If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
It's irrelevant! It might have something to do with the fact gay men and women cannot pass on their genes conveniently, and so speciation led to physiology being most convenient to reproduce for the heterosexual majority.
And what relevance does this have to whether two people in love should get married? People are made of skin and bones. You can assume that people are SUPPOSED to have sex in heterosexual relations but the fact of the matter is some do not and some cannot do this.
So the way forwards for the world is to continue to discriminate against, exclude and differentiate people on the basis of the way they were born????
Your attitude to it is all wrong, it's not about what fits best where. You seem to be frightened of anything different by the way you call things unnatural - and what do you want gay people to do about it if they are "unnatural"? Accept social exclusion from the rights the rest of the world take for granted?
Actually yes, it's perfectly fair.
I think it's ridiculous to compare them they are not the same thing.
For one thing, homosexuality is legal. Therefore it should be legally integrated with marriage.
When the other two become legal then maybe I would say yes, it's discriminatory. And there are reasons why the your examples are illegal:
A sexual relationship with a child or an animal is not mutual, and there is no guarantee of consent with either. That's what the issue is.
A relationship with an animal is wrong because as somebody said there's no guarantee it can consent or express pain.
A child is not physically, and in most cases, old enough to consent. They may agree to sex but not understand the implications. The dangers of pregnancy with a child are also a serious risk to the mother and baby.
Homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody else. It's an example of a healthy sexuality, which I think bestiality and paedophilia are not. You may not be able to prove a child or animal does not want to get married or have sex - but on the other hand you can't prove it does want to.
What I'm putting across to you is - there is no reason to discriminate against two male/females getting married.
And if it's discriminatory for animals and adults, and children and adults then there's reasons for it.
- Edited for typo!
It shows a poor debating stye to use examples of irrelevant illegal practices when trying to handle the current topic - Gay Marriage.
Your reasoning for and against should have at least something to do with homosexuality and why it should/shouldn't be allowed?
I don't see the connection. Open a new thread promoting paedophilia or bestiality if you must.
:rolleyes:
oh look, the point is over there
>
:rolleyes:
I ask again - what do you mean by "designed"? What do you mean by "unnatural"? Why does it bother you so much anyway? Who cares what people get up to in private, its fuck all to do with anyone else.
Pointless argument though innit? You can't prove an animal consented as animals are not self aware enough to even know what consent is.
Oh for fucks sake, not this again. :rolleyes:
Consent you fool, consent. :crazyeyes
CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT
:rolleyes:
Bestiality has nothing to do with homosexuality. One is legal in society and one is not.
You can compare them, but they are not considered equally "perverse". And my point is there's REASONS why one is legal and one is not.
Seeing as homosexuality is legal - then that proves it's harming nobody, so why not legalise the marriage too?
Having sex with animals - humans tend to be larger than animals, and you could cause severe pain to an animal by having sex with it, so NO it should not be legalised even IF you could prove it consented. Then you have matters of which species should be acceptable and which should not. Tests would need to be carried out to look at what implications this could potentially have on the creature.
And also freak pregnancies can occur between two species of the same gene pool - like a horse and a donkey which I think make mules. That too would need to be considered, alongside which diseases could be transmitted from an animal to the human, and vice versa and how these would affect society if an epidemic were to break out.
It's TOTALLY different.
You cannot seriously suggest the implications are the same of legalising marriage to animals as marriage between two men or two women.
Why not defend your line of argument by making references to homosexuality and why you feel gay marriage is not right (if that is your stance)
- or are you incapable?
What moral issues are raised by Gay Marriage etc that you feel justify not allowing it to be legalised?
WITHOUT comparing it to bestiality because this has nothing to do with f***ing animals!
Its about mutual consent. Why do you refuse to see that?
Firstly, blatantly swearing is quite a cheap way to emphasise a point so I starred it out.
Since when can a sheep enter a legal binding marriage, give vows, or fully understand what it is entering itself into?
It can't even sign the marriage papers!
And, by once again going back to bestiality, when I offered you the chance to extend the discussion to actually valid, relevant reasons why people of the same gender can't get married, you've proven that the only way you can defend your opinion is to make sick comparisons to something that is cruel, inhumane and let's not forget ILLEGAL.
The only link between homosexuality and bestiality is that both used to be considered perversions. One still is, and one isn't.
So there is now no link between the two?
So what's your point? Do you actually... have any line of argument here?
My point is that a sheep is physcially and mentally incapable of ever doing this.
Two men are capable of understanding what it means and could potentially enter a marriage just like a heterosexual couple.
Um, is it really that important to you whether I star it out or not?
Do you have any other reasons why marriage between people of the same gender is wrong? Apart from being discriminatory to sheep.
In which case the law is there for their own good.
A marriage may also interfere with emotional development of a child.
What reasons can you give for not allowing gay marriage?
Don't forget that gays are also discriminated in these friend and sibling arrangements, and that, by ONLY providing them with this, it doesn't change their legal status.
They're still socially and legally excluded from heterosexual equivalents.
What are you on? There is no comparison - men can give consent, sheep can't. End of story. Why are you refusing to acknowlege that point?
'cos its the crux of the matter. And you consistently ignore it. Why?
*yawn*
If you consistently post crap, then I'm gonna tell you.
So, to summarise, you are saying that the only reason why sex with children or animals should be illegal is due to consent?
No other reason at all?
Which takes me back to the under 16s issue. Why can't a 15 year old equally give consent as a 16 y-o? GWST pointed out earlier that a 30-y-o with the mental capacity of 5 can leaglly consent, so what is the difference?
OK, you got me there a little I must admit
But it is a major part I think. Animals can't give informed consent. Children can't either. Ultimately its about the power relations between people. An adult can wield a lot of power over a child without the child necessarily being aware of it.
A 15 year old consenting to sex with a 16 year old would probably be OK. A 15 year old consenting with a 40 year old might not. There is a difference in the power dynamic. And I'm not sure if a 30 year old with the mental age of a 5 year old can legally consent. There are often court cases about adults with severe learning disabilities being raped in care because it is deemed that they cannot legally give informed consent.
I don't think that either GWST or I would disagree with you on that point.
What we have been asking is for the consent issue to be put to one side and for the other aspects to be considered.
Is there? I'm not so sure, certainly when you consider peer pressure...
What other aspects?
I think 15/16 would be more equal than 15/40. Don't you?
Isn't that what I was asking you?
What is it, other than the ability to consent, which offends us about bestiality and/or paedophilia?
Is it, as crescendo seems to think, that we just aren't "designed" to act like that, or is it just a matter of consent?
In terms of comparative age, yes. But if a 15-y-o cannot give informed consent to having sex with a 40-y-o then how can they with a 16-y-o who probably knows about as much as they do. At least the 40 is likely to have a little more experience and understanding of the potential implications of the sexual act.
Additionally, isn't peer pressure actually on of the biggest things affecting teenagers? The "everyone else is doing it, so why aren't we" approach to seduction...
Good question. I'd be inclined to think it is all about consent actually. I don't care what people get up to in private, as long as its consenting.
I agree its not a perfect situation, people mature at different rates etc, but it maybe the best solution we've got.
About consent- consent is not something that is obtained beforehand, it is something that is imlicitly given whilst performing the act- the lack fo consent is the issue in sexual abuse cases, not the having of consent. So, why cannot a male animal consent to having sex with a human female- it gets hard, it penetrates, it orgasms. I dont see the animal complaining.
But consent is not the issue. It is about what is socially acceptable. We shall assume children and animals can give informed consent, because it was believed for a long time that homosexual men were possessed by devils and so were not of sound mind to consent to sex.
Homosexuality was socially unacceptable for a very long time, witness Oscar Wilde, so I do believe the point trying to be made is what exactly makes something socially unacceptable.
Oh, and Blagsta, the rules on this message board are that there is no flaming. It would be appreciated if you could follow this rule, as a matter of courtesy as much as anything. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean that they are wrong- thats the sort of thing Mr Dubya believes.
So if the dog consents to sleep with the woman its perfectly OK?