S
stewstew03
Guest
That is a value judgment. You shouldn’t judge them.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
PRmerger
Guest
How can it be “cruel”? The act that they’re doing is exactly the same act that they’d be doing to a human person.I do. Because what they want to do is cruel.
If it’s a cruel act to an animal, then it’s a cruel act to a human person, and one’s “consent” is irrelevant, no? If it’s cruel but a person consents to it, does that make it moral?
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Do you think rape is cruel or wrong? If so then, by your logic, consenting sex of all kinds should be wrong as consent does not make a difference. Consent is what seperates rape from, well, consenting sex.How can it be “cruel”? The act that they’re doing is exactly the same act that they’d be doing to a human person.
If it’s a cruel act to an animal, then it’s a cruel act to a human person, and one’s “consent” is irrelevant, no? If it’s cruel but a person consents to it, does that make it moral?
S
stewstew03
Guest
Why do you get to make the rules?Do you think rape is cruel or wrong? If so then, by your logic, consenting sex of all kinds should be wrong as consent does not make a difference. Consent is what seperates rape from, well, consenting sex.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Rape is not about sex, RA.Do you think rape is cruel or wrong? If so then, by your logic, consenting sex of all kinds should be wrong as consent does not make a difference. Consent is what seperates rape from, well, consenting sex.
Let’s say a person who’s interested in bestiality actually loves his animal. He is doing the exact same act with this animal that he would do with a person that he loves.
How can one act be cruel (in the animal) w*hen its the exact same act *that he’s be doing with a person?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yeah, well actually your logic, as it extends to me and the Catholic view, is correct. We don’t view “consent” as making all the difference.If so then, by your logic, consenting sex of all kinds should be wrong as consent does not make a difference.
Some consenting sex is wrong, you know?
Like, adultery?
Or do you believe that adultery is just fine because the 2 adults have consented to enjoy the sex?
S
stewstew03
Guest
Hmmm… it sounds like RA wants to impose his or her morality on society and make adultery illegal. After all, when adultery occurs there’s at least one person who didn’t give consent to the sexual act - the spouse being cheated on.Yeah, well actually your logic, as it extends to me and the Catholic view, is correct. We don’t view “consent” as making all the difference.
Some consenting sex is wrong, you know?
Like, adultery?
Or do you believe that adultery is just fine because the 2 adults have consented to enjoy the sex?
And when families break up due to divorce, the children usually don’t give their consent (and sometimes a spouse wanting to hold on to the family only reluctantly gives consent).
There you have it - RA would outlaw adultery and divorce, I guess.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Well, it hurts someone emotionally, which is just cruel. I guess I couldn’t say it’s as bad as bestiality or rape, but it’s certainly not very nice. There are, obviously, some cases in which consent doesn’t make it better - it depends on what other effects the action has. Consent is, however, the difference between homoexuality and bestiality/paedophilia.Yeah, well actually your logic, as it extends to me and the Catholic view, is correct. We don’t view “consent” as making all the difference.
Some consenting sex is wrong, you know?
Like, adultery?
Or do you believe that adultery is just fine because the 2 adults have consented to enjoy the sex?
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Y’know, you’re the one that is implying consent is my frame for moral guidance. I never said that at all. Obviously, there are other effects that make something immoral. But if an act is consenting, and normally harmless, why is it wrong?Hmmm… it sounds like RA wants to impose his or her morality on society and make adultery illegal. After all, when adultery occurs there’s at least one person who didn’t give consent to the sexual act - the spouse being cheated on.
And when families break up due to divorce, the children usually don’t give their consent (and sometimes a spouse wanting to hold on to the family only reluctantly gives consent).
There you have it - RA would outlaw adultery and divorce, I guess.
S
stewstew03
Guest
Well, it’s your moral compass when it comes to bestiality, doesn’t that seem arbitrary to you? Why would having an intimate relationship with a fish, for example, be morally objectionable?Y’know, you’re the one that is implying consent is my frame for moral guidance. I never said that at all.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Would it be possible? Surely it would have to be dead or dying for you to do such a thing? Anyway, I’m sure it would be animal cruelty. It’s a hard example to work with, though.Well, it’s your moral compass when it comes to bestiality, doesn’t that seem arbitrary to you? Why would having an intimate relationship with a fish, for example, be morally objectionable?
S
stewstew03
Guest
In other words, there’s no reason to suggest that homosexual behavior is “morally superior” to those who have sex with fish. It’s qualitatively different to be sure, but there’s no difference from a moral perspective, and therefore no reason to outlaw bestiality.Would it be possible? Surely it would have to be dead or dying for you to do such a thing? Anyway, I’m sure it would be animal cruelty. It’s a hard example to work with, though.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Apart from the fact that most animals would be distressed by such an action towards them. Fish were a bad example, as they don’t really show signs of distress.In other words, there’s no reason to suggest that homosexual behavior is “morally superior” to those who have sex with fish. It’s qualitatively different to be sure, but there’s no difference from a moral perspective, and therefore no reason to outlaw bestiality.
E
elizabeth22
Guest
I believe that Chick- Fil-A will serve all that enter their restaurants the same. With honor, respect, and dignity. I would think their employees are taught that very well. So how would an employee know anyway if a customer is homosexual??? I guess they would have to announce it to the employee. Which goes back to my first comment… CFA will treat all with honor respect and dignity.
S
St_Francis
Guest
So, you are assuming that homosexual sex is harmless?Y’know, you’re the one that is implying consent is my frame for moral guidance. I never said that at all. Obviously, there are other effects that make something immoral. But if an act is consenting, and normally harmless, why is it wrong?
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Not nessecarily. To those who aren’t involved, and it isn’t nessecarily harmful when practised, depending on how it is practised.So, you are assuming that homosexual sex is harmless?
H
Holly3278
Guest
No, he is not. A homophobe is someone who hates or fears homosexuals. I think Dan Cathy made it quite clear that he does not hate or fear homosexuals. Unfortunately, the word “homophobe” is often thrown around by the left to label people who oppose the liberal “gay rights” movement. The fact is, however, that they are not using it correctly. A person who opposes the liberal “gay rights” movement does not necessarily hate or fear homosexuals. Rather, they might hate or fear the activism that many of them participate in.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
I’ve also seen it used to apply to people who hate or fear homosexuality, in which case it would certainly apply to him.No, he is not. A homophobe is someone who hates or fears homosexuals. I think Dan Cathy made it quite clear that he does not hate or fear homosexuals. Unfortunately, the word “homophobe” is often thrown around by the left to label people who oppose the liberal “gay rights” movement. The fact is, however, that they are not using it correctly. A person who opposes the liberal “gay rights” movement does not necessarily hate or fear homosexuals. Rather, they might hate or fear the activism that many of them participate in.
B
buffalo
Guest
Who pays for the medical costs?Not nessecarily. To those who aren’t involved, and it isn’t nessecarily harmful when practised, depending on how it is practised.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Yeah, but they’re also paying for you when you get yourself into an accident, since that’s kind of how universal health care works.Who pays for the medical costs?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.