Posted on 11/14/2005 9:49:08 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
Sheep, dog, cat, goat, horse, cow, camel or spider rapers: We have a 4 x 6 room with your name on it.
And since when did we get so ridiculously tolerant to actually believe there is a difference between bestiality and zoophilia and are willing to even tolerate discussions about that difference? A fruit-cake is pretty hard to stomach if you ask me.
Two and a half years sounds about right. Twenty years is too long.
Exactly the point I made above. Since most of us will NOT accept immorality shoved down our throats, the only way the so-called moral relavists (in reality, purveyors of immorality) will get us to shut up is at the business end of a gun/threat of arrest.
There's no other way they will get most of us to acquiesce. Totalitarianism is what will happen.
You're right, it doesn't make one molecule of sense.
There will be a revolution before that happens.
It doesn't really matter what anyone "thinks". The sentence is eternal damnation.
Roman queers kept catamites routinely. Catamites were young boys forced subjugated to the wishes of male homos. Sickening to think the Nambla crowd is pushing the same thing again.
Just curious about where you draw the line--do you have a problem if the gays are siblings?
We've reached a point of some circularity, I think - you insist on calling homosexuality immoral, and I insist that it is not. I doubt there is any convincing on the horizon for either of us...
I say your quotes are off topic because you are ascribing a meaning to "morality" that I don't agree with - the discussion was about that meaning, and you can't argue a point using quotes that are based on the assumption that the point is true ("off-topic" may have been the wrong term, cicular may have been better).
In response to the problem raised in your second paragraph, I would suggest that our laws really shouldn't be based on morality at all (as I think I stated in another post). Precisely because morality is not absolute, and individuals (based on upbringing, cultural heritage, socialization, etc) do develop their own sense of morality. Despite that, many of us have very similar backgrounds and heritages, so we share a moral viewpoint which becomes the 'morals' of society at large. However, it seems better to me for our legal structure to be based on questions of cost/benefit to the functioning of our society, not on the moral opinions of a segment of society. For example, murder should be illegal not because it is immoral but because our society functions a lot better when we can go outside without (much) fear of being murdered. By this standard, people who don't consider murder immoral don't get a pass.
Hopefully this only applies to beastiality between consenting adult humans and adult dogs, in the privacy of their own kennels.
Seriously folks; Is a human that will engage in sexual intercourse with a dog, human enough that such an act between the two is in fact beastiality???
In terms of legality, I think the legal line should be wherever there is a clearly definable societal interest in limiting a behavior. If there is not articulable societal interest, then a behavior should not be infringed.
Your philosophy sounds very similar to communism or Nazism in that nothing matters except the smooth running state organization.
I can only thank God that people like you are in a small minority.
Such "humans" are worse than animals, because animals stay within their own kind.
But how bad does it have to get? And how many people tolerate stuff now, that if it had shoved at them 20 or even 15 years ago without the previous slide, would not have tolerated it?
The boiling frog analogy.
I don't know, Harry. It's going to have to come to a head like a bad boil, one way or another. Because those who want to destroy morality and any vestige of religion will not stop until they win. And them winning means re-education camps for us, under a totalitarian government.
Except for the occasional human leg they become enamored with.
I knew someone would bring that up! But there was a bitch in heat around, they wouldn't go for the corduroy, or denim, as the case may be.
I don't mean a "smooth running state organization", I mean society (culture, civilization) in a larger sense. What I'm trying to say is that people's behavior should not be infringed upon unless there is a compelling societal interest (necessity) to do so. The mere fact that part of society finds a behavior immoral does not constitute a compelling societal interest. It's about personal freedom, not the efficiency of the state machine...
So you are comfortable with incest and interspecies sex too? How do you define societal interest? Since male homosexuals have an average life-span of about 45 years (on a par with IV drug users) and the cost to treat the medical conditions associated with the lifestyle exceeds normal lifestyles, should we draw the line or pay the costs? I for one, don't care to be forced to pay the cost for a destructive public health issue that is a personal choice. Furthermore, AIDS patients are dominated by male homosexuals and are breeding grounds for highly resistant bacterial strains. In short, male homos especially, are a huge public health issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.