yguy

You missed the point. I am not equating homosexuality to bestiality, I am merely pointing out that one can no more say why it is wrong than one can say why homosexuality is wrong; yet you somehow know it's wrong. And whatever tells you bestiality is wrong tells me homosexuality is wrong.

Bill Snedden

I think that most non-theists who object to bestiality most likely do so on the basis of a lack of consent on the part of the animal. I know that would be my standpoint from a moral perspective. Other than that, it's just icky, but that, of course, doesn't carry any moral weight.

Consent isn't an issue wrt homosexuality. Are you arguing that homosexuality is immoral because it's icky?

Would you like to reconsider your objection?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Mech Bliss

Sure I can. Bestiality is wrong because it does not involve consent. Homosexuality is a consentual relationship.

It sounds like you really have no justification to say why homosexuality is immoral whatsoever.

yguy

If an unrestrained, unsedated animal holds still, the consent is implied, is it not?

Of course, any child uncorrupted by the capacity for rationalization such as this board is infested with would be revolted at the sight of any such thing - and the idea of consent would never enter the child's mind even if he knew what that meant. Some things are just morally repulsive.

Mech Bliss

How can you actually obtain consent from an animal with which you cannot even communicate? It would be impossible to determine if that consent is actually implied or not.

Is it morally repulsive or just repulsive to you? By your own shallow rationalizations, it would be just as feasible to say that people who eat sweet pickles are immoral because I think sweet pickles are repulsive. After all, "some things are just morally repulsive," right?

Whether something is "repulsive" or not as a matter of personal taste is of no real relevance to morality. As Bill Snedden said, it really does seem like you are arguing that homosexuality is wrong because you think it's "icky"--well, that's not any real rationalization. Besides, now you've simply spun off the topic of homosexuality. Homosexuality and bestiality are not comparable in that way because there are additional factors to consider.

yguy

I just told you.

It may be impossible for legal authorities to determine it, but that's their problem, since they have the burden of proof.

Yeah. Like necrophilia. Are you gonna say now that it's not immoral if the deceased specified in his will that it's OK for so and so to do have their way with him?

Of course it isn't. None is needed. Rationalization is the crutch of those who have thrown away their ability to see the obvious.

yelyos

Don't try to turn this into an "appeal to children/innocence" argument. As a 13 year old, I find your assumptions about children to be morally repulsive.

The Naked Mage

Presumably you DO, although I suspect that no matter how many times we ask you what, exactly, you find wrong with it, we will never get a straight answer.

Yet in spite of this apparent handicap, I'm able see that you're consistently full of shit...

Mech Bliss

No, you didn't. You cannot determine whether the animal consents or not if you can't actually communicate with the animal.

That would be the right of that person to do so.

Yep, rationalization is needed. You are letting matters of personal taste substitute for morality. Sorry, but your personal taste does not define morality. It is quite obvious that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality if it involves consenting adults because there is no justification for that to be considered wrong. By your own argument, I could say sweet pickle-eaters are immoral because I think sweet pickles are obviously disgusting. Does that have any significance? No, and neither does your argument that homosexuality is wrong because you don't like it.


So why can't you just come out with it and say why it is "obvious" that homosexuality is wrong? Or do you just not have a reason just like my sweet pickle example?

The Naked Mage

Well, what the hell, yguy, do ya think it's gonna hurt his feelings? He's DEAD.

Furthermore, why would you need written permission in the first place? He obviously has no further use for his body, unless you think he's gonna rise from the grave someday and run the risk of feeling violated.

And if you DO think that, I don't wanna know.