🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <xqAy2.1334$pE6....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabm...@geoshitties.com says...
> > > "Right, it's okay to kill animals and not fuck them.  We're really
> > > looking out for them."  Seems clear enough.
> > 
> > I have never said it is OK to kill animals. Therefore your point is still 
> > unclear.
> 
> You still eat meat, right?

Bestiality involves long term abuse of a given animal. I consider this 
cruel. I also consider the unwarranted murder of animals cruel. 

Killing animals for food is a different issue. I consider some 
farming/butchery methods cruel so will pay more for my meat purchases to 
ensure that the farming/butchery process was comparatively humane. 

We have already done the meat issue so I am not quite sure why you feel 
it is necessary to bring it up again. But, does that answer your question 
or are you merely going to comeback with your latest favourite term.

> Yeah, in *your* reality.  The truth is, it is a mental condition.
> It was on the American Psychiatric Association's list of pathological
> psychiatric conditions (until 1974 when it was removed for purely
> political reasons rather than scientific ones).  There has been
> no evidence since then to show otherwise.

But had there been evidence to prove this ridiculous position it would 
still be on the list and would still be a jailable offence. Since it was 
removed from the list some 25 years ago, this is not a valid argument for 
you to make. 

> > Also, many different versions of the Bible change those words which are 
> > unknown to match the followings of that branch of religion. I can guess 
> > homosexual appears quite often in yours, while in early editions of 
> > Catholic bibles, masterbation was in that very same place.
> 
> But if it were referring to masturbation, the "with mankind" wouldn't
> really be necessary.

I was not suggesting it were, I was merely asking for your 
interpretation. The paragraph you replied to was on a slightly different 
topic to masturbation hence it not being mentioned as the salient point. 
I was agreeing with and illustrating your own point about inconsistencies 
between versions of the bible.

> > > Rape is not as serious a crime as murder, as far as humans are concerned.
> > 
> > As far as *I* am concerned rape is as serious as murder. I am pretty sure 
> > that rape victims also see it this way. I am human and rape victims are 
> > human therefore at least some humans do see them as equally serious.
> 
> The punishment for murder is more serious than rape; also many people
> in jail rape others and never have to serve any punishment at all.  They
> would have to stay in jail for the rest of their life if they killed
> the other inmates.  It's pretty much understood that rape is not as
> serious a crime as murder, and even if they were equal, rape would
> never be *worse* than murder.

All crimes are punished on more than the actual act. Murder is punishable 
in various forms. As is rape. I have stated my view and you yours. I 
guess this closes the issue.

> > > > The laws that are in place I will not ask to be removed. 
> > > > But if there were none, I would not request them. 
> > > And can you apply that to homosexuality as well?
> > > (Meaning, if homosexuality was still jailable, would you not ask
> > > that law to be removed?)
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> And if new laws making it jailable were "voted in" would you have
> a problem with those?

Yes.

> > I have explain why I do not see them as the same.
> > 
> > Let's throw this back into your court. What is your opinion of the 
> > practice? And what biblical law covers it? Why do *you* see them as the 
> > same? Finally, rate them with regards each other I.e. which is worse?
> 
> They're both just as bad as each other.  

Consentual sex vs. rape. I think one is definitely wrong while the other 
is not.

> The same thing causes both of
> them (even though we cannot agree on what that is).  

Arguable, but I'll read on...

> If someone has
> sexual relations with a member of the same sex, it's just as bad as
> having it with his/her dog.  

Consentual sex vs. rape. 

> The reasons why people are expected to
> except homosexuality are "I'm born with it", "I can't help it", "It's
> not my fault", etc. then it's "We want equal rights", "We should be
> free", etc. and all the while people who are "born" to bestiality
> are suffering for it even though their case is exactly the same
> as the homosexuals. They're both the same damn thing, and if one's
> jailable the other should be.  

Sorry, I am missing something. How can consentual sex be the same as 
rape?

> Otherwise the government's being
> worse hypocrites than the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages (you
> should know who I'm talking about, hence your incessant references
> to that group).

I do not remember any incessant references to any particular group. Maybe 
you want to remind me rather than making snide comments.

> No I don't think I am.  Telling people not to discriminate against
> people based on sexual orientation while jailing people for their
> sexual orientation is hypocritical (look it up :P).

I do not need to look up the word. I am quite adept at handling the 
English Language, thank you. As I said before I understand your use of 
the term but since the issues are wider than mere sexual orientation it 
is not applicable to these two issues.

> > To condone sex between humans is not comparable to condoning sex with 
> > other species. I guess you see them as the same since in your opinion 
> > they are both a crime against God. This is not the way to look at the 
> > issues. Unless of course you are going to throw in prostitution, 
> > adultery, murder, theft, graven images and the like into the same basket. 
> 
> That's not how I'm looking at the issues. 

I did not *know* for sure, hence the use of "I guess".

> I don't see why my belief
> in God has anything to do with this.  

Possibly your incessant quotations from Leviticus in previous discussions 
on similar topics :P

> I'm looking at the issues by
> examining what causes it (Again, I believe a gene causes people to
> be more prone to it, 

You discounted this theory completely in the last discussion!

> a bad experience would have more of an impact
> on those people's minds.  Similar to alcoholism, but it's never a
> gene alone.  Of course science still has a long way to go to prove
> even *that* much.), how the person stricken with it feels, what

They do not feel stricken. Terms like that are discriminating since it 
highlights the difference. Comparing a natural process with an affliction 
is exactly the kind of attitude that gets you the homophobic badge every 
time.

> could be done about it, etc.  

Nothing need be done about it. If they are happy and people can let them 
be, so be it. 

> Before, you said "If two people are enjoying it, then why cure it?"
> or something similar.  It's kind of like the drugs problem...  if
> people are enjoying an acid trip, does that mean the government
> shouldn't take them to rehab for treatment?

We have done drugs to death. (No pun intended). 

The drugs issue is very different to homosexuality and to bestiality, to 
incest and whatever you wish to bring up next. 

A sexual relationship between two people is quite natural. The use of 
processed chemicals to "get high" seems unnecessary. It seems a shame 
that we have reached this stage of evolution yet now want to escape all 
our achievements by pumping chemicals through our body until it doesn't 
really matter any more.

If we put the same effort/money into improving our lives that we do into 
creating ways to escape reality and destruction, I think we would be much 
further along. 

-- 
Mark