I agree with the Creeper! Beastiality is disgusting, and you'll get arrested for it just like you'd get arrested for pedophillia. How can you support zoophilia? That's abuse!

Sexual Oientation has brain structure behind it?! Again, you're trying to define feelings, which no one can, they're feelings. You say no animal get pleasure out of mating?? So only humans get pleasure? Can you prove this fact? I'm quite sure that it's impossible to prove that they can't feel pleasure, and so you stating an unsupported claim. Oh, and look at men that have gotten "fixed", most of them still have a sex drive, don't they?! Alas another trying to separate humans from animals, WE ARE ANIMALS, period, no argument there, sorry. Consent, so you can have a dog killed just because you don't want it without needing their consent, and yet you pitch a bitch about something that can't even be proven t be at all harmful towards them?! I swear... there's some hypocrisy there... oh, and it's a sexuality, not a fetish, sorry, but you have no factual evidence to prove other wise. Besides, define "Sexual Orientation", I believe the definition is this:
one's natural preference in sexual partners. So I think Zoophilia follows that definition quite well.

Did you ever commit actions that in any way contributed to the sexual abuse of animals? It is illegal to have sexual contact with them on a check that establishes that sexual exploits with animals are illegal based on the fact that they cannot give out sexual consent. If you can get your chimpanzee to give consent in certain states, than molesters of animalia can presumably carry out sex with them in the states (you an American?) where you can establish they have given out consent, but it is impossible to do so constituting rape of animals which is a crime. Do you follow your laws? You say you believe in "one's natural sexual partners", but that could constitute pedophilia, a severe crime, which you have previously disagreed with. One's natural sexual partners may be illegal.

I said I support Zoo's, not that I am one, so no, I have never engaged in any sexual acts towards any other species, and with that being said, like I stated before, why is it we can have a dog euthanize just for the fact it's a stray and we don't want to pay for it, but people pitch a bitch about this when it's more than obvious most Zoo's understand their animals better than anyone. People can throw opinionated stuff around such as that animals don't feel pleasure, but a Zoo goes and tries to explain the significance of body language, and is asked to prove this? Double standard there, I still want someone to show animals can't feel pleasure, since there's no evidence supporting that. Oh, yes, I am American, though I don't see why that matters...

Your location has to with your laws. It does matter.

How can you support people who screw dogs? HOW CAN ANYONE SAY THEY SUPPORT SUCH A THING? It's so damn disgusting and sick and... I don't know. It's awful!

Yes, besides being illegal, it is a detestable act.

Meh, fair enough, I forget there's actually area's of the world where Zoophilia isn't illegal... So your right, forgive me for being negligent in that, and seriously, I'm not being sarcastic, I failed there, big time. Now, back to the debate at hand, anyone have the proof I've so made clear I want to see, or does this proof not exist and it is all crap spewed out by the masses to try and prove that Zoo's are.. in fact.... just sicko's.

Well, they are sickos.

Evidence, you neglect it, statements of opinion hold no power over other's, at least I'd hope not, in that case they're just a couple of weak-minded people, not listening to proper evidence and basic logic... *sigh* Is this truly what our society has boiled down to, a bunch of judgmental people with claims only supported by opinion alone? Sad, just sad....

My claims are not supported by sole opinions. They hold ground in laws that you may not be aware of, which may eventually lead to your downfall. If you accidentally finger a chihuahua you may face jail time of a year. Failure to abide by your laws is a neglectful and very sad thing in day to day life. You believe in zoophilia, but are not a zoophiliac, therefore making you a holder of opinions. You believe in support for zoophilia, and forget its laws, again making you solely based in opinions. What do you have to say for yourself?

No, no, the question is -- is this truly what our society has boiled down to, a bunch of people who support and/or practice zoophilia?

And yet my opinions have evidence to support them, you are using laws as your backbone, when in fact laws are not at all exact and always right. How many laws have been taken and put in, obviously that is nothing to consider when trying to figure out if something is truly O.K. or not, if it was then what would be the point of debating? Laws are usually based off of peoples opinion on the matter, thus why it is judged by people, and thus are flawed.
(P.S. Have you seen some of the completely dumb laws we have still, I mean, take a moment to look up dumb laws, I assure you, it's dumb what you will find.)

I cannot understand or support zoophilia, and I do not understand that person's 'reasins' (OOO look at my spelling sic!) for doing so. The only criminal action I support is this one.

Alright.... that was good, very well placed there lol . But no, seriously, if one cannot understand something, then they have no place debating it.

This thread's name.... look at it again. Do you understand it?

Hey guys, what's going on in this --- oh lawd.

People aren't allowed to have sex with animals because animals cannot give consent in a way that's meaningful to humans. Full stop. Since homosexuals are in no way related to zoophiles, this is not the thread for debating whether they're really "sickos" or not, don't you think?

Exactly so, and what I just said.

Bleh, fair enough your right, not a place to be arguing such a thing ^^' I'm sorry for antagonizing it ^^'

I will never understand why you even brought it to the table, as is homosexuality and bestiality were even remotely related. It is really insulting for homosexuals/bisexuals, in my opinion.
This isn't something specifically directed to you, hyonilikos, I'm saying it because I'm sick and tired of people doing that "comparison".

Yeah, a couple more replies popped into the thread while I'd been typing my own response. I'd initially written more before I decided nope, not getting into it at all, hence my slowness.

I never mean't to intentionally do so, someone simply picked out a piece of what I was said while stating what I thought towards the actual homosexual point here, and elaborated on it, but I do take the fault on continuing the conversation. Oh, and I never mean't to compare the two at all, it annoys me also when they are compared also.... They are two highly differing things, and hold no similarity at all.

I am going to have to point out, not all Christians are this conservative. I am a Christian, however I am also fairly liberal. I dislike the fact that you would lump all Christians together and assume that all of our heads are stuck up our asses.

While there is not a "real, legal reason" that Christians will argue that is against same-sex marriage, it's a sin. As stated in the Bible.


But let me also make this point clear, I am absolutely FOR same-sex marriage, and a whole plethora of issues that would require one to choose a liberal or conservative stance. And I do find the logical fallacy in the 'points' that the religious groups make. I, however, do not agree with the fact that you would lump all Christians together.

There are some of us who are perfectly reasonable and believe that the teachings in the Bible can change to fit today's changing society.

A "sin"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible doesn't directly forbid same-sex marriage as a sin, it just says "Marriage shall be between a man and a woman" or something like that.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible can't dictate what marriage is when 1. marriage wasn't even of Christian origin (meaning, it's just another thing that already existed and the Bible tried to define it) and 2. regarding the US, there is (supposed to be) an separation of church and state and marriage is institutionalized by the government.



Despite the wording of the above member, I don't think that's what they were meaning. We all know that there are Christians and even conservatives that support same-sex marriage. The above member was referring to a specific type of Christian - the type that argues against same-sex marriage.



However, unfortunately, for every one like you there seem to be five that instead take their irrational hatred toward people of different groups and hide it behind the Bible as an 'religious belief'. They can't be ignored, because they end up in positions of power, and also end up getting laws passed.

and this is also ignoring that the bible only applies to those who choose to embrace it. its not universal. it doesnt apply to everyone. why everyone should be made to step to the tune of a rule book to a game they do not play is beyond me.