finances/etc).

These are the things we need to worry about instead of quibbling over the obvious discrimination and fear that stems from pure ignorance and social stupidity.

Originally Posted by bobeck

@Devonin. I am not and have not been saying that Homosexuality and Bestiality are identical. My point is to prove that the same reasons advocates use to make homosexuality right are also the same reasons that can be used to approve acts of bestiality and other morally reprehensible acts.

To the rest who are hung up over the issue of consent. If I'm correct, you are saying that the only moral issue separating acts of homosexuality from acts of bestiality is the issue of consent. So then putting consent aside, (just assume consent was not an issue) would you then approve of bestiality?
Remember that consent is much more a legal than a practical definition, and it's not unfeasible to create some type of consent laws in regards to animals, as consent is not limited to verbal communications. Consider the dog who rolls over when petted, would that not constitute consent?

And finally, for those accusers who show little knowledge by calling bestiality rape. It is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for bestiality to be classified as rape.
Consider the Californian statutory penal code SECTION 261-269. It starts with
"Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:" *feel free to view the rest http://davismaar.org/definition.htm

notice the requirement of a person, and most states have something similar to this effect. For this very same reason one who kills a cat can not legally be charged with a homicide even though a killing occurred, because a homicide MUST occur between a human being.

If you're trolling, you're retarded.

If you're serious, you're also retarded.

The reasons used to bash bestiality don't apply to homosexuality. Totally separate issues. The only thing they have in common is that they grind against societal norms. You can't use the same argument against all things against the norm, especially regarding rape. Logic-fail on your behalf.

An animal that rolls over on its back may just want you to pet it. It doesn't mean it's giving you consent for sex. Besides, how is an animal going to let the authorities know it's been raped? An animal cannot speak, nor can it articulately communicate with a human -- it's on a completely different plane of understanding and communication. Any signal an animal gives can be interpreted in various ways. This isn't really even worthy of discussion. An animal can't give consent.

Rape is engaging in sexual activity with someone through force or under duress. Mental ability is one of the most important criteria for consent laws, because it determines who can give consent and who cannot. If you get rid of that so you can have sex with animals, you also get rid of the one thing that keeps minors or the mentally impaired from giving consent. This is also the reason why having sex with someone who's vastly intoxicated is considered rape -- they're not mentally capable of verbally giving/withholding consent much of the time.

Where it gets interesting though: Why allow murder of animals for food processing but not rape?

[devonin]

Where it gets interesting though: Why allow murder of animals for food processing but not rape?

Issues specifically with factory farm practices aside, farm animals don't suffer. They live a peaceful life, eating food, chilling out, and then suddenly -bam- dead, and eaten.

As they don't suffer (Again, issues with factory farms specifically, aside) it is not considered morally wrong to kill them for food.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by devonin

Issues specifically with factory farm practices aside, farm animals don't suffer. They live a peaceful life, eating food, chilling out, and then suddenly -bam- dead, and eaten.

As they don't suffer (Again, issues with factory farms specifically, aside) it is not considered morally wrong to kill them for food.

I understand this -- what I mean is that it's never considered lawful, for instance, to kill a human for food by the logic of "They didn't suffer." We say it's okay to raise and kill animals for food, but say it's not okay to do this with humans. Similarly, we say it's not okay to rape animals, and it's also not okay to do this with humans.

Basically just posing a question between human and animal rights and asking why you all think we say one thing is okay but another is not.

(I have my own answer to this, but just wanted to see what you all thought)

[MrGiggles]

I always figured that since we can't tell for sure what other animals want/don't want, but we CAN tell what humans want/don't want, it would probably be more sensible to give much less consideration to the feelings of animals. You know? Might as well go with what you know.

That probably sounds kinda cold and inhumane, yeah, but still. I figure that's part of the reasoning behind not raising and killing humans for food.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Not sure if you're hashing your own argument or someone else's...

Was playing devil's advocate to give an example of an argument which isn't based on religion.

I'm pretty much neutral to the whole gay parents thing, although I can see it makes sense to avoid it. It's got to be weird as **** for the kid in social situations, like if friends come over or something. A friend of mine, his mom divorced his dad and ended up with another woman. And I never thought much of it, but if I had met him when I was like 6 and had experienced the same thing back then, I think I might have been weirded out by it and been overly judgmental.

[bobeck]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

The reasons used to bash bestiality don't apply to homosexuality. Totally separate issues.

The only issues I've heard from you that bashes bestiality is consent in regards to rape (If its even possible to rape an animal) which I have already addressed. Further, I fail to comprehend why you don't understand that I am not saying homosexuality and bestiality are the same. Homosexuality and bestiality are separate and distinct acts yet can be justified by the same reasons.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

An animal that rolls over on its back may just want you to pet it. It doesn't mean it's giving you consent for sex..... Any signal an animal gives can be interpreted in various ways..... An animal can't give consent.

So the person who argues that animals can't give consent then decides that an animal who rolls on its back wants to bet petted, but not have sex? I thought it was impossible for you to interpret the signals of animals.

Further, why then are we not charged with a battery every time a person pets a dog? After all, a battery is basically the touching of a person without consent. So, since a dog hasn't given explicit consent to be touched we shouldn't be able to pet it. (I am intentionally over looking the fact that one again battery this only applies to a person)

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Rape is engaging in sexual activity with someone through force or under duress. Mental ability is one of the most important criteria for consent laws, because it determines who can give consent and who cannot. If you get rid of that so you can have sex with animals, you also get rid of the one thing that keeps minors or the mentally impaired from giving consent. This is also the reason why having sex with someone who's vastly intoxicated is considered rape -- they're not mentally capable of verbally giving/withholding consent much of the time.

Why are you applying laws made to affect humans on animals? For the last time, it's impossible to commit rape on an animal because by definition rape requires two (or more) human beings. Even your rudimentary definition of rape included the word "Someone''. If consent is a subset of rape, and Rape is now out of the picture in regards to animals, why are you continually hounding on the issue of consent?

[MrRubix]

bobeck, your lack of ability regarding reading comprehension is astounding.

[bobeck]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

bobeck, your lack of ability regarding reading comprehension is astounding.

What's astounding is your relegation of this issue to personal attacks. (Yes, I realize this statement makes me hypocritical)

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Was playing devil's advocate to give an example of an argument which isn't based on religion.

I'm pretty much neutral to the whole gay parents thing, although I can see it makes sense to avoid it. It's got to be weird as **** for the kid in social situations, like if friends come over or something. A friend of mine, his mom divorced his dad and ended up with another woman. And I never thought much of it, but if I had met him when I was like 6 and had experienced the same thing back then, I think I might have been weirded out by it and been overly judgmental.

Maybe it would have weirded you out, but only because it wasn't the norm. The only way to not find it weird is to see it happen more often. Think of all the kids who could find homes if gay couples were allowed to adopt in addition to heterosexual couples? Certainly better than no home at all.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by bobeck

What's astounding is your relegation of this issue to personal attacks. (Yes, I realize this statement makes me hypocritical)

I don't mind attacking someone if they're trolling/retarded beyond belief. You're either one or the other.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Maybe it would have weirded you out, but only because it wasn't the norm. The only way to not find it weird is to see it happen more often. Think of all the kids who could find homes if gay couples were allowed to adopt in addition to heterosexual couples? Certainly better than no home at all.

Yeah, which is why I'm ultimately not really against it, even though it might be confusing for the kid at first in social situations.

[bobeck]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I don't mind attacking someone if they're trolling/retarded beyond belief. You're either one or the other.

Wow! Low baller. Alright you win.

Now, aside from MrRubix who is omniscient, What is it then that can or will separate the approval of homosexuality from eventually the acceptance of bestiality, putting the issue of rape and consent aside? (Since Rape and its inclusive elements applies only to humans)

On a different tangent so as to not stray any farther from the topic, the question is "Is it wrong to be gay"? Apart from any moral compass (such as religion), there is no wrong in any activity. The question could be, why is killing for fun wrong? The answer aside from the legal aspect is...nothing. One may argue that its harmful to others. Well, who said harming others was wrong? Yes the law has imposed restrictions on harming others, yet if our only definition of right and wrong is only what the law says, then we are dictated by the desires of a fallible law maker and what may be wrong today might not be wrong tomorrow.

Thus I think its necessary to clarify when asking '' is it wrong to be gay''. Is it LEGALLY wrong, or morally wrong? The legality issue can be easy to answer. The morally wrong issue is where, apart from some superior standard, the circular and really unsolvable debate begins.