Er ... What!?

[Sukerkin]

I am amazed that this is even an issue. I am all for liberal thinking and understanding that what floats one persons boat is anathema to another but ... come on now! :lol:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950

The bit that had me looking for the date in case is was April 1st was:

"We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification. We don't force them to do anything. Animals are much easier to understand than women," Mr Kiok claimed.

 

[Flying Crane]

I am amazed that this is even an issue. I am all for liberal thinking and understanding that what floats one persons boat is anathema to another but ... come on now! :lol:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950

The bit that had me looking for the date in case is was April 1st was:

"We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification. We don't force them to do anything. Animals are much easier to understand than women," Mr Kiok claimed.

on so many levels, I'm just not at all sure how to respond to this...

 

[Touch Of Death]

I am amazed that this is even an issue. I am all for liberal thinking and understanding that what floats one persons boat is anathema to another but ... come on now! :lol:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950

The bit that had me looking for the date in case is was April 1st was:

"We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification. We don't force them to do anything. Animals are much easier to understand than women," Mr Kiok claimed.

However, comedians everywhere rejoice; this is rich. LOL
Sean

 

[Sukerkin]

on so many levels, I'm just not at all sure how to respond to this...

You and me are both equally flummoxed in that regard, my friend .

 

[Flying Crane]

You and me are both equally flummoxed in that regard, my friend .

well, the fact that it was specifically legalized in the 60s, indicates that there was/is a group specifically pushing for it because they wanted it. That alone is enough to spin your head around a bit.

Now there's a group who plans to fight the new law making it illegal. Again, wow.

 

[mook jong man]

Sick bastards.

 

[arnisador]

However, comedians everywhere rejoice; this is rich.

My thought exactly.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am amazed that this is even an issue. I am all for liberal thinking and understanding that what floats one persons boat is anathema to another but ... come on now! :lol:

I fail to see why liberal groups are not rallying to the cause. Clearly, those who are attracted to animals are not sick, nor did they become what they are, they were born that way. Society is refusing to give them the very same rights any other human being has. This is not a bestiality issue, this is a human rights issue. Civil liberties must apply to everyone equally.

:uhohh:

 

[Tez3]

I think they should make sex with only certain animals legal, animals such as lions, tigers, Tasmanian Devils etc. the animals have to be non doped and in a fit condition able to 'reciprocate' :ultracool

 

[Flying Crane]

I fail to see why liberal groups are not rallying to the cause. Clearly, those who are attracted to animals are not sick, nor did they become what they are, they were born that way. Society is refusing to give them the very same rights any other human being has. This is not a bestiality issue, this is a human rights issue. Civil liberties must apply to everyone equally.

:uhohh:

?

 

[Flying Crane]

I think they should make sex with only certain animals legal, animals such as lions, tigers, Tasmanian Devils etc. the animals have to be non doped and in a fit condition able to 'reciprocate' :ultracool

Honey Badger.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

?

I'm simply applying the same argument used to defend the 'rights' of same sex couples. Remember, it's not about society, it's about individual liberties! So if someone wants to make whoopee with their cow or horse or whatever, why should society try to tell them that they can't have the same rights as the rest of us?

What, nobody likes it when their own argument is turned on them?

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm simply applying the same argument used to defend the 'rights' of same sex couples. Remember, it's not about society, it's about individual liberties! So if someone wants to make whoopee with their cow or horse or whatever, why should society try to tell them that they can't have the same rights as the rest of us?

What, nobody likes it when their own argument is turned on them?

Bill, you are usually one of the more thoughtful and intelligent posters on here, even when I don't agree with your position. If you mean what you are saying here, and this isn't tongue-in-cheek, then this is really stupid.

 

[Sukerkin]

LOL And I thought you were just being humorous .

I think that there might be the small matter of informed consent being in the mix somewhere along the line.

 

[Steve]

I'm simply applying the same argument used to defend the 'rights' of same sex couples. Remember, it's not about society, it's about individual liberties! So if someone wants to make whoopee with their cow or horse or whatever, why should society try to tell them that they can't have the same rights as the rest of us?

What, nobody likes it when their own argument is turned on them?

How can a person and a cow be compared to two consenting adult humans? Can a cow sign a marriage license? Can a horse consent to sex with a human? It's a stretch, Bill.

 

[Steve]

LOL And I thought you were just being humorous .

I think that there might be the small matter of informed consent being in the mix somewhere along the line.

You and I must have been responding at the same time.

Looking back, it looks like three of us posted at the same time. Sorry, Bill. I didn't mean to pile on, but I do agree with FC and Suk on this one. It's not the same argument.

I could see extending the same sex rationale to potentially leading to an argument for polygamy, because in all cases there are consenting, human adults making informed decisions. Beastiality and pedophilia do not meet this simple criterion.

 

[arnisador]

I'm simply applying the same argument used to defend the 'rights' of same sex couples. Remember, it's not about society, it's about individual liberties! So if someone wants to make whoopee with their cow or horse or whatever, why should society try to tell them that they can't have the same rights as the rest of us?

What, nobody likes it when their own argument is turned on them?

That isn't the argument. In addition to consent, are horses being denied health insurance/tax benefits/visiting privileges because they aren't legally married to their partners?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

That isn't the argument. In addition to consent, are horses being denied health insurance/tax benefits/visiting privileges because they aren't legally married to their partners?

Technically, yes they are. Or are you suggesting that they have all those privileges without marrying people?

 

[jezr74]

I'm simply applying the same argument used to defend the 'rights' of same sex couples. Remember, it's not about society, it's about individual liberties! So if someone wants to make whoopee with their cow or horse or whatever, why should society try to tell them that they can't have the same rights as the rest of us?

What, nobody likes it when their own argument is turned on them?

It's a false dichotomy, the comparison is not even valid. Besides, if they are in a de facto relationship, are the partners entitled to half the assets?