Dude if you want to fuck animals so badly just do it in your own private residence, we won't tell.
Dude if you want to fuck animals so badly just do it in your own private residence, we won't tell.yllus, I already addressed the "consent" issue a few posts ago. We eat animals. They dont consent.
Hence, their perspective is irrelevant. The perspective of human behavior is relevant.
Since this isn't a case study, your viewpoint on the subject won't affect your findings....
What's your opinion on your question?
yllus, I already addressed the "consent" issue a few posts ago. We eat animals. They dont consent.
Hence, their perspective is irrelevant. The perspective of human behavior is relevant.
1) It directly harms you if someone goes into your butt too fast and too big. Therefore, we must protect ourselves by banning homosexuals from existing.
2) It absolutely does, as you know, all gay men walk around with their penises erect and ready to really tear into those virgin male holes
3) Yes you can, there is money to be made in Gay porn and also, if you get a gay person to fall for you, you can really gold dig them for fabulous stuff like clothes and cars
4) Yes, there is. I recommend the greek yogurt and the Ben & Jerries.
Holy fuck.
ROLF Trying to get Routon to answer a question.
You wouldn't understand since you rape your women and cover them up, therefore murdering them is A-OK. Their consent is irrelevent.
You have it partly right, but you get it wrong and twist it to bigotry IMO.
First, the exact biological issues in homosexuality are not understood - but some issues are.
For an example of the complications, take the very simple test of identical twins.
If homosexuality is genetic, all identical twins will be both or neither gay. If it's not, all twins will be as randomly gay or not gay from each other as from anyone.
So, which is it? The answer is, a twin is FAR MORE LIKELY to match his twin at being gay or not gay than random chance (IIRC 60%?) - and far from 100%.
So, huh?
What you get right is saying biologists suspect something more complex like a genetic trait that *has a chance* to cause homosexuality.
That might mean:
No genetic trait + no mystery trigger = heterosexual
No genetic trait + mystery trigger = heterosexual
Genetic trait + no mystery trigger = heterosexual
Genetic trait + mystery trigger = homosexual
One thing that seems clear is that generally, homosexuality IS there very early - seemingly as early as tests can tell (around age 5 if not earlier) with indications it's earlier.
You get it wrong, though, implying something like 'a straight person for some reason decided to have a homosexual act, and it turns him gay.'
There are other things that aren't explained yet, like a correlation of which finger is longer to homosexuality, that have theories around hormones being involved in a trigger.
Your main point is wrong, that the 'biological' is 'PC and wrong'. It's right.
The old bigotry about homosexuality was that 'gays are just like other people except that just like those who rape steal and murder, they choose to do evil things.'
People didn't understand why people did those things - they were just evil, 'perverted'.
They did not understand that for gays, their sexual feelings are just as built in and natural as heterosexuals' feelings are from a very young age - the issue is 'biological'.
The actual history you did not mention is that a 'PC' line was calling it 'lifestyle choice' - society had a lot of existing views that had tolerance for that issue, in terms of 'some people prefer to be more promiscuous, some less, some to date old or another race or have multiple partners' - all variations that had become 'accepted' and so it easily fit to say 'hey, let gays make their choice too'. But that's what was misleading and shown wrong by showing how it is more biology than 'choice' as an orientation.
Of course, sex acts are choices - the issue there, though, is inconsistent rules for gays than for heterosexuals, based on the bigotry that gays are 'wrong', 'evil', 'perverted'.
MJinZ, your pearls of wisdom are awe-inspiring. Keep at it :awe:
yllus, I already addressed the "consent" issue a few posts ago. We eat animals. They dont consent.
Hence, their perspective is irrelevant. The perspective of human behavior is relevant.
How is eating something the same as sticking your dick in it?
MJinZ is a fool. Pay no attention to him. He doesn't know how sad he is and so he has no compassion.
HomerJS, not at all. Someone's sexual orientation should have no bearing on his/her employment. That is his/her private life.
My question is based on evolving morals. As homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted, would the same happen with engaging in sexual activities with different species? Someone else mentioned necrophilia? What is the opinion of AT P&N in general.
Just. Wow. All around.
You have issues son.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11528661
The army no longer has to observe the "dont ask, dont tell" policy.
With respect to this, I would like to ask a question... and please, I am just simply inquiring.
Homosexuality was considered deviant behavior, not too long ago. It is now an accepted sexual orientation. The explanation given for this sexual orientation is that homosexuality is biological.
We are aware that some people like to indulge in other forms of sexual behavior, such as engaging with the animal species. Do AT members think that at some point in the future, such "deviant" behavior would also be considered acceptable?
BeauJangles, with the perspective of "consent". They are not the same action, but in either scenario, the animal does not have a choice.
The perspective of human behavior is relevant.
Back in the 50s the same question could have been asked about miscegenation. What would your answer have been?
Equating homosexuality to sex with animals, pedophilia, etc is a common tactic used to gay bash.
With the perspective of "not being the same thing," they are not the same thing.
From your post:
How is having sex with something the same behavior as eating it?
Adult humans and of-age minors are capable of granting consent, so sex between two such people - whether of the same or different genders - involves mutual consent and is legal.
Minors below a certain age are not capable of granting consent, so sex between an adult and an under-age minor is illegal.
Animals are not capable of granting consent. Now, see if you can determine the logical conclusion of that fact.
HomerJS, back in the 50s, some may have equated miscegenation with homosexuality to bash miscegenation.
I am certainly not passing judgments on people who want to live life according to their sexual orientation. I am only suggesting that morals and values change over time.
Well, we've finally learned how to turn liberals against muslims.
When has liberalism ever spported ass backward religiousness?
They were diametric from conception.
How so? There is only love. What was is or will be love is all the same. Love is the ground of our being. What changes is how near or how far people are from feeling love as the ultimate reality. Once you found your faith on what is disgust and bigotry calling and naming evil and thus bringing the very thing you hate into existence, there will be change because your limited notion of the absolute will dissolve away. The human soul can't escape the gravity of love and will be pulled there for eternity.
BeauJangles, I already agreed that they are not the same action. Are you disputing that the animal gives "consent" in either scenario? If yes, please explain. If no, what are you arguing with me about?