Originally posted by yes4141
This really does show a significant lack of individual thought. It is an entirely invalid comparison. You seem to just consider beastiality 'bad'
I don't know if it's bad or good. It's bad for me. But, who am I to judge whether its bad for someone else?
They have a need, they fill their own need. I'm not trying to stand in their way. I'm just saying that it's not right to consider those other forms
of "love" equal to the man+woman bond. It's not right to confuse the language, and confuse the kids, and mislead the innocent, and tell them that
it's all the same thing.
It's not the same thing. Each type of "love" is different, and ought to be labeled differently.
Don't call a "spade" a "shoe".
In communist countries, they banned all names that distinguished between man and woman. You couldn't say Mr, or Miss, or Sir, or Master, etc..it was
all "comrade". Well, comrade my foot, that's a man, and that's a woman. God made them male and female, not comrade and comrade. But, then again,
communists didn't believe in God. So, it figures.
I would say it was a bad thing to do because the animal cannot give informed consent like a person could.
How do you know the animal cannot give informed consent? Did the animal run away. Did it bark or complain? Many animals have lots of intelligence. You
call a dog, it comes. You tell it to fetch, it goes fetch. If the animal comes back for more love, then isn't that consent enough? What do you want
from the animal? Paw prints?
Not simply because society says it's taboo. Like you keep saying, we have free will, therefore the ability to choose who we have sex with- this
totally contradicts your comparison.
Exactly, we have free will. You can choose. But, you can't call it all the same thing.
Wonderful that you believe yourself to be a macro psychologist who can assess significant amounts of people in one swift statement.
Don't need to assess the people, only the "action". The people are different, they are individuals.
BUT, THEIR ACTION IS ALL THE SAME.
Not hard to figure that out.
You're so good
Yes, I am. Aren't I ?
at it that you can even do it whilst grossly misinformed!
The only misinformed, are those who don't understand what their private jewels are really there for.
They think it's for "recreation."
This sums you up. You try to claim reasoning and reality is fueling your beliefs, but vulgar, cheap, ad hominem attacks like this unmask you.
I have no mask. This is me. Pure and simple. There's no complexity. My beliefs are the right beliefs. I stand by everything I say. I don't expect
everyone to understand my reasoning. But, why do you interpret any of this as "vulgar" ? That's a bit unexpected. After all, just mentioning
homosexuality long ago was considered "vulgar". But, today, it's no different than saying "cheese". Times change, the vulgar becomes the norm,
and we move on. But, keep different actions separate, label them separately, so we understand what we are talking about when we say "married".
To marry is to be blessed by God, and to become one flesh. Only man+woman can do that !