1. The day of judgment

Comment #192632 by Appleby on June 13, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Quite a history lesson, this article. I suspect, like McEwan suggests, that many people are just "pretenders" in religion. They don't really believe in this stuff but play along so that their spouse, children and grandparents don't give them a hard time. The rest of us writing these kind of articles and books "just don't get it". It'd be so much easier (and a kind of "pornographic" pleasure, as McEwan puts it), if we just played along but never for a second actually believed in this stuff.

In Islam for example, condemnation of "hypocrites" can be found in both the Quran and hadith. My guess is there were many people like that even in the past but they were not very good at hiding their skepticism. Either that or it stems from the feeling you get when you're trying to bullshit someone and are pretty sure they aren't falling for it (even if they appear to be).

2. Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind

Comment #191438 by Appleby on June 11, 2008 at 1:17 am

Damn it. Another book I'm tempted to buy.

3. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189742 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 6:01 am

Well what do you know... you don't need a Ph.D. to not believe in God.

4. Male circumcision is a weapon in the sperm wars

Comment #189739 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 5:57 am

This article is a little difficult to swallow.

5. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189709 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 3:04 am

I'm obviously discussing ideas above everyone's head. It doesn't matter. I'm quite done here. And kudos to Josh for not banning me. I take back whatever I said about him the last time.

6. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189704 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 2:51 am

Comment #189703 by epeeist

It's an ethical entailment (which has been demonstrated). Your claim of bestiality necessarily being paraphilia is also insufficiently proven.

7. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189701 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 2:45 am

Comment #189699 by Mitchell Gilks

Why is there reason to prohibit zoophilia if homosexuality is prohibited?

There isn't, but you must realize that it automatically entails the permission of homosexuality. A heterosexual society cannot permit bestiality yet prohibit homosexuality. Can you not understand this?

8. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189698 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 2:30 am

Comment #189679 by Rachel Holmes

Not in the absolute sense, I didn't.

9. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189697 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 2:26 am

Comment #189687 by Mitchell Gilks

More importantly though, your point is nonsensical. In a completely heterosexual society why is zoophilia impossible?

It isn't. But if it is permitted in a heterosexual society, then there's no reason to prohibit homosexuality either, is there?

10. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189674 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 12:37 am

Comment #189671 by Cartomancer

Sorry. We're talking about ethics here and there are no societies (that we know of) in which *only* homosexuality is viewed as "acceptable behaviour". These are not my prejudices. This is just you getting carried away with the supposed absolute equality of homosexuality and heterosexuality.

11. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189635 by Appleby on June 6, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Comment #189462 by hungarianelephant

There are several problems with your reasoning. I'll point them out.

A different list of justifications does come into play. The most obvious is that we need(ed) to eat, and so we need(ed) to do what was necessary to farm them, including killing them. But we do not torture them, or inflict unnecessary suffering, because that is unjustified.

I think the "need(ed) to eat" part is not entirely justified. Especially when you claim:

"Animals are not human, but since they are clearly sentient, we extend them broadly the same courtesy. They are entitled not to be touched, except insofar as is justified."

The "minor" exception of slaughtering them to death, humane or not, is a contradiction if I ever saw one. Broadly the same courtesy? Are you quite sure? What if one day sex with animals becomes a much easier avenue for our "needs" than sex with humans? What if marriage/kids or any other form of commitment in line with the times becomes economically unfeasible? Our need for sex will likely remain. Doesn't this "lesser" need for sex outweigh the need to slaughter? Couldn't under these circumstances, sex with animals be permitted? Especially if there was no harm inflicted? What more if the animal in question was our own pet which we shared an emotional bond with i.e. loved, cared for etc.?

It's possible to argue that killing them is no longer justified, but that's an entirely separate argument. What it will never do is somehow prove that having sex with them is justified. You can't find a justification because there isn't one.

Why not? You'll have to provide evidence for this positive claim. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

The argument that "consent doesn't apply to animals because animals can't consent" is hogwash.

Logically, you would have to extend it to very young children, the mentally ill and people in comas, the "justification" presumably being "I needed to get off and it hasn't harmed them". Or you would have to draw a distinction between humans and animals which just can't be made to stick.

Here you go again with the supposed immutability of the consent argument. No, permission to have sex with your pet Labrador is not permission to have sex with a stranger's toddler (an ethical difference). By no stretch of logic could it be. I think, what you're implying is that should we be permitted to have sex with certain animals (at certain times when they are comfortable with it, perhaps), that would necessarily imply we suddenly cannot slaughter (other) animals for food or must allow our toddlers to be raped. This does not follow. Unless sex necessarily implies something more than it is. A reason, I dare say, that is comparable to the supposed "sanctity" of marriage.

Does this have anything to do with homosexuality?

If you feel there are valid reasons to prohibit bestiality, then it can be argued that you also need to reexamine your position on homosexuality, which is why I find prohibition of bestiality hypocritical. Now, in societies where only heterosexuality is recognized as "acceptable behaviour" (reminder: you think bestiality is "unacceptable"), this problem does not arise.

12. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189380 by Appleby on June 6, 2008 at 6:43 am

Comment #189379 by irate_atheist

Oops! My bad. I stand corrected and apologize for the assumption.

13. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189377 by Appleby on June 6, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #189373 by Cartomancer

Sorry about that. These men have been trying to distract me with endless vituperations. If I was in a bar with my girlfriend, they'd be like the shameless thugs picking on her just to goad me into a fight.

Please please please tell us all whether you believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are ethically equivalent to one another. If so why, if not why not.

I do. But I really can't put my finger on the reason why. They are, after all, different. So absolute ethical equivalence does not make absolute sense to me.

You have also said that people's ethical systems change and vary across the world. Which is true, but immaterial. We are talking about our own ethical system, which we base on logic, evidence and argument - that is why we consider our own ethics to be superior. Unless you are willing to advocate absolute moral relativism as the only viable ethical doctrine then you must admit this and engage in the arguments rather than trying awkwardly to wave them away via such irrelevant distractions.

This actually makes a lot of sense. But there are inconsistencies in our ethical system. You mentioned earlier on that if bestiality did not cause harm, you wouldn't have a problem with it. I think this is a fair position. And most of all, it is not hypocritical.

14. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189368 by Appleby on June 6, 2008 at 6:20 am

Comment #189327 by Steve Zara

Don't think I don't understand these guys, Steve. I know where they are coming from. I really have no *reason* to be disgusted by what male homosexuals do anymore than I should have a reason to be disgusted by what you and your wife might be doing (from time to time or on your birthday).

But all this while all of you conveniently dodge the question of bestiality saying you "do not want to think about it". This strikes me as not having the arguments to back up the disgust *you* feel for bestials. I, on the other hand, have already explained several times why I find male homosexual acts disgusting.

15. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189333 by Appleby on June 6, 2008 at 4:05 am

Comment #189327 by Steve Zara

Why do you find bestiality repulsive, Steve? You must be a bigot. Unless you don't find it repulsive.

16. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189326 by Appleby on June 6, 2008 at 3:31 am

Comment #189302 by Quetzalcoatl

I feel like this debate is winding to a close, since your arguments have been thoroughly dismembered by everyone here, but there are one or two points from your last comment to me that I wanted to address.

Are you serious? There must be a communication problem, then.

This seems to be the accepted ethical point of view. Does that mean it cannot be challenged? How do you think homosexuality was viewed (and still is in many parts of the world) in the past?

You do seem to have difficulty maintaining a consistent position, why is that? You have repeatedly claimed that consent applies only to humans and not animals, yet in ther above you attempt to introduce homosexuality into a discussion about CONSENT! Homosexuality was obviously not viewed as something for which parties were incapable of giving consent.

The problem is, you're treating language as if it were a mathematical equation. This was attempted hundreds of years ago and failed. I am not referring to homosexuality with reference to consent, but to ethics! If homosexuality was ever viewed as unethical, why do you presuppose that it must have been about consent? This is a very limited (Western) view of the matter. Don't you think that by assuming it is *exclusively* a consent issue with homosexuality, you are not in fact, open to examining the issue objectively? And it's fair if you then ask "what else could it possibly be about?". Well, like I said in Comment #189261, ethics could very well be based on a deviation to the status quo. And I've repeatedly mentioned (e.g. Comment #188426) the status quo isn't necessarily better. But it doesn't matter. How can you "prove" what you consider ethical (e.g. the consent issue) is somehow more valid than the deviation argument? And let us not forget, that the possibility that something in nature could be wrong, does not exclude the fact that it could just as well, be right. It is even arguable that *most* things in nature are right. At best, how gay rights (and consequently bestiliaty) is looked upon by societies, is arbitrary. This includes comparing homosexuality with heterosexuality as if it were exactly the same thing. This is just your limited view of what is considered ethical. Now, if you want to bring science into the picture to support your case, you are also going to open the door to bestiality and I've explained this only too many times.

Again, consistency is not your strength- weren't you the one claiming that rape is not relevant? It's good to see that you are capable of changing your mind. And please point to where I claimed that it unequivocally causes harm.

Now you're just punching in the dark. I used rape as an example with *you* to aid *your* understanding. And if you admit that the "harm" supposedly caused by sex with animals is not unequivocal, how can you so easily dismiss it as impermissible? Who's being inconsistent now?

What a very theistic response. It's up to me to prove to you that my judgement is clear, rather than for you to point out where it isn't. How very stupid

Uh... yeah? Excuse me, Your Honour, how about that little thing called "evidence" before you send me to jail?

There is legitimacy in homosexuality, and it's up to you to show otherwise

Just like there *is* legitimacy in bestiality and it's up to you to show otherwise. This sums up my arguments very nicely, actually. Perfectly, even.

17. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189297 by Appleby on June 6, 2008 at 1:37 am

One of the reasons why many parts of the world reject homosexuality is because it technically opens the door to the acceptance of other things as well (e.g. bestiality, which all of you argue is somehow completely different and unrelated). This is hypocrisy in my book. How you pick up your magical pen and draw the magical line between hetero/homo and bestiality is beyond me. I've presented a spate of cogent arguments, both scientific and ethical, as to why that line is as imaginary as a sky god.

All the insults I've received in this thread (probably more than the number of stars in the Milky Way) clearly demonstrate your lack of objectivity as well.

18. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189280 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 11:58 pm

Comment #189279 by MaxD

I'm talking about ethical arguments here. You guys suddenly decided it wasn't about science, remember? And please, factor in the rest of the world.

19. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189278 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Comment #189273 by Philip1978

Character assassination. How quaint.

20. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189275 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Comment #189271 by Cartomancer

Procreation. It's the one thing in nature that heterosexuality is known for (imagine if we thought it was wrong and outlawed it) that homosexuality and bestiality do not have. On that basis, from an ethical standpoint, is it inconceivable that they be considered aberrations that can be acted against since we are conscious beings who are capable of making that decision?

And, if all this while, you assumed homosexuality or bestiality to be equal to heterosexuality in any and every way, I think you'll see that you're wrong. And procreation, I would say, *does* matter.

21. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189270 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Comment #189268 by MaxD

Since you are talking in terms of aberant you are already working from the naturalistic fallacy anyway. Say heterosexuality were the absolute norm and homosexuals made up one percent of one percent one percent of any human population would that then make their actions, or feelings wrong?

It's not really about the norm. It's about what is "right". Nature might urge us to steal, cheat or rape to get ahead, but being conscious, we choose not to do it. In the same way - and I was just wondering - could homosexuality and bestiality, ethically, be considered "wrongs" to be acted against? You certainly seem to think the latter is wrong. And many parts of the world think both are. To say that heterosexuality is wrong... well, that's just silly for obvious reasons.

22. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189265 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 11:28 pm

Comment #189262 by Bonzai

Homosexuals and bestials are both human, no? Or do you take offense at that too? And if you're going to tell me that heterosexuality should also be considered an aberration in nature, you should have your head examined.

23. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189261 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 11:12 pm

One other thing I'm wondering about is this. If our consciousness gives us the ability to "go against" certain natural tendencies i.e. to do instead what is "right"; can it be argued that homosexuality and bestiality are aberrations in nature that we should use our consciousness to act against? Do (conscious, human) homosexuals and bestials in fact, *have* a choice in the matter?

24. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189252 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 10:42 pm

Comment #189224 by Cartomancer

I shall assume there is an implicit male standpoint in this, i.e. that you are talking about heterosexual intercourse. I would just ask for a clarification here - do you equate homosexual intercourse as equal, ethically, to heterosexual intercourse? If not, why not?

Do you equate bestiality as equal to homosexuality, ethically? If not, why not? Arguments for and against have been presented for hundreds of posts now so I suggest you catch up on them (I suspect you don't) before replying to this.

Oh what a pitiable lack of imagination you have! We could outlaw anything we chose to outlaw. We might not be able to enforce such a decree (we couldn't really enforce anti-homosexual legislation, only make prominent examples) but we could certainly pass one.

We may as well outlaw food, then. Anti-homosexual legislation by the way, can and is, enforced in many parts of the world. And why should this be any different from making "prominent examples"?

Also, being a part of the "status quo" is not a distinctive feature of heterosexuality. Homosexuality is also a part of the "status quo" ("state which is"), and always has been. Male and female animals have been enjoying the sexual company of their own genders since they had genders to enjoy. My sexuality has just as fine a pedigree as yours. What you mean, I think, is that heterosexuality is more prevalent than homosexuality. Which is true. But entirely immaterial to anything we are discussing here.

I think it is relevant. What would you say if inter-species relations are also found to be present in nature? Would you then accept bestiality as equal to homosexuality?

For a start the term "zoophile" is the correct one. "Bestial" is simply an adjective meaning "beastly" or "animal-like". It has no implicit sexual content, and in everyday english has a rather forceful negative implication

And "zoophile" doesn't? I know. I coined the term (as a noun). Refer: Comment #188318 by Appleby

I am of the opinion that most zoosexual acts generally do cause harm to both animal and perpetrator, though as I say there are some which might not (masturbating over squirrels is the one I keep giving). The harm caused is something that can quite easily be ascertained from observation

It nonetheless still needs to be demonstrated (scientifically) before being accepted as unequivocally true. From mere "observation", one might think male homosexuality is harmful (at least to one partner).

Why is copulation with the opposite sex any more legitimate the copulation with the same sex? Why would it have greater legitimacy? If anyone were to use that as an argument they would simply not have an argument, so why do you bring it up at all? Sounds an awful lot like unreconstructed patriarchal assumptions by fiat again.

Well the obvious answer is offspring (pretty Darwinian, if you ask me). I'm also not saying it's necessarily a valid argument; but it's something bestials could use to support their case further. Not that they can have children with animals, but rather that it is something in common they share with heterosexuals that homosexuals don't.

Again, it should be emphasised that zoophilia is not a sexual orientation at all but a very unusual paraphilia

Addressed in: Comment #188909 by Appleby

THE MOST COMMON FORM OF BEHAVIOUR DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY GET A FREE PASS TO UNEXAMINED ASSUMPTIONS OF LEGITIMACY

How would you feel if bestials said that about homosexuality and heterosexuality?

Yours is the uncritical obedience, but it is to medieval western values rather than modern ones, and you are steeped in political incorrectness of the very worst kind which you wear as if it were a virtue.

I'm of the kind who is willing to accept the evidence anywhere it takes me. Even if it means stripping gays of their rights as they once were (not that I want this to happen). Unless you feel that objective evidence *must* agree with your desires or our ethics.

25. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189210 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 8:07 pm

Comment #189081 by Quetzalcoatl

Animals are not capable of giving consent or withholding it. Given that that is the case, as I have said before, it seems to me that it would be reasonable NOT TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM.

This seems to be the accepted ethical point of view. Does that mean it cannot be challenged? How do you think homosexuality was viewed (and still is in many parts of the world) in the past?

Firstly, nobody decided that it was okay to slaughter and hunt animals but only have sex with them unless given consent. That is ridiculous, since, as you say, they are INCAPABLE of giving consent.

This is beginning to make some sense...

Therefore, morals and ethics were used to decide that it was not okay to have sex with them.

But this is where I think it fails. Morals and ethics are relative (at least in some circumstances), aren't they?. This issue about consent and sex (conveniently applied to animals, it would seem) sounds suspiciously rooted in religion, if you'll forgive my saying so. This is why I think it can be challenged. Much like the ethical concept that homosexuality was an abomination.

As for the "harm" point- this is equally absurd. And what do you mean by "scientifically"?

You can't go around claiming sex with animals unequivocally causes harm unless you can prove it (for said animal) using science. Just like a woman who claims she was raped is required to undergo a (scientific, not just ethical) examination to substantiate that claim.

Physical damage is easy enough to see. Is it your position that the sex is acceptable if there is no physical harm? What if (I know you won't like this) that argument were applied to rape- that it was okay provided there was no physical damage?

Because I'm challenging the notion of consent as you understand it. I don't equate sex with animals as equal, ethically, to sex with women.

And what does the fact that there are "many different" breeds of animal have to do with anything? Are you claiming that it is more acceptable to, for instance, have sex with a cow than a cat? Or vice versa? What is your point there?

The point is, even if you can demonstrate that sex with a particular animal or type of animal is harmful, this does not imply that sex with other types of animals is equally harmful or even harmful at all. So "harm" cannot be used as an argument to deny bestials their rights.

An inconsistency that, as I said, you created. Perhaps you could clarify something else- if, as you assert, we do not need consent to have sex with animals, what do we need to decide not to have sex with them?

An inconsistency I'm pointing out, actually. The existing laws against animal cruelty (without the assumption of sex necessarily being harmful), I think, suffice to decide that.

My judgement is clear, thank you. Feel free to try and prove otherwise.

I'd say the onus is on you to first prove it is so. And don't cherry-pick my seemingly negative statements about homosexuality in these thought experiments. Much of it is subject to your false interpretations. I've also said positive things with regard to gays.

And your constant efforts to equate homosexuality with bestiality have proven the accuracy of the idea that you are a bigot quite independently of anyone else's assertions.

And you, sir, are a bigot when it comes to bestials. See how easily this argument can be applied in their favour?

Also, you never clarified this statement of yours:

At least with bestials, the sex is "straight"

I gave an example of yet another argument bestials could use in their favour. Leaving out homo-bestiality for the moment, they might argue they have some legitimacy in at least coupling with the "opposite" sex, unlike homosexuality.

26. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189055 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 9:46 am

I'm quoting my own explanation again for the ignorant. I hope this puts an end to the "consent" argument. I'm really sick of hearing it.

Did we apply morals and ethics when deciding it was okay to slaughter and hunt animals (without their consent) but not to have sex with them unless given consent (which couldn't be obtained in any case)? And "harm" to animals on account of sex is difficult to prove (scientifically), especially given how many kinds of animals there are. This inconsistency leads to the conclusion that the "consent" argument is only valid when applied to humans (whom we don't typically slaughter and hunt).

Comment #189045 by Quetzalcoatl:

Firstly, what's with the quotation marks around women and rape?

In reference to them being topics you are apparently very fond of.

Others have commented that the mentally ill, coma victims, and small children are incapable of giving consent, yet you would not claim that it is acceptable to have sex with them, would you?

Because, you idiot, as mentioned above, the "consent" argument DOES logically apply to humans (this means if they can't give consent then no sex) but NOT animals. We do not need the consent of animals, and ONLY animals, to have sex with them. Is that really so difficult to understand?

In addition, if bestiality has any "implications" for homosexuality (and you have so far provided almost no evidence that it does), then by the same reasoning it would have the same "implications" for heterosexuality, would it not?

Of course. Did you not read this:

Comment #188426 by Appleby

I suppose your judgement is so clouded with the idea that I'm a homophobe, it must have slipped right by you.

ADDED:

The difference is, heterosexuality is the status quo (we can't outlaw it). Refer: Comment #188420

27. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189034 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 8:51 am

Comment #189032 by irate_atheist

Actually, given that you have conceded that animals cannot consent to you raping them, the onus is on you to prove that your activity does not cause unnecessary and undue suffering to the animal.

The one claiming it's "rape" is you. Onus is back on you.

28. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189033 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 8:47 am

Comment #189030 by Quetzalcoatl

It was you who claimed that moral/ethical issues are inappropriate for basing laws upon

Quetz, you cherry-picking bastard. Did you ignore this post?

Comment #188938 by Appleby

It is unreasonable to say that because, in your opinion, ethical issues have not been applied to slaughter and hunting, that they therefore no longer have to be applied to ANY aspect of our treatment of animals

More cherry-picking. The only ethical issue that doesn't apply to ANIMALS with regard to SEX is consent, as logically explained in: Comment #188950. It applies just fine to humans.

By that logic I could claim that, since ethical issues have not always been applied to women, leading them to sometimes be treated as mere breeding machines with no access to education or independent lives, that ethical issues should therefore no longer be taken into consideration on the issue of consent.

Why should ethical bases be appropriate for forbidding rape of a woman if they are not appropriate for forbidding the rape of a cat or a dog or a sheep? Do you therefore condone rape, Appleby? If you don't, what makes it different that you oppose it?

Once again, you are fruitlessly trying to drag me into the deep waters of "women" and "rape" when all we're talking about is the probable legitimacy of bestiality as an acceptable sexual orientation. You don't like the implications that may have on homosexuality because you're steeped in political correctness and mindless obedience to the dictates of modern Western society. Here's some advice: It's okay not to agree with your teacher every once in a while. You might learn something that way.

29. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189026 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 8:20 am

Comment #189023 by Philip1978

I think it is *you* who haven't been reading mine. More likely is that you're reading the comments of your buddies in the thrill of getting egged on.

30. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189022 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 8:11 am

Comment #189021 by Quetzalcoatl

I pointed out that the premise to your question was flawed in:

Comment #188950

So the question fails before it even needs to be answered. Or don't you get that part?

And the onus is on *you* to prove that sex with (insert animal here) is harmful. I don't have to assume it is by default. Especially if the human is female.

31. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189018 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 8:03 am

Comment #189014 by Quetzalcoatl

Didn't you read:

Comment #188955 by Appleby

What have you got to say to that?

32. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189017 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 8:02 am

Comment #189013 by Philip1978

What's the fault in my line of reasoning, Philip?

33. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189011 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 7:58 am

Comment #189008 by Quetzalcoatl

I answered your question and didn't even get a thank you.

34. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189007 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 7:53 am

Comment #189002 by epeeist

I guess we don't have to worry about harming the animal in those cases. ;) It might even enjoy it.

35. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189004 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 7:45 am

Comment #188961 by Corylus

Well sometimes, I think you might choose not to so that your friend isn't embarrassed in front of say someone like me, who you are trying to gang up against.

36. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188958 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 3:21 am

Comment #188957 by Tyler Durden

Your avatar says it all.

37. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188955 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 3:16 am

Comment #188953 by Quetzalcoatl

There is a considerable difference between slaughtering animals for food and having sex with them, and you know it. We have applied ethics to the slaughter of animals, in setting guidelines for how they should be slaughtered so as to attempt to minimise suffering.

Actually, I think slaughtering or hunting an animal to death (without its consent), humane or not, is worse than just having sex with it (which isn't necessarily harmful).

38. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188950 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 3:03 am

Comment #188944 by Quetzalcoatl

sigh. If I was that badly wrong, don't you think someone else would have told me by now?

Actually, no. Most don't bother and a few get some perverse pleasure out of letting you make an even bigger fool of yourself for all to see. As long as they remain silent, they can continue to derive this pleasure with impunity (because they could be wrong about you, after all).

Let me put it another way. In previous comments you have criticised the use of morals and ethics as arguments against bestiality, and emphasised the scientific approach. But why should we not apply moral and ethical reasoning in our treatment of animals if we do with our treatment of humans? Rape is a moral and ethical question.

Did we apply morals and ethics when deciding it was okay to slaughter and hunt animals (without their consent) but not to have sex with them unless given consent (which couldn't be obtained in any case)? And "harm" to animals on account of sex is difficult to prove (scientifically), especially given how many kinds of animals there are. This inconsistency leads to the conclusion that the "consent" argument is only valid when applied to humans (whom we don't typically slaughter and hunt).

39. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188938 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 2:39 am

Comment #188936 by Quetzalcoatl

You know what your problem is, Quetz? You think you've got something there but you don't. You picked up something I said, took it out of context, and then applied it to some other situation we are not even discussing. It is frankly an insult to think that I would assume we can base laws on science *alone*. Of course not. But it is often used to substantiate laws. Just like with gay rights (and their right to adopt, for example). So will you stop harping on about that muddle of a question?

40. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188933 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 2:29 am

Comment #188932 by irate_atheist

Is that really you in the pic?

41. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188931 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 2:28 am

Comment #188928 by mordacious1

It was between her and I. Unless she just chimed in without knowing what the hell was going on.

42. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188914 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 1:59 am

Comment #188898 by Philip1978

It was a joke. You'd have had to have followed the thread from a while ago to understand.

43. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188909 by Appleby on June 5, 2008 at 1:54 am

Comment #188896 by epeeist

1. So what? Naturalistic fallacy, anyone?
2. I'm only talking about bestiality. Associating it with things like pedophilia is uncalled for (and offensive to bestials). Your "evidence brush" is also a little too wide I think, to cover the entire scope of what might constitute paraphilia. At best, more evidence is needed. Maybe even on a case by case basis.
3. This doesn't follow. Because homosexuality has a biological basis? And what if one day science demonstrates that bestiality has a biological basis too?
4. Fine. You're obviously not referring to heterosexual and homosexual animals, I presume. In the case of animals, by some twist of logic, it is apparently okay to slaughter or hunt them without their consent (the reasons we do it are hardly justifications), but not okay to have sex with them without obtaining consent (which couldn't be obtained anyway). And claiming sex harms the animal requires proof (perhaps even on a case by case basis).
5. According to whom? And I resent the implication that human children are somehow equivalent to animals (even on this issue).
6. Sensible enough.
7. Replace "homosexuals" with "bestials".

Your personal dislike of me is irrelvant to the issue. I'm going to ignore it (as usual).

44. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188879 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Comment #188878 by mordacious1

So you are equating bestials to child molestors? Can you justify this (scientifically)?

45. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188875 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Comment #188873 by Frankus1122

I suppose, you would be flabbergasted to learn that some heterosexuals find homosexual acts disgusting. They must be bigots. It's the only explanation because you're heterosexual and you don't. Once again, how do you feel about bestiality, then?

46. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188872 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 9:23 pm

Comment #188866 by mordacious1

Unless you were deciding on their rights.

Comment #188869 by Frankus1122

Why is the only "legitimate" reason for personally disliking something necessarily "harm"? I'm not implying that being "straight" necessarily causes people to dislike homosexual acts (if you assumed this you must think I'm a bigot). I'm saying I think with me, it's what makes homosexual acts appear repulsive. If I didn't find homosexual acts repulsive, I might engage in them from time to time (for the heck of it). But I necessarily don't. I must be crazy according to you.

And "not thinking about bestiality" is no excuse to get around the problem with your argument. I don't often think about homosexual acts either but when the topic comes up, I still find it repulsive.

47. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188865 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Comment #188864 by mordacious1

I wonder if homosexuals would have accepted that reason.

48. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188863 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Comment #188861 by mordacious1

Why are you afraid to deal with the issue of bestiality? No one has successfully demonstrated that they should not also have equal rights as the rest of us.

49. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188860 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Comment #188855 by Frankus1122

So no one is supposed to find anything about anyone else disgusting because there are always some people who don't? And those who do find said things disgusting, must be crazy or bigots? How do you feel about bestials, by the way?

50. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188851 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Comment #188845 by Frankus1122

For starters, you may be born with a forked tongue (literally). I don't have a forked tongue. Because I don't have a forked tongue, I tend to find yours disgusting. Not that I think any less of you because of it.