Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to
and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head
Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth surely marriage also discriminates against those interested in paedophilia and bestiality alan. is that fair?
Originally posted by crescendo What do you mean 'designed by who?' I don't know who. Some people say God, some people say evolution, and others have their own theories. The point is that we are designed the way we are.
E.g. the function of the nose is to smell. I can try eating through my nose, but thats not whats its designed for is it? Some people may actually be able to eat through their nose, but its not the natural way to eat is it?
A guy can fuck another guy up the arse, but then again, he can also drill a hole in the wall and fuck the wall, he can also fuck his dog up the arse, he can also also shove his dick between two cussions and fuck the cussions. The list goes on.
Sorry about the graphical detail.
You know and I know that the only natural form of copulating involves a penis and a vagina. Simple as. Anything else is unnatural.
Originally posted by Man Of Kent Oh, and the bit you are missing is the bit where you are focussing on consent alone. Take a leap outside of the box and assume that it was possible to prove that an animal had consented to sex. What is it now which makes it wrong?
Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth please don't call me a fool - i am no such thing, and being abusive isn't making the discussion go anywhere.
alan, my point is not irrelevant in the slightest. it was considered for many years that homosexuality was a perversion on a par with bestiality and paedophilia. if you can't see the connection then i can't help you.
Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth would a marriage between a man and a....sheep, harm anyone else? the union would be just as fruitful as a gay marriage, could be as loving etc. etc.
Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth i don't think i have ever suggested that gays should not be allowed to marry, or that humans and animals should.
the implications in some respects would be very similar - a major argument of pro-gay marriage supporters seems to be "it's not harming anyone else" - would a marriage between a man and a....sheep, harm anyone else? the union would be just as fruitful as a gay marriage, could be as loving etc. etc.
you don't need to blank letters out with stars you know - guessing words is one of my many talents.
Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth *burst out laughing*
i agree, a sheep cannot enter into a legally binding marriage - neither can two men. what's your point?
and as for the swearing thing - it looks more cheap imho, to star some of the obcenity out. people know what the word is, so why bother?
Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth why are you fixating on that point?
Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth and furthermore, i think you could be a little more respectful in the expression of your opinions - i've noticed several threads where your posts have been, lets say "robust" to be kind, shall we? people will take more notice of you if you stop acting as though you're in the playground.
Originally posted by Blagsta 'cos its the crux of the matter. And you consistently ignore it. Why?
Originally posted by Man Of Kent 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?
Originally posted by Man Of Kent 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?
Originally posted by Blagsta But it is a major part I think.
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.
Originally posted by Man Of Kent 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.
Originally posted by Man Of Kent Is there? I'm not so sure, certainly when you consider peer pressure...
Originally posted by Blagsta What other aspects?
I think 15/16 would be more equal than 15/40. Don't you?
Originally posted by Man Of Kent
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?
Originally posted by Man Of Kent 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...
Originally posted by Blagsta 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.