# General Discussion > Opinions >  Bestiality the new Homosexuality?

## Fire Haired14

*I found these two articles from another forum which suggests Bestiality(Having sex with animals) is more common than most would think.* IMO, bestiality is today's homosexuality. No one wants to talk about it but knows it exists and are disgusted by it. People are scared by it and react with anger and violence to those who practice it.

If bestiality is a perversion why can't most homosexuality be a perversion? Human sexuality can be perverted, this has been proven. We need to question the status quo view on homosexuality the elites and majority of the public have. And we need to end the creepy obsession many have with homosexuality and transgenderism(Bruce Jenner, etc.). 

Do 275,000 Swiss people have sex with animals?
Dog lover loved dog far too much: court

According to the first article a guy in the 1950's; Alfred Kinsey, estimated Bestiality in Americans. He concluded 8% of American men and 3.5% American women have had sexual contact with animals. He updated this in the 1970s with 5% for men and 2% for women. 

Surprising right. Considering how little contact humans have with animals as opposed to people of the same gender, it would make sense homoseuxal behavior is even more popular yet can still usually be a perversion. 

The second article is about a Swiss man who had sex with his dogs for years and was a member in pro-bestiality forums. He claimed one of his dogs is his "Life companion". 

The reactions of people in the forum where this was posted was anger and disgust. They wanted these people who practice bestiality dead. Many countries ban it and send those who practice it to physiologist. Sound familiar :Laughing: ? That's the exact same way conservatives all over the world react to homosexuality.* Yet, these same people who see zoophiles as mentally ill and needed of punishment, support homosexuals.* 

Just because in recent years the elite in our world have accepted homosexuality and just because it is now looked down on to consider it a perversion, doesn't mean we have to obey what they say like sheep. 

*Most who are 100% pro gay rights IMO don't give solid evidence homosexuality is not a perversion. They refuse to admit human sexuality can be perverted.* They're just for freedom to do what you want. This is a stupid philosophy because, *there's needs to be a limit or else there'll be chaos*. If lets say animals weren't harmed by zoophiles should be allow sex with animals? Most would say no. And the reasons are the same reasons conservatives don't accept homosexuality. Yet Liberals call them crazy.

*I want you guys to question the new western society's views on homosexuality.* I wouldn't be surprised if there are people born homosexual. It's totally possible. But we have to consider the possibility some who claim to be homosexual are not. *The creepy obsession our society has with it(There are gay characters and romances in so many popular TV shows) needs to be corrected even if some are naturally gay.* 

If you look at how our bodies work and puberty, homosexuality doesn't make sense. Are there really women attracted to breasts, attracted to effeminate behavior, and want to .......... other women?

----------


## bicicleur

Am I the only regular straight man in here?
Maybe I should have myself checked?

----------


## Fire Haired14

At another forum this thread of mine is treated as crazy. That's what I expected. Bestiality is a taboo subject and comparsion to homosexuality is seen as crazy(but for no good reason). Here's my response to an argument I knew would come sooner or later. 

I suggest reading it. It destroys the "do whatever you want, adultery is not real" philosophy. And it verifies arguments homosexuality can be put under the "inappropriate sexual behavior" category just as bestiality is. 




> The keyword is consent.





> I dis agree. Opposition to bestiality is not just because the animals don't consent. Why did the Swiss get the bestiality guy psychological help? *Their concern is not whether the animal consented. Their concern is the mental health of the man who had sex with animals*. This is just like how we used to believe something was wrong with someone who was homosexual or transgender. 
> 
> *Is it socially acceptable for a mother/son, brother/sister, to have sex even if both consent? No.* It isn't just because the children from those unions might have birth defects or whatever, but because people believe it is morally wrong. The relationship mothers and sons, brothers and sisters, etc. have is not supposed to be sexual.* Anything sexual between them is inappropriate.* 
> 
> *Just as having sex with animals or children is inappropriate. Therefore, I can argue having sex with someone of the same gender is inappropriate.* Relationship between people of the same gender isn't suppose to be sexual, just as relationship between parents and children isn't suppose to be sexual. The idea there are no morals and everything is okay as long as there is consent and no one is harmed is a myth. *Humans instinctively have ideas on what's okay to do and what;s not okay to do in certain types of relationships.*

----------


## Angela

This whole thread is disgusting. I am considering deleting the whole thing. 

THERE IS NO COMPARISON BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALITY BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS AND THE PERVERTED ABUSE OF AN ANIMAL INCAPABLE OF CONSENT. 

What the heck are you thinking or not thinking to write something like this? You need to get off these sites frequented by morons and people with personality disorders. 

You might not know it, but many of the interviewees for the Kinzey report were prison inmates, deviants by definition. 

Perhaps you should read this...depending on the age and situational context, human sexuality can be pretty fluid. 
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/08...ach-other.html

@Bicicleur,
I never, ever, confuse the orientations and opinions of people who post on anthrofora with those of people in real life.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> This whole thread is disgusting. I am considering deleting the whole thing. 
> 
> THERE IS NO COMPARISON BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALITY BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS AND THE PERVERTED ABUSE OF AN ANIMAL INCAPABLE OF CONSENT.


As I showed in my last post consent isn't all that matters. Sexual relations between certain adults is inappropriate. Sexual relations between close family members for example. It's very logical to argue homosexual relations are inappropriate just as those things are. The definition of homosexuality has been changed. 

I don't have to follow this definition which is younger than I am. Homosexuality went from a mental disorder like Bestiality to being perfectly okay, and now all of sudden your crazy if you dare to challenge this young believe. 

There's no good reason to shut down this thread. The discussion will of course be offensive. I'll try to make it unoffensive and I'm not a vulgar person. Offensive language isn't a good reason to shut it down. And me dis agreeing with you about homosexuality is not a good reason to either. 

Your controversial opinion about homosexuality isn't the law just as my controversial opinion isn't. Shutting down this thread would be restricting freedom of thought on the topic. This forum doesn't matter much, but by definition it is restriction of freedom of thought. Of course there are boundaries. However I'm not a nazi, ISIS terrorist, etc.




> What the heck are you thinking or not thinking to write something like this? You need to get off these sites frequented by morons and people with personality disorders.


I've made pretty good arguments that no one has refuted. Calling me crazy and this topic disgusting isn't an argument. I don't care how mainstream society has seen homosexuality for the last 7 years or so. That isn't evidence of anything. I came up with this discussion on my own. I only posted on one forum and most dis agree with me. 




> You might not know it, but many of the interviewees for the Kinzey report were prison inmates, deviants by definition. 
> 
> Perhaps you should read this...depending on the age and situational context, human sexuality can be pretty fluid. 
> http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/08...ach-other.html


Wow, that's very long. Might read it later but can't consume it all now. Maybe his numbers are off. However what about homosexual behavior in prison? Is that not a reflection of their deviance? Or is somehow because it is homosexual it is natural and okay?

----------


## sparkey

There are several issues that you bring up in the OP that I think we need to address individually in order to have a productive discussion. In particular: whether or not people have rights or deserve punishments to certain sex acts or inclinations; how to define perversion and how people should react to these sex acts or inclinations; and how common these things really are.

Regarding rights and punishments: Rights in Western societies rooted in classical liberalism are guarantees that those participating in the rights-system can perform certain actions as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. So homosexual sex can absolutely be a right exercised by two consenting adults. Bestiality, on the other hand, doesn't fit the paradigm in the same way because animals can't participate in a rights-system. It's up to us to determine if an animal's welfare outweighs the negative that is punishing someone who isn't harming another participant in the rights-system. My inclination is to only dole out punishments for animal abuse in extreme cases--considering that _slaughtering_ animals is acceptable. And one word on incest, since you brought it up: Incest between very close relatives can be considered a borderline rights-infringement because it directly harms the product of the incest. It's actually sort of a unique thing in that it harms somebody who potentially results from the act.

Regarding how to define perversion and how to react: This is more of a cultural, flexible thing that's bound to change as attitudes shift and we find out more about psychology. Obviously, _perversion_ is pejorative, referring to sex acts or inclinations that we'd like to condemn, even if it's not necessarily a good idea to make it illegal. A good reason why homosexuality has gotten past this in much of Western culture has to do with how we understand the psychology behind it, and how it's become clear that people are born with it. Being born with something isn't a sufficient reason to consider something non-perverted, of course, since we would still want to consider a born-that-way pedophile a pervert. But I think it's helped the cultural perspective, along with the fact that homosexuality can be consensual. Like it or not, born-that-way+consent is beginning to equal "not perverted." The consent part, again, is why bestiality doesn't fit.

Regarding how common these are: That's more of a sociological/scientific question that can be measured, and may affect people's attitudes, but probably shouldn't affect things like punishments.

----------


## Twilight

> Am I the only regular straight man in here?
> Maybe I should have myself checked?


yeah same here bro, I feel like I just stepped into Family Guy land o_O. Anyhow, I'm not quite sure the rest of the world has caught up with the idea of such acts OP is speaking off.

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Sparkey,

Very good post. Good job explaining what this argument is; "What makes a sexual behavior perversion and wrong". Read the second post in this thread. I explain why consent isn't all that matters. 




> My inclination is to only dole out punishments for animal abuse in extreme cases--considering that _slaughtering_ animals is acceptable. And one word on incest, since you brought it up: Incest between very close relatives can be considered a borderline rights-infringement because it directly harms the product of the incest. It's actually sort of a unique thing in that it harms somebody who potentially results from the act.


About incest it isn't only about the offspring or disease or whatever after sex. It is looked down on by the same society that accepts homosexuality because a sexual relationship between immediate family is inappropriate. Certain human relationships are not supposed to be sexual. I think the actual reasons people are against family-sex(Disgusting, inappropriate) and bestiality are the same reasons people are against homosexuality. 




> Regarding how to define perversion and how to react: This is more of a cultural, flexible thing that's bound to change as attitudes shift and we find out more about psychology.


Very true. However I think some is instinct and does not change. Humans instinctively have differnt types of relationships with differnt people. For some it is not appropriate to have sexual relations with them and that'll never change. 




> Obviously, _perversion_ is pejorative, referring to sex acts or inclinations that we'd like to condemn, even if it's not necessarily a good idea to make it illegal. A good reason why homosexuality has gotten past this in much of Western culture has to do with how we understand the psychology behind it, and how it's become clear that people are born with it.


I had no idea it was obvious people are born homosexual. And I haven't heard pro-gay people give any arguments. I'm not saying I want you to list 1,000 sources. I can do the research myself. 




> Being born with something isn't a sufficient reason to consider something non-perverted, of course, since we would still want to consider a born-that-way pedophile a pervert.


You believe there are people born pedophiles?

----------


## oriental

I think it has to do with the brain. The chemistry during development affects it somehow. The chemistry may turn a male child to have a female brain and vice versa. Who knows how environment affects the brain. Men who have had no outlet for sex for extended periods often turn to the nearest outlet be it a male or an animal or a doll. Male prisoners have been known to rape other male prisoners even though they are not homosexual. It maybe the hormones are too strong and overcome all internal moral, cultural and physical restraints.

----------


## sparkey

> About incest it isn't only about the offspring or disease or whatever after sex. It is looked down on by the same society that accepts homosexuality because a sexual relationship between immediate family is inappropriate. Certain human relationships are not supposed to be sexual. I think the actual reasons people are against family-sex(Disgusting, inappropriate) and bestiality are the same reasons people are against homosexuality.


Well you're sort of responding to my take on incest from a rights/punishments perspective with a take on it from the perversion/reaction perspective. I didn't really get to incest in my perversion/reaction paragraph but to be clear, I think that the disgust felt toward incest (especially between very close relatives) is a more natural and less cultural thing than reactions to homosexuality, and so it will be more difficult to overcome the label of "perversion." If we're going to be specific, I don't think that the "ick" factor is likely to wear off for incest between anybody closer than first cousins--and that has a genetic basis. In addition, there's no reason that I'm aware of to think that there's any sort of "born that way" inclination toward incest.




> Very true. However I think some is instinct and does not change. Humans instinctively have differnt types of relationships with differnt people. For some it is not appropriate to have sexual relations with them and that'll never change.


Fair enough, I'll concede that there is a natural inclination to disavow certain acts. I was trying to contrast the peversion/reaction perspective with the rights/punishments perspective by saying that the former is more cultural and the latter is more legal, but I'm comfortable with clarifying the former is more cultural _or_ natural.




> I had no idea it was obvious people are born homosexual. And I haven't heard pro-gay people give any arguments. I'm not saying I want you to list 1,000 sources. I can do the research myself.


I understand that evidence is pointing (perhaps still controversially) to epigenetics as a cause.




> You believe there are people born pedophiles?


I don't know one way or another, I was speaking hypothetically. It wouldn't surprise me too much, though.

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Sparkey,
"*I was trying to contrast the peversion/reaction perspective with the rights/punishments perspective by saying that the former is more cultural and the latter is more legal*"

I agree with that. That's a good explanation of how people view whether sexual behavior is acceptable or not. 

"*I understand that evidence is pointing (perhaps still controversially) to epigenetics as a cause.*"

Okay, I'll look into that.

----------


## Maleth

> *I found these two articles from another forum which suggests Bestiality(Having sex with animals) is more common than most would think.* IMO, bestiality is today's homosexuality. No one wants to talk about it but knows it exists and are disgusted by it. People are scared by it and react with anger and violence to those who practice it.
> 
> If bestiality is a perversion why can't most homosexuality be a perversion? Human sexuality can be perverted, this has been proven. We need to question the status quo view on homosexuality the elites and majority of the public have. And we need to end the creepy obsession many have with homosexuality and transgenderism(Bruce Jenner, etc.). 
> 
> Do 275,000 Swiss people have sex with animals?
> Dog lover loved dog far too much: court
> 
> According to the first article a guy in the 1950's; Alfred Kinsey, estimated Bestiality in Americans. He concluded 8% of American men and 3.5% American women have had sexual contact with animals. He updated this in the 1970s with 5% for men and 2% for women. 
> 
> ...


What you wrote here is pure rubbish and total non sense and probably you know it too. i think we already been through this a thousand times and as a homosexual i find this post very disturbing and offensive. Why don't you concentrate on getting a life.

----------


## kyrani99

I think that both bestiality and pedophilia are criminal activities and of the worst order. I would issue a capital punishment. 
As for incest, where it involves a power position, eg a parent raping a child (I don't see that "sex" is an appropriate way to describe it) is also a criminal act and should be likewise punished. These people never change and are a menace on society, which includes the natural world, i.e., animals.

To call these mental illnesses or psychological blah blah blah, is nonsense. Psychiatrists have no real tests and no genuine theories. You only need to look at how they arrive at the DSM to see that they dream up new conditions in order to widen drug sales. IMO they are big pharma puppets and nothing more so they cannot be trusted to make any such "diagnosis" of mental illness for these people. 

As for homosexuality, I do consider it as a perversion but there is the question of what two consenting adults want to do, provided it doesn't harm or affect anyone else. I don't see a case for it to be prohibited but tolerated.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> What you wrote here is pure rubbish and total non sense and probably you know it too. i think we already been through this a thousand times and as a homosexual i find this post very disturbing and offensive. Why don't you concentrate on getting a life.


Tell me how I'm wrong. Me questioning whether most homosexuals are born homosexual is not offensive. By your logic, you disagreeing with me on anything is offensive. There's nothing wrong with what I'm discussing.




> As for homosexuality, I do consider it as a perversion but there is the question of what two consenting adults want to do, provided it doesn't harm or affect anyone else. I don't see a case for it to be prohibited but tolerated.


I mostly agree here. However a point I've been making is tabooed sexual behavior can be consensual. But does that make it okay? Whether something is consensual or not should be our only way to decide whether it is okay or not.

----------


## Maleth

> Tell me how I'm wrong. Me questioning whether most homosexuals are born homosexual is not offensive. By your logic, you disagreeing with me on anything is offensive. There's nothing wrong with what I'm discussing.


It dose not take a university degree to suss out your intentions. Connecting homosexuality to Bestiality and more is no ground for a civil debate but to demonize homosexuals for whatever reason prompts you to do so (which I have a good idea) . These are arguments commonly found among bigots and radical / fanatical Religious persons and not someone who is interested to a civil debate. And by the way, the perpetual fascination on the subject makes me think you are fighting some demons inside you. You will get over it one day.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> It dose not take a university degree to suss out your intentions. Connecting homosexuality to Bestiality and more is no ground for a civil debate but to demonize homosexuals for whatever reason prompts you to do so (which I have a good idea) . These are arguments commonly found among bigots and radical / fanatical Religious persons and not someone who is interested to a civil debate.


You have to give me solid reasons why homosexuality is totally differnt. I'm not saying no one is born gay, I'm saying some who claim to be are not. Saying my views make me a bigot does not hurt my arguments. Questioning whether homosexuality is natural in all people who claim to be gay is not bigotry. Calling anyone who questions the status quo on homosexuality a bigot is anti-free thought. I'm not trying to offend anyone. I understand this can be very offensive to you. Questioning anything anyone identifies with can be offensive. 




> And by the way, the perpetual fascination on the subject makes me think you are fighting some demons inside you. You will get over it one day.


I'm a completely heterosexual man. I have perpetual fascination in lots of things. When I was younger it was baseball stats, then it was cars, then it was genetics. It's just my personality.

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Maleth,

I don't mean to offend anyone. Please understand that. I'm not attacking gay people. I'm bringing up what I think is an interesting debate topic. You have attacked and straight up insulted Christianity. What I'm doing here isn't insulting anyone, it is questioning whether all gays are born gay. If you argue Christianity is false, does that make you a bigot? 

Here's what I'm doing with this thread.....

I'm showing that the reason people are against bestiality and others tabooed sex acts are the same reasons people are against homosexuality. So, for someone who is anti-family sex but pro-gay to say consent is all that matters and someone who is anti-gay is restrictive and against gay rights just because he is disgusted by it, is a hypocrite. If we can all agree family-sex/bestiality/etc. is wrong and consent is not all that matters, why not question whether or not all people who claim to be naturally gay really are and whether homosexual behavior is an appropriate part of non-gay(by birth) same-sex relationships.

----------


## Maleth

> You have to give me solid reasons why homosexuality is totally differnt. I'm not saying no one is born gay, I'm saying some who claim to be are not. Saying my views make me a bigot does not hurt my arguments. Questioning whether homosexuality is natural in all people who claim to be gay is not bigotry. Calling anyone who questions the status quo on homosexuality a bigot is anti-free thought. I'm not trying to offend anyone. I understand this can be very offensive to you. Questioning anything anyone identifies with can be offensive.


I dont think you are suffering from any sort of dementia...are you?

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...=homosexulaity
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...ght=homosexual
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...ght=homosexual
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...ght=homosexual

there are even more... and you have learned nothing yet? Some of them you have participated in actively, repeating the same garbage as your new thread. Still asking same questions? when you are not interested in answers. What is your point? take my caring advise. Get a life

----------


## kyrani99

> I mostly agree here. However a point I've been making is tabooed sexual behavior can be consensual. But does that make it okay? Whether something is consensual or not should be our only way to decide whether it is okay or not.


I don't believe that a criteria of consensual is enough in some cases. For instance I disagree with pornography and prostitution which may be consensual. Exceptions are for instance people selling their children to prostitution houses or people who will exploit them. Also people both male and female that have in some way been forced into prostitution.

The reason I disagree is because the porno image and the prostitute reduce the human being into an object and that affects public perception. This means other people are affected, especially young people. The consequences are how people perceive others and in this perception can they be used or exploited and not necessarily for sexual reasons. 

Some homosexuals do fit into this group because you hear them talking about "how many tricks they did today etc." This is also a form of using another person's body as if they themselves didn't matter, that they are just an object.

----------


## Angela

It's totally absurd, as I said, to equate what two consenting adults do in their bedrooms to pedophilia and bestiality. It is indeed about informed consent and whether there is any harm to the other partner and to the larger society. Not to be too graphic, but certain heterosexual couples sometimes also engage in acts that were defined as sodomy under criminal statutes. Look it up. Those statutes are never enforced even when they're still on the books. I totally understand why some people see these acts as gross and would never engage in them, but would people advocate going into the bedrooms of married (or unmarried) heterosexual couples and monitoring their sexual behavior? I personally find the sexual promiscuity and total lack of responsibility exhibited by some heterosexual men, like the notorious man who fathered twenty children while on assistance and can support none of them, damn reprehensible too. The only recourse we have as a society is to incarcerate men like him for non-payment of child support, for which I would increase the penalty and make the counts consecutive for each child and each infraction. Done right you could lock him up for twenty years, and good riddance. Why should society pay to support his offspring and then suffer their dysfunctional behavior in years to come? 

I would really urge people to do some reading on the subject of human sexuality, especially young people who don't have much worldly experience. Are people "born" homosexual? I don't know for sure, but the research seems to be leaning in that direction. My homosexual friends certainly report that's the case. I do think the science indicates that human sexuality is more fluid than many think. It's on a continuum. There's interesting research being done on primates too in that regard. There's a certain amount of "sexual play" among little boys and little girls too that arises out of curiosity. Sometimes it's heterosexual, sometimes not. It used to be called "playing doctor" when it was a little boy with a little girl. It continues into adolescence sometimes, with some girls and boys getting "crushes" on one of their friends, for example. It doesn't always escalate into sexual touching for pleasure. There's also, among certain boys and young men, "sexual" activity to exert power, as in hazing or fraternity rituals. This doesn't make someone "gay", although it may be illegal given a certain set of circumstances. Sexual preferences sort of solidify at some point, with the majority as heterosexuals. However, given certain situational contexts, the behavior might be expressed again. Are there people nowadays who were not "born" gay but because of relaxed societal attitudes have homosexual sex? Probably. It doesn't matter to me. So long as none of this harms another person and is totally consensual, and by that I mean there is no abusive power relationship of any kind, then I don't think it's anyone else's business. So long as these conditions are met, I'm far more concerned with how people behave _outside_ their bedrooms, both toward me and toward the society as a whole, and the havoc they can create there.

@Fire-Haired,

Maleth is correct by the way. You're participated in these discussions over and over again, but you never do the research. Reading may not be a favorite or easy endeavor for you but there is no substitute for it. Until you do it there's no point in repeating the same things over and over again.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> It's totally absurd, as I said, to equate what two consenting adults do in their bedrooms to pedophilia and bestiality. It is indeed about informed consent and whether there is any harm to the other partner and to the larger society.


Everything that is wrong is not because it harms someone. Other morality is hard to explain but is real. And why is harming someone bad? Can you explain that? See what I mean, morality isn't a science. Basing it on whether it harms someone makes some feel like they've broken it down to a science but they haven't. 




> I personally find the sexual promiscuity and total lack of responsibility exhibited by some heterosexual men, like the notorious man who fathered twenty children while on assistance and can support none of them, damn reprehensible too. The only recourse we have as a society is to incarcerate men like him for non-payment of child support, for which I would increase the penalty and make the counts consecutive for each child and each infraction. Done right you could lock him up for twenty years, and good riddance. Why should society pay to support his offspring and then suffer their dysfunctional behavior in years to come?


 I totally agree. 




> I would really urge people to do some reading on the subject of human sexuality, especially young people who don't have much worldly experience. Are people "born" homosexual? I don't know for sure, but the research seems to be leaning in that direction.


I feel the same way. 




> There's also, among certain boys and young men, "sexual" activity to exert power, as in hazing or fraternity rituals. This doesn't make someone "gay", although it may be illegal given a certain set of circumstances.


And those people are screwed up in the head. That is not normal for guys at all AFAIK. "Ha, I'm going to dominate you by having sex with you". WTF? IMO, it's either big tough guys who are secretly gay or guys who are obsessed with being dark and vulgar. 






> Sexual preferences sort of solidify at some point, with the majority as heterosexuals. However, given certain situational contexts, the behavior might be expressed again. Are there people nowadays who were not "born" gay but because of relaxed societal attitudes have homosexual sex? Probably.


That's wrong just as an 8 year old kid and 30 year old man having consensual sex is wrong. 




> It doesn't matter to me. So long as none of this harms another person and is totally consensual, and by that I mean there is no abusive power relationship of any kind, then I don't think it's anyone else's business. So long as these conditions are met, I'm far more concerned with how people behave _outside_ their bedrooms, both toward me and toward the society as a whole, and the havoc they can create there.


See, this is a value the Western world as lost. We are ignoring our instinct that tells us certain things behind closed doors are wrong, because we think they're illogical(harm is all that matters......) thoughts. Certain behavior in certain relationships is inappropriate and wrong even is no one is harmed. Sex between two men who are not naturally gay is an example. 




> @Fire-Haired,
> 
> Maleth is correct by the way. You're participated in these discussions over and over again, but you never do the research. Reading may not be a favorite or easy endeavor for you but there is no substitute for it.


I rarely participate in these discussions. Maybe a few times a year I'll post something about this. I haven't done research because I rarely ever think about it. I don't care very much. No one has the time to become an expert in every subject that rarely catches their interest. But, sure I will read stuff on it.

I already have a little bit. The little I read says Gay men don't have the sexuality of women, they have the same sexual behavior as straight men. The way the male and female sexual brain works is very differnt and gay men's brain works the same as straight men. This weakens arguments that claim gay men have female sexual brains, something I've argued against here before. 




> Until you do it there's no point in repeating the same things over and over again.


I keep repeating them because they're right. You guys refuse to face my argument head on because you can't beat it. You give the "consensual" argument, I face the argument head on, then you repeat yourself without responding to me.

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Angela, kyrani99,

You pointed out good examples of bad behavior that should be illegal. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can anyone refute these bullet points??!!!!

>Human sexuality can be perverted, bestiality is prove of this.

>In certain relationships humans have sex is not appropriate.

>If some gay people are not born gay but have gay-sex, you can therefore argue it is inappropriate and wrong. Don't let your anger over this bullet point stop you from seeing the logic. 

>Changes during puberty are for hetero sex(attracting the opposite sex and producing babies) and adult life. Homosexuality is strange in this sense. Gays have the same sexual behavior as their straight counter parts. So, why and how are they gay? Did it evolve for social relationships, because if natural it must be mostly an off-shoot of heterosexuality.

----------


## sparkey

> Originally Posted by Angela
> 
> 
>  Sexual preferences sort of solidify at some point, with the majority as heterosexuals. However, given certain situational contexts, the behavior might be expressed again. Are there people nowadays who were not "born" gay but because of relaxed societal attitudes have homosexual sex? Probably.
> 
> 
> That's wrong just as an 8 year old kid and 30 year old man having consensual sex is wrong.


Please tell me I'm misreading you and you're not suggesting that heterosexuals having consensual homosexual sex is the moral equivalent of a 30 year old man raping an 8 year old.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Please tell me I'm misreading you and you're not suggesting that heterosexuals having consensual homosexual sex is the moral equivalent of a 30 year old man raping an 8 year old.


Of course child rape is worse. I was discussing consensual sex between a child and adult, not rape of children by adults. 

@Angela,

Plenty of young boys/girls are attracted to adult women/men and some adult women/men are attracted to young boys/girls. If you're against such relationships why? And I'm not saying would if child-adult sex legal, which would allow adults to abuse children. I'm saying for a small individual case of adult-child relations that are consensual, would it be morally okay because no one is harmed?

----------


## Maleth

> My homosexual friends certainly report that's the case. I do think the science indicates that human sexuality is more fluid than many think. It's on a continuum. There's interesting research being done on primates too in that regard. There's a certain amount of "sexual play"


Indeed Angela. there are only 2 year between myself and my brother and I am a homo and he is hetero we had the same mother same environment, never was molested and never had porn around (very conservative family) so if any of those make a difference why are we different? I never had to choose and never felt attracted towards having sex with a women since adolescence and always attracted to men. Why would anyone want to choose to be homosexual anyway with all the hardships and visible and non visible persecution it does bring? I yet have to hear of a gay person saying they had to choose to become homosexual and even my hetero friends never said they felt to have to make a choice they always knew what they wanted. What a storm in a teacup....and for what?

On the other hand I know Both Men and Women who indeed faked there marriage for different reasons and only after a long time they admitted to their sexuality (I mean some of them look pretty obvious masculine women or effeminate men) who 'came out' later in life and invented a thousand story to cover up their fake behavior but now have become comfortable with themselves........what a waste of a life. And Islamic and African countries still criminalize homosexuals.

----------


## sparkey

> Of course child rape is worse. I was discussing consensual sex between a child and adult, not rape of children by adults. 
> 
> @Angela,
> 
> Plenty of young boys/girls are attracted to adult women/men and some adult women/men are attracted to young boys/girls. If you're against such relationships why? And I'm not saying would if child-adult sex legal, which would allow adults to abuse children. I'm saying for a small individual case of adult-child relations that are consensual, would it be morally okay because no one is harmed?


OK, we've got to get our definitions of "consent" in line here. Very few people would argue that an 8 year old could consent to sex, so any time a 30 year old has sex with an 8 year old, it is rape. I guess you're using a loose definition of the term "consent" and taking it to mean simply "agreeing to something." That's not a good way to think about things when it comes to distinguishing between consensual sex and rape.

----------


## Maleth

> Of course child rape is worse. I was discussing consensual sex between a child and adult, not rape of children by adults.


what does an 8 year old child know about sex? how can they consent exactly?

----------


## Maleth



----------


## Fire Haired14

> OK, we've got to get our definitions of "consent" in line here. Very few people would argue that an 8 year old could consent to sex, so any time a 30 year old has sex with an 8 year old, it is rape.


Not true. People have sexual feelings starting at 4-5 years old. An 8 year old and an adult could have consensual relations. Certainly a 10 or 12 year old. Most 10-12 year olds are attracted to adults, and so theoretically would consent, but most wouldn't because it is inappropriate for adults and kids to have relations. 




> I guess you're using a loose definition of the term "consent" and taking it to mean simply "agreeing to something." That's not a good way to think about things when it comes to distinguishing between consensual sex and rape.


If someone agrees it is not rape. The kid doesn't have to feel anything. No one is harmed, so by Angela's philosophy it is okay.
*
Conclusion*: My scenario still stands as realistic.

----------


## LeBrok

> Indeed Angela. there are only 2 year between myself and my brother and I am a homo and he is hetero we had the same mother same environment, never was molested and never had porn around (very conservative family) so if any of those make a difference why are we different? I never had to choose and never felt attracted towards having sex with a women since adolescence and always attracted to men. *Why would anyone want to choose to be homosexual anyway with all the hardships and visible and non visible persecution it does bring? I yet have to hear of a gay person saying they had to choose to become homosexual and even my hetero friends never said they felt to have to make a choice they always knew what they wanted.* What a storm in a teacup....and for what?
> 
> On the other hand I know Both Men and Women who indeed faked there marriage for different reasons and only after a long time they admitted to their sexuality (I mean some of them look pretty obvious masculine women or effeminate men) who 'came out' later in life and invented a thousand story to cover up their fake behavior but now have become comfortable with themselves........what a waste of a life. And Islamic and African countries still criminalize homosexuals.


I agree, these are best reasons pointing to sexuality being genetic.

----------


## LeBrok

> 


 What does that mean?! A devil is tempting animals to go astray, so they don't go to heaven? ;)

----------


## LeBrok

> Not true. People have sexual feelings starting at 4-5 years old. An 8 year old and an adult could have consensual relations. Certainly a 10 or 12 year old. Most 10-12 year olds are attracted to adults, and so theoretically would consent, but most wouldn't because it is inappropriate for adults and kids to have relations.


 I don't think it works this way before puberty. A sight of a beautiful women won't give an erection to a boy.





> If someone agrees it is not rape. The kid doesn't have to feel anything. No one is harmed, so by Angela's philosophy it is okay.
> *
> Conclusion*: My scenario still stands as realistic.


How should we put it in simple well understandable terms:
Kids are to be protected by parents. Kids don't have full rights and privileges of adults. Only adults can make concussion, independent, free and fully consensual decision.

----------


## LeBrok

> *I found these two articles from another forum which suggests Bestiality(Having sex with animals) is more common than most would think.* IMO, bestiality is today's homosexuality. No one wants to talk about it but knows it exists and are disgusted by it. People are scared by it and react with anger and violence to those who practice it.
> 
> If bestiality is a perversion why can't most homosexuality be a perversion? Human sexuality can be perverted, this has been proven. We need to question the status quo view on homosexuality the elites and majority of the public have. And we need to end the creepy obsession many have with homosexuality and transgenderism(Bruce Jenner, etc.). 
> 
> Do 275,000 Swiss people have sex with animals?
> Dog lover loved dog far too much: court
> 
> According to the first article a guy in the 1950's; Alfred Kinsey, estimated Bestiality in Americans. He concluded 8% of American men and 3.5% American women have had sexual contact with animals. He updated this in the 1970s with 5% for men and 2% for women. 
> 
> ...


What got into you again?!!!
This is nuts. I never heard or seen any sexual act involving human and animals. I know thousands of people and lived in three countries. Except for few jocks about Shepard and Catherine the Great, I never heard about such thing from any of my friend or acquaintances. Not even a gossip of suspicion that someone is doing this. It must be extremely rear phenomenon indeed. However, with seven billion people on this plant we can be pretty sure that whatever is physically possible people will do from time to time. 
But why are you preoccupied with this?! Should you be more concerned with car accidents? We all experienced it, we all know people disabled or dead because of it. Car accidents are very destructive to our society with billions of dollars in cost and million of people dead every year. Unlike, supposedly people having sex with animals. Car accidents are caused by mistakes made by people and are totally avoidable if we stop driving. They didn't exist 100 years ago, but now it is an epidemic around the world. Why are you quite about that?
Why don't you voice your opinion about this serious issue, issue which bringing death and misery to humankind, and leave cats and dogs alone? Actually, leave gays alone and go play with cats and dogs instead.

I support Angela's motion that this tread should be deleted. To compare homosexuality to bestiality is simply wrong and evil.
This is what Muslim fundamentalists do, or any other religious fundamentalists.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> I don't think it works this way before puberty. A sight of a beautiful women won't give an erection to a boy.


Doesn't mean kids don't have sexual feelings or want to get with an adult. 




> Kids are to be protected by parents. Kids don't have full rights and privileges of adults. Only adults can make concussion, independent, free and fully consensual decision.


I'm not saying "would if sex was allowed between adults and kids", I'm saying "Would if one child and one adult wanted consensual relations". It isn't rape. When I was 10 or 12 I'd be all for that, and I'd bet money most 10 or 12 year olds would. Not answering my question don't prove anything.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*How about this scenario*: An adult mother, daughter, and son living together have sex with protection so they don't get pregnant. They keep it behind closed doors, no one gets sick, no one gets pregnant, no one feels guilty, no one gets harmed period. Is this okay?

EDIT: Scared? I've put you and Angela in a pickel you can't get out of. Just admit consent and whether people are harmed isn't all that matters.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> I support Angela's motion that this tread should be deleted. To compare homosexuality to bestiality is simply wrong and evil.
> This is what Muslim fundamentalists do, or any other religious fundamentalists.


Because I dis agree with you on homosexuality I'm comparable to Muslim Fundamentalist? LOL. I guess homosexuality is a done deal, anyone who dis agrees with the Liberal position is a crazy nut ball? *That's ideological censorship.* My view is labelled as "evil" and therefore unattractive and my threads will be shut down, even though I threat no one and am just discussing an idea. Dude, you need to look at yourself in the mirror you're becoming an ideologically dictator. Only certain views and discussions are allowed under your mighty leadership. 

The way society sees bestiality today is similar to how homosexuality was seen 30, 60 years ago. *I'm not saying they're similar(read the first sentence).* 

Also, Would if: Homosexuality wasn't natural like bestiality.

In this case they would be similar. So, I'm questioning the assumption all gays are born that way(it has been proven human sexuality can be perverted). And because in certain human relationships sexual behavior isn't appropriate, we can argue sexual relations between non-gay people is wrong.

----------


## LeBrok

> Doesn't mean kids don't have sexual feelings


 They have no desire to have sex with someone before puberty. Perhaps you want to define you carpet statement "sexual feelings".




> or want to get with an adult.


 No idea what you mean. Try to communicate with well defined concepts and phrases.





> I'm not saying "would if sex was allowed between adults and kids", I'm saying "Would if one child and one adult wanted consensual relations". It isn't rape. When I was 10 or 12 I'd be all for that, and I'd bet money most 10 or 12 year olds would. Not answering my question don't prove anything.


 Ok, now we are moving in realm of puberty. By arguments presented by many of us here, no adult can have consensual sex with kids, period. 
By same token kids are not allowed to be soldiers. Technically they could, the best example are child soldiers in African conflicts (I'm sure you are familiar with that), but it was psychologically and physically extremely harmful to them. There is not even one Documentary glorifying child soldiers, and all interviews point the a terrible psychological damage they received. Even if some of them consented to the war, we know how sick idea it was. Kids are not ready for many adult experiences, that's why need to be protected, even if they think they consent, they just can't.




> *How about this scenario*: An adult mother, daughter, and son living together have sex with protection so they don't get pregnant. They keep it behind closed doors, no one gets sick, no one gets pregnant, no one feels guilty, *no one gets harmed period.* Is this okay?


 Kids get harmed, period.




> EDIT: Scared? I've put you and Angela in a *pickel you can't get out of*. Just admit consent and whether people are harmed isn't all that matters.


 Judging by your preoccupation with above described "reality" or rather inner demons you are fighting, I'm not sure what canceling to advise. Now, that's a pickle, and might be a lifelong one.

----------


## LeBrok

> Because I dis agree with you on homosexuality I'm comparable to Muslim Fundamentalist? LOL. I guess homosexuality is a done deal, anyone who dis agrees with the Liberal position is a crazy nut ball? *That's ideological censorship.* My view is labelled as "evil" and therefore unattractive and my threads will be shut down, even though I threat no one and am just discussing an idea. Dude, you need to look at yourself in the mirror you're becoming an ideologically dictator. Only certain views and discussions are allowed under your mighty leadership.


We already have many threads dedicated to gay issue. You just needed to open one that insults homosexuals. Now this is antisocial, immoral and just wrong. And we know you did it on purpose.
If you want to express your homophobia in any way you like it I advise you to do it on your own website. Comprende?




> So, I'm questioning the assumption all gays are born that way(it has been proven human sexuality can be perverted).


 This is what you want to believe in spite of all the evidence. There are also asexual people. They don't want to have sex at all. Are you against them too?





> And because in certain human relationships sexual behavior isn't appropriate, we can argue sexual relations between non-gay people is wrong.


 Again, there is no sense in this sentence.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> They have no desire to have sex with someone before puberty. Perhaps you want to define you carpet statement "sexual feelings".


Sexual feelings is self-explanatory. Feel attraction, feel sexual feelings. Penis can get hard in kindergarten. 




> No idea what you mean. Try to communicate with well defined concepts and phrases.


You don't know what I mean by "get with"? You know exactly what I mean, and are just looking for something to make me look unintelligent. 




> Ok, now we are moving in realm of puberty. By arguments presented by many of us here, no adult can have consensual sex with kids, period. 
> By same token kids are not allowed to be soldiers.


10-12 year olds can have consensual relations with adults. It doesn't have to be sex. For the adult male it can be. So, my question still stands. But I know no one will answer it. 




> Kids are not ready for many adult experiences, that's why need to be protected, even if they think they consent, they just can't.


Not true. By 12 years lots of kids date. Why can't they have relations with an adult? 




> Judging by your preoccupation of above discribed "reality" or rather inner demons you are fighting, I'm not sure what canceling to advise. Now, that's a pickle, and might be a life long one.


Oh my gosh, just answer the question man! Or skip to the good part, admit consent and whether someone is harmed is not all that matters. I'm not fighting any "inner demons". You should know by now having these intense interests, like genetics, is just apart of my personality.

----------


## LeBrok

> Sexual feelings is self-explanatory. Feel attraction, feel sexual feelings. Penis can get hard in kindergarten.


 Of course it can, but not due to sexual desire. You rub it and it will get up. It doesn't mean it was excited and ready for a sexual act. Niples can harden in cold weather. Does it mean they want sex?!





> You don't know what I mean by "get with"? You know exactly what I mean, and are just looking for something to make me look unintelligent.


 Same way you are misleading us with "sexual feelings". Erected penis for you means sex only, although it might just get up automatically like it does in the morning.






> 10-12 year olds can have consensual relations with adults. It doesn't have to be sex. For the adult male it can be. So, my question still stands. But I know no one will answer it.


We don't allow it on grounds of harm to kids, period. And it will never be allowed. Kids are harmed, get it finally!






> Not true. By 12 years lots of kids date. Why can't they have relations with an adult?


Because they will get harmed. Kids are vulnerable, not ready, growing slowly, need protection, etc. Perhaps, you would want kids to chose, either to go to school, play all day, or maybe get a job, as long as they consent, right?






> Oh my gosh, just answer the question man! Or skip to the good part, admit consent and whether someone is harmed is not all that matters. I'm not fighting any "inner demons". You should know by now having these intense interests, like genetics, is just apart of my personality.


 Would you describe yourself as religious fundamentalist?

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Of course it can, but not due to sexual desire. You rub it and it will get up. It doesn't mean it was excited and ready for a sexual act. Niples can harden in cold weather. Does it mean they want sex?!


Not sex but attraction. First time a boy wants boobs is around 10 years old. They can consent. 




> Same way you are misleading us with "sexual feelings". Erected penis for you means sex only, although it might just get up automatically like it does in the morning.


I don't think it is only for sex. I think pre-pubescent boys have it because of attraction not sex. I had in kindergarten because of my teacher. 




> We don't allow it on grounds of harm to kids, period. And it will never be allowed. Kids are harmed, get it finally!


I agree it shouldn't be allowed. I agree kids can't have sex. However I'm not talking about making it legal. I'm talking about a single case where no one is harmed. Average 12 year old would be very happy if their hot teacher came on to him. No harm involved. What about a 13 or 14 year old who's just become sexually mature? 

Seems the boys had just hut puberty. Is it okay then? This was easy to find. 

How Mary Kay Letourneau Went From Having Sex With a 6th Grader to Becoming His Wife
Malia Brooks, 6th-Grade Teacher, Arrested For Alleged Sex Crimes On Minor Student (UPDATED)




> Because they will get harmed. Kids are vulnerable, not ready, growing slowly, need protection, etc. Perhaps, you would want kids to chose, either to go to school, play all day, or maybe get a job, *as long as they consent, right?*


No way. 




> Would you describe yourself as religious fundamentalist?


That's not an answer. Anyways, I don't fall under most characteristics associated with fundamentalism. I'm Christian.

Question agian.
*How about this scenario*: An adult mother, daughter, and son living together have sex with protection so they don't get pregnant. They keep it behind closed doors, no one gets sick, no one gets pregnant, no one feels guilty, no one gets harmed period. Is this okay?

----------


## Ike

No, it's not OK, and you made a perfectly valid point earlier, which somehow won't get validation here. There are numerous things that are not OK, disregarding if people involved gave consent and they are not hurting each other. That is just a mantra that PC handlers fill the people's heads with, while hoping that they won't think about it twice.

And yes, child can have sexual feelings and have sex, there are numerous cases of children having sex and loving it. Just talk to any professional who worked on that subject. That's the reality, whether we like it or not.

----------


## Angela

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading here. *No child can consent to sexuality with an adult.* Period, end of story.* They are intellectually, emotionally, psychologically, and sexually incapable of it. 

*If you knew anything about child psychology, or psychology in general, or everything that's been learned about human sexuality, you'd know that. 

I hope for your sake that you are unaware that the rhetoric you are repeating is pedophile rhetoric, the pathetic attempt of immature, damaged men to justify their evil, and I said evil, behavior. It's all over their publications, their websites, and their filthy videos. If things go as they should, people who espouse these kinds of ideas in short order appear on some law enforcement department's "radar", because eventually they'll put their theories into practice. At that point, at least once it's clear they are repeat offenders, we can lock them away for good or chemically castrate them, which is too good for them, but by then they've caused incalculable harm. Believe me, if we let the parents at these people they'd tear them apart with their bare hands if that's all that they had.

I find it astonishing, frankly, that you have in the past posted in support of religion and religious organizations, but then in this thread you actually asked why something that harms other people is necessarily "bad" or "wrong". What brand of Christianity, exactly, says that it is acceptable to commit actions that are known to harm other people? I find no consistency or logic in your posts.

Perhaps you don't care, since someone being harmed doesn't matter to you, but there is tremendous harm done psychologically as well as sometimes physically to young children through these sexual encounters. Do you really not know how many of them subsequently self-harm, become drug addicted, sexually promiscuous, turn to prostitution, even sometimes commit suicide? The least that happens is that it derails their lives, and they have great difficulty maintaining normal, adult sexual relationships, and yes, this applies to those who "agree" as well as those who are violently raped and assaulted. 

Take the example of a work relationship, where a woman works for a man. That man has the power to fire, to promote, to demote, and on and on. That man makes unmistakable sexual overtures and makes it clear that if this woman wants a career at that company or in that department, or maybe anywhere within the reach of his influence, she had better "acquiesce". Now, some women will tell the guy to, well, I'll leave it to your imagination. Some women will go along. Is that really consent? It's consent under duress, but bear in mind that this is an adult woman who has options and some experience with life and sexuality.

Can you really compare that to a child, in an unequal relationship with an adult, seeking approval, affection, not totally aware of what is going on and what these feelings are and where they should be directed ? It's blasphemy, to use a religious term, to suggest any such thing.

And yes, consent and harm are extremely important considerations in a civil, democratic society. That's all part of the social compact, the determination, through the passage of laws by elected representatives, of what is acceptable in society. The definition as to what is or is not acceptable can and should change as our scientific knowledge increases. 

All that you have proposed for your "beliefs" about homosexuality is that you "know" it's a perversion and it's wrong. Not good enough, not by a long shot, not with all the knowledge we now have about sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. Plus, who made you the arbiter?

You also have no right to claim the authority of your religion since you have denied its primary tenet. 

Now, I'm out. This is nausea inducing.

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Angela,

I think harm is very bad. I was saying harm isn't the the only thing that makes certain acts bad. 

I think sexual relations between children and adults should be outlawed. I agree even if there's consent it can turn out bad for the kid. I'm just giving a "what if". And in this one involves one child(lets say 12yo) and one adult. In one of the news articles I linked a 12 year old+adult had kids and later married. The child wasn't psychologically harmed. A better what if is parent and child.

EDIT: I'm not one of those freaks who try to justify harming people and sexual abuse(eg, rape). Those people are sick.

----------


## LeBrok

> Not sex but attraction. First time a boy wants boobs is around 10 years old. They can consent.


 So definitely you moved it to puberty. I'm glad you conceded that a a child can't get sexual excitement before puberty. That's how genetics work. 
Again, a child can consent to eating candies all they long or not going to school. It doesn't mean that its consent if valid, right?





> I don't think it is only for sex. I think pre-pubescent boys have it because of attraction not sex.


 I have no idea what you mean by attraction then? Again, you can't have sexual attraction before puberty. Your brain is not developed for "understanding" sex yet. Unless you were a mutant.




> I had in kindergarten because of my teacher.


 Are you saying that your teacher in kindergarten was playing with your penis?! Did you consent?




> I agree it shouldn't be allowed. I agree kids can't have sex. However I'm not talking about making it legal. I'm talking about a single case where no one is harmed. Average 12 year old would be very happy if their hot teacher came on to him. No harm involved. What about a 13 or 14 year old who's just become sexually mature?


Let me answer with your own words:



> No way.








> That's not an answer. Anyways, I don't fall under most characteristics associated with fundamentalism. I'm Christian.


You sound like one to me.

*



How about this scenario


*


> : An adult mother, daughter, and son living together have sex with protection so they don't get pregnant. They keep it behind closed doors, no one gets sick, no one gets pregnant, no one feels guilty, no one gets harmed period. Is this okay?


Are you conscious? How many times we said kids' "consent" is not valid. Furthermore, I'm not even sure what is the point you trying to make? Do you need our dissolution of your actions from the past, of forgiveness of future sins you are tempted to commit?

----------


## Fire Haired14

> So definitely you moved it to puberty. I'm glad you conceded that a a child can't get sexual excitement before puberty. That's how genetics work. 
> Again, a child can consent to eating candies all they long or not going to school. It doesn't mean that its consent if valid, right?


Funny. I wish I could do that now. I hate work. I'm not talking about all consent. I'm talking about sexual consent. And I don't approve of kid-adult relations, I made that clear. 

Our future.





> I have no idea what you mean by attraction then? Again, you can't have sexual attraction before puberty. Your brain is not developed for "understanding" sex yet. Unless you were a mutant.


You can't understand sex, but you can be aroused. 




> Are you saying that your teacher in kindergarten was playing with your penis?! Did you consent?


 :Laughing: . No teacher had nothing to do with it. I resisted her advances. 




> You sound like one to me.


Questioning the notion all homosexuals are born homosexuals and all that matters in adult sex is consent doesn't make me one. I'm annoying and confrontational sometimes, that doesn't make me a fundamentalist. That's very normal and confrontational tone is good sometimes. 




> [B]Are you conscious? How many times we said kids' "consent" is not valid. Furthermore, I'm not even sure what is the point you trying to make?


Okay, I changed the scenario to adult parent/child. My point is consent and harm isn't all the matters when determining something is right or wrong. sexual relations in some relationships is wrong. 




> Do you need our dissolution of your actions from the past, of forgiveness of future sins you are tempted to commit?



LOL.

----------


## LeBrok

> Funny. I wish I could do that now. I hate work.* I'm not talking about all consent*. I'm talking about sexual consent. *And I don't approve of kid-adult relations*, I made that clear. 
> 
> Our future.


Now you lost me completely.




> You can't understand sex, but you can be aroused.


 Again, lack of arousal caused by sexual cues, denotes that sexual maturity is not present yet.





> Questioning the notion all homosexuals are born homosexuals and all that matters in adult sex is consent doesn't make me one.


 Questioning and being inquisitive is good, verbally abusing them is bad.






> Okay, I changed the scenario to adult parent/child. My point is consent and harm isn't all the matters when determining something is right or wrong.


 But it does the most.




> sexual relations in some relationships is wrong.


Now, what makes you the judge to decide what is right or wrong? Let's put it this way; How would you decide what is right or wrong if you were God or at least a Supreme Court judge.

----------


## Maleth

> What does that mean?! A devil is tempting animals to go astray, so they don't go to heaven? ;)


Its the devil LeBork all about the devil  :Confused:  :Grin: .....a great thing to notice within these animal groups is that none of the others are protesting and discriminating and no worries about procreation. still going strong haha. Only humans are capable to create such nonsense and prejudice.......amazing I find. I still believe though that the worst homophobs are repressed homosexuals and I have very good reasons to stick to that theory.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Now you lost me completely.


I meant, I'm talking about sexual consent. Not kids consent to not go to school and eat candy all the time. 




> Questioning and being inquisitive is good, verbally abusing them is bad.


I don't remember verbally abusing homosexuals. What I write sometimes disregards their feelings but I don't insult them.






> But it does the most.


Okay, see we agree on this: Bad is more than harm. However we disagree on the frequency of times something is bad without harm.




> Now, what makes you the judge to decide what is right or wrong? Let's put it this way; How would you decide what is right or wrong if you were God or at least a Supreme Court judge.


Bible is clearly against adultery including "unatural" relations(eg, homosexuality, family sex). I believe most are self-evident meaning no one has to tell you.

----------


## Maleth

> Bible is clearly against adultery including "unatural" relations(eg, homosexuality, family sex). I believe most are self-evident meaning no one has to tell you.


*How interesting. the Bible is also very clear about women being total submisive to their husbands 

*_(Genesis 3:16)
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.)

_*About god wanting human blood* 

_(And surely your blood of your lives wil I require at the hand of every beast will I require it and at the hand of man at the hand of every mans brother will I require the life of Man. Whose sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed for in the image of God made the man (Genesis 9:5-6) 
_*Cannot trim your bear or side growth of your heads 
*

_(Leviticus 19:27 reads "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.")
_
*Cannot eat pork.* 

_"You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."_



*Cannot haveTattoos.* 

_Leviticus 19:28 reads, "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."

_*Cannot wear mixed fabrics*

_Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."
_
*Cannot divorce.* _ Mark 10:8, you "are no longer two, but one flesh." And, Mark 10:9 reads, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Mark 10:11-12, "And He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.'"_

*Cannot enter church if you do not have testicles (some men are born this way)*

_Deuteronomy 23:1 reads (this is the God's Word translation, which spells it out better), "_*A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord.*"

*Shellfish.* Leviticus 11:10 reads, "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers *that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable* things to you." And shellfish is right in that wheelhouse.

Leviticus 11 bans lot of food we eat todayshellfish and pig, it also says you can't eat camel, rock badger, rabbit, eagle, vulture, buzzard, falcon, raven, crow, ostrich, owl, seagull, hawk, pelican, stork, heron, bat, winged insects that walk on four legs unless they have joints to jump with like grasshoppers (?), bear, mole, mouse, lizard, gecko, crocodile, chameleon and snail.


*Bible is clear that women should not grab a man by the testicless if they are in an argument with their husband and if they do their hands should be cut off*

_Deuteronomy 25:11-12."If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."
_
*bible is clear in women keeping their mouth shut in church (Corinthians 14:*_34The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35If they desire to learn_ _anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it)

_There are so many other things the Bible is clear about but hardly given a mention by the thumpers

----------


## Ike

> I honestly can't believe what I'm reading here. *No child can consent to sexuality with an adult.* Period, end of story.* They are intellectually, emotionally, psychologically, and sexually incapable of it.*


Very not true. There are numerous examples of children feeling sexual attraction and stimulation within 9-12 years of age. 

LeBrok thinks that it is the puberty that is threshold for this behavior, and he is in general right, but that seems to not always be the case. Or is it that puberty starts very early for certain people... 
Legal definition of child is a pure idiocy. According to UN convention or US law, all people here on the forum are paedophiles and had some form of sex with children.

----------


## LeBrok

> Very not true. There are numerous examples of children feeling sexual attraction and stimulation within 9-12 years of age. 
> 
> LeBrok thinks that it is the puberty that is threshold for this behavior, and he is in general right, but that seems to not always be the case. Or is it that puberty starts very early for certain people... 
> Legal definition of child is a pure idiocy. According to UN convention or US law, all people here on the forum are paedophiles and had some form of sex with children.


 It really sounds like you are trying to excuse your behaviour. I always suspected sexual predator in you, to say the least.

----------


## Angela

No, all people here on the forum are not pedophiles or apologists for them, just like all people on the forum are not apologists for genocide and mass rape. Just a few of them. 

The equation of homosexuality to bestiality is beyond the pale, and so is the justification of adults having sex with children.

This thread is closed.

----------

