You use rational thought. You are a peace maker. You don't like conflict. You would be safe to live eternally in Heaven maintaining a peaceful environment. We need humans like you so humans will behold Christ changing others to have Christ in them. Don't worry about the chicken nuggets. All non human animals have an eternal soul. They were given to us in our fallen state of sin to be food for us. One day God will change that. Humans against zoosexuals do not judge themselves being anti Christ.
@Portocala15 Animals can give consent by body language... in the animal kingdom it's a yes if the animal doesn't struggle against having sex... if it's running away that wouldn't be consent^^
And I think a zoophile, loving his animal really cares for what his animal feels and wants it to feel good!
meat eaters are hypocritical in a way because they wont see that killing/slaughtering an animal and eating it is worse than a zoophile having sex with his animal because he really loves it!
@D3lphz omg well said!! & it seems like when the animal is dead people love animals & say "yum i love chicken!!" but when the animals are alive theyre all like "oh stupid ol animals..i wouldnt touch that dirty animal in any way " .. sighh
@azariahsimon Yeah so true... there are even more reasons for humans being hypocritical: If a breeder forces too animals to mate (male animal rapes the female in most cases) it is legal but if you as a human "try" to have consensual sex with an animal it is rape and illegal (I have to say try because you can't prove that an animal gives consent).
On the one hand they shout that animals should be protected from us sick-minded people and on the other they eat slaughtered animals...
@azariahsimon To come again to the argument with the consent:
Sure we can't prove that an animal consents I believe they can and do it!
So I have to admit that we had to prohibit sex with an animal because we can't be sure if it consents and therefore we should protect animals from getting raped...
BUT... What if a man has sex with an animal and both of them enjoy it... is it still rape because the animal can't consent?
I'd say I'm not sure but is there a problem as long as both enjoy it???
@D3lphz That's why I said INFORMED consent. The way you described it, a child can also give consent, but it's not -informed- consent. You need to be aware of all the possible consequences: physical, psychological etc. Children and animals can't possibly be aware of all the consequences to be able to give informed consent.
@Portocala15 I wasn't talking about eating animals in general but things that are produced under use of animals(e.g. things that are tested in animals; some medicine is made out of animals etc.) so I'm pretty sure everyone uses something made out of or under use of animals -.-
Oh and yes I'm aware of that! As long as they have mutual feelings and both are enjoying the relationship(sex included) it's fine by me... but I think you won't find something like this between an adult and a child!!
Thanks for sharing the video, but might I suggest you write out a script or at least a few bullet points to help you keep on topic? It seems as if you are jumping around a lot and it's kind of hard to keep on top of what you are saying. As for bestiality, this was a recent AMA on reddit, which I felt was pretty enlightening. It was a woman that claims to have had up to 50 sexual encounters with various dogs. If you have any questions about this subject I suggest you check it out.
As for the difference between eating animals and having sexual intercourse with them, I see one pretty difference -- species! Eating a member of the same species is called cannibalism, and it's generally frowned upon in most modern-day cultures. The biggest problem with cannibalism is where are you getting the meat? If you murder someone for it then you are committing a crime, not to mention a moral infraction.
However, if you eating dead bodies then you run the major heath risks depending if the person died of a disease, as well as spreading human-human pathogens, in addition to prions. The reason I mention cannibalism is because our only two choices for meat if from our own species or from other species. Eating freshly killed meat has much grater advantages than the alternative (eating dead humans), therefore upon moral, ethical, and medical grounds we eat freshly killed animals.
Although we engage in eating across species, we do not have sex outside the species because, from an evolutionary point-of-view, there is no potential to reproduce. Furthermore, you cannot communicate with animals to obtain their consent. Therefore, there is great potential for abuse, just like with children. We have laws about the age of consent because children do not fully understand what sex means and adults can abuse children without these laws in place.
Of course, animals do not give their consent to be killed and eaten. But in my mind there is a big difference between cutting off a chicken's head so you can eat it verses raping and torturing a dog. Animals should be killed with minimal suffering. Raping an animal can cause severe psychological damage and is tantamount to animal cruelty.
@DiscoveringReligion hi thanks for stopping by & responding. This topic has been bugging me & i wanted to get opinions from other people about... Also btw i usually make unscripted videos because my imac doesnt have final cut but, i think theres some other editing software on my mac. Other than that its alot quicker to do a direct webcam upload but thanks for the advice/comments
@DiscoveringReligion your comment about sex not being tantamount to reproduction is the argument that many people have made to try to say that there is no genetic component to homosexuality.
Yes, I could have been more clear on that point, but i didn't want to get into the homosexual argument. There are evolutionary advantages to being gay. Not to mention, it's a natural phenomenon that we can track and explain through human physiology. However, what is the evolutionary advantage to having sex with a species that is not your own? Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that occurs due to a hormonal imbalance in utero. Can the same be said for bestiality?
"from an evolutionary point-of-view, there is no potential to reproduce"←Same goes for homosexuality.
"Furthermore, you cannot communicate with animals to obtain their consent."←I don't have problems communicating with my dog to get his consent to have sex.
"Therefore, there is great potential for abuse, just like with children."←Same can be said for animal ownership.
Not all bestiality is abusive, just like not all sex between humans is abusive.
Homosexuality has evolutionary advantages, plus it's a natural phenomenon. What is the evolutionary advantage of bestiality? I understand consent can be given between humans and animals for sex. However, as a human you are in a position of power and control over the animal. I feel it would be an abuse of this power to have sex with a dog that you "own". Just as it's an abuse of power to have sex with a child, even though they might be consenting as well. It's unethical.
I've read up on bestiality and it appears animals are often "groomed" for sex. One article claims if you touch a puppy's genitals early on, it becomes used to it and is more receptive to sex as an adult. This is very similar to "grooming" a child for sex. Pedophiles show children porn and get them comfortable with the idea of sex before engaging in the act. Although the child gives consent and might even appear to like what they are doing, the consent it not legitimate.
In both cases you are training the dog and the child for sex. Mind you, I am not passing moral judgement. I really do not care if people and animals have sex, even though I do not agree with the practice. However, upon ethical grounds I see bestiality as a form of abuse. That's just my opinion.
"Homosexuality has evolutionary advantages, plus it's a natural phenomenon." *Facepalm*
Zoosexuality is a natural phenomenon and I don't know what advantages it has, but hundred of species have sex with the wrong species, so there must be some advantage of it would not be happening.
"This is very similar to "grooming" a child for sex."←It is grooming, it is recommended to anyone owning dogs to desensitize them from being touches in any body part.
For example, imagine a puppy that was raised and petted in every part but the tail, then comes a child and grab the adult dog tail, dog snap at him and rip off the child face, that would have been avoided if the puppy had been touched in the tail to groom him to be tame. Google this words: "puppy" "handling" "exercises" they recommend toughing puppy in ALL parts to prevent irrational burst of anger from an adult dog.
Believe it or not, veterinarians do have to check dog genitals, is part of their job and people should take their dogs to vets check many times and at least 2 times per years with adult dogs and more times with senior dogs. So yes, touching your puppy genitals in a non-sexual way is good, not only for zoosexuals, but also for other reasons.
•Also, very important, even if a dog has been desensitized to be touched in their genitals...
...that dog will not allow anything that causes him/her pain and will show disapproval, even after she/he was desensitized to be handled in those areas. If a zoo does something to a dog genitals and the dog shows signs of discomfort/pain, the ZOO must STOP to respect the dog consent and avoid harming the animal mentally or physically.
So there goes you "is like grooming children" argument. It may be the same, but there is nothing wrong with it.
"What is the evolutionary advantage of bestiality?"←Why don't you tell me first what are the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality?
"I feel it would be an abuse of this power to have sex with a dog that you "own"."←Do not let your stupid feelings do the thinking. It doesn't matter how much power a person has, what matter is if the person abuses that power. If the person abuses the power than that is wrong, that would be rape. For example...
...Imagine a big muscular guy with a weight of 300 pound, the guy has an IQ of 200 and is a multimillionaire and president of a country. He starts dates and fucks a 100 pound girl who is poor and has an IQ of 90, is that wrong? That guy couldn't have any more power over the girl, if the guy isn't using all his power to rape that girl, then what is the iffing problem?
Having power is not illegal, misusing that power is illegal, nothing wrong with,
...nothing wrong with a teaching having a consensual relationship with hi/her student. Or a boss having a consensual relationship with hi/her secretary. Or Obama & his consensual relationship with his wife. Or even a mom having a consensual relationship with his 18+ year old son. It doesn't matter how much power the other person has, as long as the person is not abusing his power and everything is consensual, there is nothing wrong with it.
By the way, stop comparing adult animals with children, sex with children is always harmful, sex with ADULT animals is not always harmful.
You are comparing red apples with red rocks. (ಠ_ಠ)
If children where like animals, your arguments would hold water, but they are not, children have more rights than aniamls and we don't treat children like animals. Try comparing adult aniamls with adult human relationship, now that is a valid comparison.
"In both cases you are training the dog and the child for sex."←Desensitization is not training. Dog can be desensitize to allow people grab his genitals, but that does not mean he will consent to things he/she dislikes, or that he/she will find humans attractive as a sex partner. Desensitization removes illogical fears, so the animal can make a logical choice on what he feels.
"I see bestiality as a form of abuse"←I see the moon as a big cheese.
There is plenty evidence that not all bestiality is abuse, if you see all bestiality as a abuse, you are an idiot.
"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that occurs due to a hormonal imbalance in utero. Can the same be said for bestiality?"←Lack of evidence is NOT evidence that you are right. Also, not all poeple become homosexuals for hormonal imbalances. Environmental and genetic factors also play a role, same goes for zoosexuality.
What's with the name calling? Are your arguments so flimsy that you must resort to cheap shots at someone's intellect in order to get your point across? More than twice you have referred to me as stupid or an idiot. If you continue to do so I will no longer respond. I couldn't care less what you think of my intelligence, so gather what little maturity to have and respond to me like an adult.
There is a big difference between getting your dog used to being touched all over his body, verses grooming him for SEX. What I am specifically talking about it touching a dog in such a way as to get it sexually aroused and then encouraging the dog to penetrate you. I see no difference between this and showing a child pornography or touching a child's genitals with the aim of getting them sexually aroused and willing to explore their sexuality with you.
Children are sexually curious from a very young age. Touching a child's genitals will make them feel good, and with the proper "grooming" an adult can take advantage of this curiosity. I imagine sexually touching a puppy's genitals would elicit a similar response. Sex feel good to every animal, humans included. Therefore, sexually grooming a dog from an early age is essentially training it to have sex. It is not giving true consent, it is just doing what it's trained to do.
As for the evolutionary advantages of homosexuality: I don't have the time or space to adequately explain all the science behind it, but briefly, researchers have found there is a greater chance of homosexuality occurring in children born to elderly fathers or to fathers that have produced many other sons. Medical science is not exactly sure how this occurs, but from an evolutionary perspective there are theories to explain why it occurs.
The reason is because as a male primate get older he is more likely to have fathered many children. As the family/clan grows, more resources are needed to help with the elder male and female siblings that have already reached reproductive age within the group and are starting to have offspring of their own. Therefore, as a built-in fail-safe, children that are born to the elderly father are more likely to be gay.
This works on two levels. First it helps keep down the population. As the clan gets larger and larger the demands of the clan will often exceed that of the resources. Therefore, if the patriarch is still reproducing into his later years, in addition to all of his children that are reproducing as well, it makes sense for the last few offspring produced in the patriarch's lifetime to be homosexual, thus limiting the exponential growth of the group.
Second, homosexual males exhibit female tendencies, which can be beneficial to the overall survival of the group. A homosexual male is more likely to stay with the group instead of going off and starting a family of his own. Therefore, he will help tend to the children, provide protection to the group, and so on, without risk of him producing children of his own and putting greater strain on the already limited resources.
This is a biologically and evolutionary sound theory as to why homosexuality occurs. However, inter-species sex is pointless and has no evolutionary advantage. Animals are slaves to their hormones, much like we are, but they will literally hump anything that movies, and things that do not move too! We have all seen a dog humping a stuffed animal or a sofa cushion. There is no chance of reproduction, the dog is just indiscriminately humping the nearest objected it can find.
I have seen pictures of dogs humping a goose, or some other random animal, but how does that give you right to sexually train animals to have sex with you? These animals are just following their hormones and mindlessly humping whatever they can find. You're actions on the other hand are very premeditated and you are going to great lengths to groom and train animals for sex. But I'd love to see how you justify an evolutionary advantage from inter-species sex.
"I have seen pictures of dogs humping a goose, or some other random animal, how does that give you right to sexually train animals to have sex with you?"←First, that has nothing to do with zoos having the "right" to sexually train animals.
Second, not all animals need to be trained, some will have sex with you out of their free will.
Third, nothing wrong with sexually training animals as long as they consent to be trained and they are unharmed.
"These animals are just following their hormones and mindlessly humping whatever they can find."←Yes, so? They do that when they have sex with their species, so why would it be wrong if they want to do the same with a different species?
"You're actions on the other hand are very premeditated and you are going to great lengths to groom and train animals for sex."←Never trained any dogs for sex. And the same grooming is done by non-zoos. get it?
"inter-species sex is pointless"←In mammals it gives sexual pleasure (a fun activity that relaxes the animal and makes him happy which also makes him healthier) also, some mammals, insects, plants, fish, bacterias, viruses, etc, can have sex with other species to hybridize and create whole new species. Inter-species sex is common in bugs, plants, bacterias, etc. Not so common in bigger creature. How about that for an evolutionary advantage?
"but they will literally hump anything that moves"←Not true, like I have said before, not every animal is attracted to humans, which is why some people will train those animals to have sex with humans, even so, the animal will not always consent to be trained, some animals just don't want sex with humans.
If dogs where like you say (hump anything) I would have had sex with 100 dogs instead of only 25 in my 19 years of being active.
"There is no chance of reproduction, the dog is just indiscriminately humping the nearest objected it can find."←Same for masturbation and homosexual sex, so what is your point with that?
"Second, homosexual males exhibit female tendencies"←That happens only in transsexuals (or effeminate homosexuals)
"putting greater strain on the already limited resources."←If any, the more babies the better, more resources can be collected with more hands.
"As the clan gets larger and larger the demands of the clan will often exceed that of the resources"←False, even with the current world population, we have enough resources for everybody. And homosexuals exist in small population or big population. This has nothing to do with evolution, is just a coincidence that homosexuality will be beneficial in this cases.
You reason of homosexuality be an evolutionary benefit are a joke.
Did you know that there is a gay gene that makes humans be attracted to males?
When females have this gene, they are very fertile, they will seek sex and have many babies. Those babies will be born with the same gene, females will have many babies and males will have 0 babies. The gay gene increases fertility, is beneficial for female humans at the cost of male humans not reproducing. There are studies about that.
Google "'Gay gene' could make women more fertile" ←Now that is a real evolutionary advantage.
"children that are born to the elderly father are more likely to be gay."←I want to see that study, what is the source?
PS: I can say the same thing, babies born from the "elderly" are more likely to be come zoosexuals, and help to raise the other poeple children and collect resources. If you think that is an advantage for homos, then is also for zoos.
"What's with the name calling?"←I said quote: "if you see all bestiality as a abuse, you are an idiot."←Why? Because there is plenty evidence bestiality is not always animal abuse, if you believe is always abuse, then you are believing something that is false, you would be going against evidence, that would make you an idiot.
I didn't call you an idiot, I said "IF you believe that" if you don't believe that, then I'm not calling you an idiot.
"What's with the name calling?"←I said quote: "Do not let your stupid feelings do the thinking"←I'm not insulting you (unless you are an emotion) I'm insulting human emotions (yours or my emotions) which are stupid when it comes to debating.
So, I didn't insult you, but it seems you are too emotional and you felt insulted just because I used some "bad words" so, like I said before, leave emotions out, no need to feel insulted for no reason.
"There is a big difference between getting your dog used to being touched all over his body, verses grooming him for SEX."←No difference, the quote you mention was about "puppy handling exercises" and you call that "sexual grooming" yes, we recommend zoos to get their dogs used to be touched anywhere, but that is the same recommendation given to any non-zoo by dog trainers or veterinarians. We recommend zoos to do puppy handling exercises.
"What I'm specifically talking about it touching a dog to get it sexually aroused and then encouraging the dog to penetrate you."←That is not "puppy handling exercises" we don't recommend people doing that with puppies. If you talking about that, we only do that with adult animals. And there is nothing wrong with that, a bitch or a human will "touch" a male dog to sexually arouse him to encouraging the dog to penetrate. Are you against that?
"I see no difference between this and showing a child pornography or touching a child's genitals with the aim of getting them sexually aroused and willing to explore their sexuality with you."←We don't have sex with puppies or children, only with adult animals. The thing you mention about zoos telling other zoos to touch a puppy genitals is called "handling exercises" it is a NON-SEXUAL desensitization training, that is also done by NON-ZOOS.
I repeat, we don't fuck immature animals, only zoopedophiles would do that.
We don't encourage puppies to have sex because they are not sexual yet and they are too young to properly consent to have sex. Zoos and NON-zoos encourage "handling exercises" because vets or zoos may want to handle the dog genitals when he becomes an ADULT. You wrongly think that "handling exercises" is a zoo practice, when non-zoos do the exact same thing. (face palm)
"Therefore, sexually grooming a dog from an early age is essentially training it to have sex"←Wrong, like I said before, just because a dog is desensitized to be touched in his genitals, it does not mean that the dog will be sexually attracted to humans. I know male dogs that don't mind to be touched, but will not get aroused if I masturbate them. They are not attracted to humans sexually. I know zoos that did " puppy handling exercises" and...
I know zoos that did "puppy handling exercises" and their adult dogs do not want to have sex with them. They will not allow penetration or will not penetrate. I also did those exercises and my k9 boyfriend do not like some sexual activities.
Puppy handling exercises only ensures that the dog will not have a fear as an adult to be touched in some areas, that is all it does. It doesn't ensures you that the dog will like to have sex with humans.
"Therefore, sexually grooming a dog from an early age is essentially training it to have sex."←Wrong again, I have had sex with dogs that never got those exercises. Even dogs that have an irrational fear of being touched in their genital can be desensitized as adult dogs. Puppy handling exercises is a nice thing to do for any dog owner, but it is not essential for zoos or non-zoos to do those exercises on their puppies.
"It is not giving true consent, it is just doing what it's trained to do."←Half wrong in this one, to train a dog you need the dog consent, you can't train a dog to do something that he/she doesn't want to do. Even after a dog has been trained to do something, the dog has free will to do the "trick" if the dog feels like doing it. My k9 boyfriend knows many non-sexual tricks and he only do them if he is in the mood for doing them (consent)
"It is not giving true consent, it is just doing what it's trained to do."←Also, desensitization and handling exercises, are not technically training, and do not violate the animal consent, the animal can still chose who they allow to pet them (with a clear mind) Those exercises are used to remove irrational fears, so the animal can behave and think in a normal way. A desensitized dog can give consent in a normal way, without irrational fears.
"It is not giving true consent, it is just doing what it's trained to do."←Also, nothing wrong with a dog (or any animal) who was trained to do sex tricks that are harmless. Even if you call that not true consent, who cares, humans can train their dogs to do any ticks they want, it is legal to do so.
I personally don't find it moral to train a dog for sex and so I never trained any of my dogs for sex. But I will not stop people from doing it.
LOL Why are you so hostile? You said, "I didn't call you an idiot, I said 'IF you believe that' if you don't believe that, then I'm not calling you an idiot." In other words I am not allowed to disagree with your opinion, but if I do, then I am an idiot. So you are only indirectly calling me a name, that's MUCH better. You also called my explanations for homosexuality a "joke". I'm not emotional, I just take offence to being called names indirectly or otherwise. It's rude.
There is no need to call names, you are more than capable of presenting a cohesive argument without it. In fact, that is just what you did. You made a convincing argument that demonstrated animals can give consent for sex and humans do not force animals to have sex against their will. I retract my previous objects on that point.
It appears you either failed to understand the mechanism I have presented or you do not understand evolution. You said, "False, even with the current world population, we have enough resources for everybody." But that's not what we are talking about. 300,000 years ago humans had to survive as hunter-gatherers. Therefore, the "resources" in question are plants that can be gathered and animals that can be hunted. We are not talking about farms and processing centers.
As tribes of hunter-gatherers used up the resources in one area, they were forced to move on other regions. It appears you are taking what I said in the context of fully evolved Homo sapiens living in the 21st Century, LOL. When I say "evolutionary advantage" I am referencing populations of humans and sub-humans that existed many hundreds of thousands and even millions of years ago.
Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence of a gay gene. Yes, researchers are making strides in that direction, but there is no study that conclusively demonstrates homosexuality is genetically inherited. I am not say that couldn't be true, but they just haven't found it yet. Regardless, there is solid scientific data that shows homosexuality is the result of hormonal imbalances in vitro.
I've actually studied homosexuality in medical school, in addition to Dr. Marc Breedlove's research on hormonal involvement in developing sexual orientation. Breedlove was featured in a piece by "60 Minutes", which you can view here:
watch?v=IoZoRbP-0WM
In closing, you made a very good argument for bestiality and I accept your premises. Although I do not personally agree with the act, I do not pass moral judgement on you. I just ask next time you watch the name calling.
"When I say "evolutionary advantage" I am referencing populations of humans and sub-humans that existed many hundreds of thousands and even millions of years ago."←Can I see your evidence that this is the reason why homosexuality exist? If not, you are only telling me a theory, that sound plausible but that could be false. The "gay gene makes females fertile" has been proven with studies, can you say the same of your theory?
"there is no conclusive evidence of a gay gene."←There is evidence, they tested the hypothesis in families with gay genes, all the females in the family tree where statistically more fertile than family trees of people that don't carry the gay genes. Gay gene makes females more fertile, this cause the gay gene to survive, which explains why homosexuals exist even that they don't reproduce.
"Regardless, there is solid scientific data that shows homosexuality is the result of hormonal imbalances in vitro. "←I do not denied that is true. What I denied is your correlation between hormonal changes making you "gay" in the whom and being born in a tribe 50, 000 years ago.
We know that gay gene makes females fertile and so the gay gene keep existing.
But why hormonal chances makes people "gay" and how that keeps passed by evolution?
"In other words I am not allowed to disagree with your opinion, but if I do, then I am an idiot."←I can show you evidence that bestiality is not always abuse.You can disagree with evidence if you want (feel free to do so) but that would make you an idiot.
For example, If some one thinks that water is made of angel tears even after showing evidence that is made of H2O, don't you agree that person is being an idiot by ignoring evidence?
"You called my explanations for homosexuality a "joke"←That explanation of yours is not a "Evolutionary advantage" it is only a side effect of being homosexual, it doesn't explains why homosexuality exists or why it gets passed on the genes even that homosexuals do not produce (doesn't explain why 10% of the human population is constantly homosexual)
My explanation of the gay gene making female humans more fertile is a evolutionary advantage.
The incidence of homosexuality in evolving populations of early hominids ensured greater group stability, allowing the elderly male patriarch to mate later and later in life, thus increasingly reinforcing the stability of the group. Therefore, the later in life the patriarch reproduced, the more homosexual offspring he would have, leading to greater group stability and thus conveying a greater evolutionary advantage. If you do not agree with me then you are an idiot.
This has been flagged as spam show
You use rational thought. You are a peace maker. You don't like conflict. You would be safe to live eternally in Heaven maintaining a peaceful environment. We need humans like you so humans will behold Christ changing others to have Christ in them. Don't worry about the chicken nuggets. All non human animals have an eternal soul. They were given to us in our fallen state of sin to be food for us. One day God will change that. Humans against zoosexuals do not judge themselves being anti Christ.
kobidobidog 1 month ago
Comment removed
kobidobidog 1 month ago
Informed consent is the key here. Animals can't give that. =/ Homosexuality, incest, group sex etc. are ok since people can give consent.
But yes, meat eaters are hypocritical...
Portocala15 2 months ago
@Portocala15 well said!! & i wish people wouldnt be so ignorant (:-/
azariahsimon 2 months ago
@Portocala15 Animals can give consent by body language... in the animal kingdom it's a yes if the animal doesn't struggle against having sex... if it's running away that wouldn't be consent^^
And I think a zoophile, loving his animal really cares for what his animal feels and wants it to feel good!
meat eaters are hypocritical in a way because they wont see that killing/slaughtering an animal and eating it is worse than a zoophile having sex with his animal because he really loves it!
D3lphz 1 month ago
@D3lphz omg well said!! & it seems like when the animal is dead people love animals & say "yum i love chicken!!" but when the animals are alive theyre all like "oh stupid ol animals..i wouldnt touch that dirty animal in any way " .. sighh
azariahsimon 1 month ago
@azariahsimon Yeah so true... there are even more reasons for humans being hypocritical: If a breeder forces too animals to mate (male animal rapes the female in most cases) it is legal but if you as a human "try" to have consensual sex with an animal it is rape and illegal (I have to say try because you can't prove that an animal gives consent).
On the one hand they shout that animals should be protected from us sick-minded people and on the other they eat slaughtered animals...
D3lphz 1 month ago
@azariahsimon To come again to the argument with the consent:
Sure we can't prove that an animal consents I believe they can and do it!
So I have to admit that we had to prohibit sex with an animal because we can't be sure if it consents and therefore we should protect animals from getting raped...
BUT... What if a man has sex with an animal and both of them enjoy it... is it still rape because the animal can't consent?
I'd say I'm not sure but is there a problem as long as both enjoy it???
D3lphz 1 month ago
@D3lphz That's why I said INFORMED consent. The way you described it, a child can also give consent, but it's not -informed- consent. You need to be aware of all the possible consequences: physical, psychological etc. Children and animals can't possibly be aware of all the consequences to be able to give informed consent.
Portocala15 3 weeks ago
@Portocala15 So what? What is the problem with consent anyway... if both parties enjoy it where is the f*cking problem?
D3lphz 3 weeks ago
@D3lphz You seriously did not just say that... *facepalm*
Portocala15 3 weeks ago
@Portocala15 I did... where's the damn problem???
What consequences are there? None!
D3lphz 3 weeks ago
@D3lphz I can't believe I'm answering this, but...
STDs, STIs and oh, that little thing called PREGNANCY (in the case of children).
Portocala15 3 weeks ago
@Portocala15 STD's? Nope if the human cares a little bit there shouldn't be any...
Hmm pregnany also not when the human cares (well no need to care with animals =P)
So there are no real consequences...
Do you consume anything made with use of an animal? Yes you do so you're not in a position to tell me that it's wrong having sex with an animal!
D3lphz 3 weeks ago
@D3lphz ...
FYI, I am trying to become a vegetarian. Unfortunately, it's incredibly expensive in my stupid country, but I do try to eat as less meat as possible.
And you do know you're condoning paedophilia, right?
Portocala15 3 weeks ago
@Portocala15 I wasn't talking about eating animals in general but things that are produced under use of animals(e.g. things that are tested in animals; some medicine is made out of animals etc.) so I'm pretty sure everyone uses something made out of or under use of animals -.-
Oh and yes I'm aware of that! As long as they have mutual feelings and both are enjoying the relationship(sex included) it's fine by me... but I think you won't find something like this between an adult and a child!!
D3lphz 3 weeks ago
WHOOOOO ANIMAL PORN!!!!! XD JK
p.s. homosexuals are people too and it is proven that gay marriages last longer than heterosexual marriages. good video btw azi, ignore 'haters'
austinwashere0816 3 months ago
@austinwashere0816 thanks (:-)
azariahsimon 3 months ago
@azariahsimon
You need to do a lot of research before doing a rant.
Let me tell you some definitions:
1-Zoosexual: Some one who is attracted emotionally to non-humans.
2-Bestialists: Some one who use animals as objects for self masturbation.
3-Bestiality: Sex with animals.
4-Zoophilia: Paraphilia where people wants to engage in sex or emotional relationship with non-humans.
5-Zoophilic disorder: A zoophile who is under distress, impairment or harms humans or aniamls because of his paraphilia.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
Thanks for sharing the video, but might I suggest you write out a script or at least a few bullet points to help you keep on topic? It seems as if you are jumping around a lot and it's kind of hard to keep on top of what you are saying. As for bestiality, this was a recent AMA on reddit, which I felt was pretty enlightening. It was a woman that claims to have had up to 50 sexual encounters with various dogs. If you have any questions about this subject I suggest you check it out.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
As for the difference between eating animals and having sexual intercourse with them, I see one pretty difference -- species! Eating a member of the same species is called cannibalism, and it's generally frowned upon in most modern-day cultures. The biggest problem with cannibalism is where are you getting the meat? If you murder someone for it then you are committing a crime, not to mention a moral infraction.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
However, if you eating dead bodies then you run the major heath risks depending if the person died of a disease, as well as spreading human-human pathogens, in addition to prions. The reason I mention cannibalism is because our only two choices for meat if from our own species or from other species. Eating freshly killed meat has much grater advantages than the alternative (eating dead humans), therefore upon moral, ethical, and medical grounds we eat freshly killed animals.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
Although we engage in eating across species, we do not have sex outside the species because, from an evolutionary point-of-view, there is no potential to reproduce. Furthermore, you cannot communicate with animals to obtain their consent. Therefore, there is great potential for abuse, just like with children. We have laws about the age of consent because children do not fully understand what sex means and adults can abuse children without these laws in place.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
Of course, animals do not give their consent to be killed and eaten. But in my mind there is a big difference between cutting off a chicken's head so you can eat it verses raping and torturing a dog. Animals should be killed with minimal suffering. Raping an animal can cause severe psychological damage and is tantamount to animal cruelty.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion hi thanks for stopping by & responding. This topic has been bugging me & i wanted to get opinions from other people about... Also btw i usually make unscripted videos because my imac doesnt have final cut but, i think theres some other editing software on my mac. Other than that its alot quicker to do a direct webcam upload but thanks for the advice/comments
azariahsimon 3 months ago
Comment removed
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion your comment about sex not being tantamount to reproduction is the argument that many people have made to try to say that there is no genetic component to homosexuality.
Rhythmicons 3 months ago
@Rhythmicons
Yes, I could have been more clear on that point, but i didn't want to get into the homosexual argument. There are evolutionary advantages to being gay. Not to mention, it's a natural phenomenon that we can track and explain through human physiology. However, what is the evolutionary advantage to having sex with a species that is not your own? Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that occurs due to a hormonal imbalance in utero. Can the same be said for bestiality?
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
"from an evolutionary point-of-view, there is no potential to reproduce"←Same goes for homosexuality.
"Furthermore, you cannot communicate with animals to obtain their consent."←I don't have problems communicating with my dog to get his consent to have sex.
"Therefore, there is great potential for abuse, just like with children."←Same can be said for animal ownership.
Not all bestiality is abusive, just like not all sex between humans is abusive.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo
Homosexuality has evolutionary advantages, plus it's a natural phenomenon. What is the evolutionary advantage of bestiality? I understand consent can be given between humans and animals for sex. However, as a human you are in a position of power and control over the animal. I feel it would be an abuse of this power to have sex with a dog that you "own". Just as it's an abuse of power to have sex with a child, even though they might be consenting as well. It's unethical.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
I've read up on bestiality and it appears animals are often "groomed" for sex. One article claims if you touch a puppy's genitals early on, it becomes used to it and is more receptive to sex as an adult. This is very similar to "grooming" a child for sex. Pedophiles show children porn and get them comfortable with the idea of sex before engaging in the act. Although the child gives consent and might even appear to like what they are doing, the consent it not legitimate.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
In both cases you are training the dog and the child for sex. Mind you, I am not passing moral judgement. I really do not care if people and animals have sex, even though I do not agree with the practice. However, upon ethical grounds I see bestiality as a form of abuse. That's just my opinion.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
►Part 1
@DiscoveringReligion
"Homosexuality has evolutionary advantages, plus it's a natural phenomenon." *Facepalm*
Zoosexuality is a natural phenomenon and I don't know what advantages it has, but hundred of species have sex with the wrong species, so there must be some advantage of it would not be happening.
"This is very similar to "grooming" a child for sex."←It is grooming, it is recommended to anyone owning dogs to desensitize them from being touches in any body part.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 2
@DiscoveringReligion
For example, imagine a puppy that was raised and petted in every part but the tail, then comes a child and grab the adult dog tail, dog snap at him and rip off the child face, that would have been avoided if the puppy had been touched in the tail to groom him to be tame. Google this words: "puppy" "handling" "exercises" they recommend toughing puppy in ALL parts to prevent irrational burst of anger from an adult dog.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 3
@DiscoveringReligion
Believe it or not, veterinarians do have to check dog genitals, is part of their job and people should take their dogs to vets check many times and at least 2 times per years with adult dogs and more times with senior dogs. So yes, touching your puppy genitals in a non-sexual way is good, not only for zoosexuals, but also for other reasons.
•Also, very important, even if a dog has been desensitized to be touched in their genitals...
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 4
@DiscoveringReligion
...that dog will not allow anything that causes him/her pain and will show disapproval, even after she/he was desensitized to be handled in those areas. If a zoo does something to a dog genitals and the dog shows signs of discomfort/pain, the ZOO must STOP to respect the dog consent and avoid harming the animal mentally or physically.
So there goes you "is like grooming children" argument. It may be the same, but there is nothing wrong with it.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 5
@DiscoveringReligion
"What is the evolutionary advantage of bestiality?"←Why don't you tell me first what are the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality?
"I feel it would be an abuse of this power to have sex with a dog that you "own"."←Do not let your stupid feelings do the thinking. It doesn't matter how much power a person has, what matter is if the person abuses that power. If the person abuses the power than that is wrong, that would be rape. For example...
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 6
@DiscoveringReligion
...Imagine a big muscular guy with a weight of 300 pound, the guy has an IQ of 200 and is a multimillionaire and president of a country. He starts dates and fucks a 100 pound girl who is poor and has an IQ of 90, is that wrong? That guy couldn't have any more power over the girl, if the guy isn't using all his power to rape that girl, then what is the iffing problem?
Having power is not illegal, misusing that power is illegal, nothing wrong with,
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 7
@DiscoveringReligion
...nothing wrong with a teaching having a consensual relationship with hi/her student. Or a boss having a consensual relationship with hi/her secretary. Or Obama & his consensual relationship with his wife. Or even a mom having a consensual relationship with his 18+ year old son. It doesn't matter how much power the other person has, as long as the person is not abusing his power and everything is consensual, there is nothing wrong with it.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 8
@DiscoveringReligion
By the way, stop comparing adult animals with children, sex with children is always harmful, sex with ADULT animals is not always harmful.
You are comparing red apples with red rocks. (ಠ_ಠ)
If children where like animals, your arguments would hold water, but they are not, children have more rights than aniamls and we don't treat children like animals. Try comparing adult aniamls with adult human relationship, now that is a valid comparison.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 9
@DiscoveringReligion
"In both cases you are training the dog and the child for sex."←Desensitization is not training. Dog can be desensitize to allow people grab his genitals, but that does not mean he will consent to things he/she dislikes, or that he/she will find humans attractive as a sex partner. Desensitization removes illogical fears, so the animal can make a logical choice on what he feels.
"I see bestiality as a form of abuse"←I see the moon as a big cheese.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 10
@DiscoveringReligion
There is plenty evidence that not all bestiality is abuse, if you see all bestiality as a abuse, you are an idiot.
"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that occurs due to a hormonal imbalance in utero. Can the same be said for bestiality?"←Lack of evidence is NOT evidence that you are right. Also, not all poeple become homosexuals for hormonal imbalances. Environmental and genetic factors also play a role, same goes for zoosexuality.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo
What's with the name calling? Are your arguments so flimsy that you must resort to cheap shots at someone's intellect in order to get your point across? More than twice you have referred to me as stupid or an idiot. If you continue to do so I will no longer respond. I couldn't care less what you think of my intelligence, so gather what little maturity to have and respond to me like an adult.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
There is a big difference between getting your dog used to being touched all over his body, verses grooming him for SEX. What I am specifically talking about it touching a dog in such a way as to get it sexually aroused and then encouraging the dog to penetrate you. I see no difference between this and showing a child pornography or touching a child's genitals with the aim of getting them sexually aroused and willing to explore their sexuality with you.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
Comment removed
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
Children are sexually curious from a very young age. Touching a child's genitals will make them feel good, and with the proper "grooming" an adult can take advantage of this curiosity. I imagine sexually touching a puppy's genitals would elicit a similar response. Sex feel good to every animal, humans included. Therefore, sexually grooming a dog from an early age is essentially training it to have sex. It is not giving true consent, it is just doing what it's trained to do.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DiscoveringReligion
As for the evolutionary advantages of homosexuality: I don't have the time or space to adequately explain all the science behind it, but briefly, researchers have found there is a greater chance of homosexuality occurring in children born to elderly fathers or to fathers that have produced many other sons. Medical science is not exactly sure how this occurs, but from an evolutionary perspective there are theories to explain why it occurs.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
The reason is because as a male primate get older he is more likely to have fathered many children. As the family/clan grows, more resources are needed to help with the elder male and female siblings that have already reached reproductive age within the group and are starting to have offspring of their own. Therefore, as a built-in fail-safe, children that are born to the elderly father are more likely to be gay.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
This works on two levels. First it helps keep down the population. As the clan gets larger and larger the demands of the clan will often exceed that of the resources. Therefore, if the patriarch is still reproducing into his later years, in addition to all of his children that are reproducing as well, it makes sense for the last few offspring produced in the patriarch's lifetime to be homosexual, thus limiting the exponential growth of the group.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
Second, homosexual males exhibit female tendencies, which can be beneficial to the overall survival of the group. A homosexual male is more likely to stay with the group instead of going off and starting a family of his own. Therefore, he will help tend to the children, provide protection to the group, and so on, without risk of him producing children of his own and putting greater strain on the already limited resources.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
This is a biologically and evolutionary sound theory as to why homosexuality occurs. However, inter-species sex is pointless and has no evolutionary advantage. Animals are slaves to their hormones, much like we are, but they will literally hump anything that movies, and things that do not move too! We have all seen a dog humping a stuffed animal or a sofa cushion. There is no chance of reproduction, the dog is just indiscriminately humping the nearest objected it can find.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
I have seen pictures of dogs humping a goose, or some other random animal, but how does that give you right to sexually train animals to have sex with you? These animals are just following their hormones and mindlessly humping whatever they can find. You're actions on the other hand are very premeditated and you are going to great lengths to groom and train animals for sex. But I'd love to see how you justify an evolutionary advantage from inter-species sex.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
►Part 23
@DiscoveringReligion
"I have seen pictures of dogs humping a goose, or some other random animal, how does that give you right to sexually train animals to have sex with you?"←First, that has nothing to do with zoos having the "right" to sexually train animals.
Second, not all animals need to be trained, some will have sex with you out of their free will.
Third, nothing wrong with sexually training animals as long as they consent to be trained and they are unharmed.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 24
@DiscoveringReligion
"These animals are just following their hormones and mindlessly humping whatever they can find."←Yes, so? They do that when they have sex with their species, so why would it be wrong if they want to do the same with a different species?
"You're actions on the other hand are very premeditated and you are going to great lengths to groom and train animals for sex."←Never trained any dogs for sex. And the same grooming is done by non-zoos. get it?
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 25
@DiscoveringReligion
"inter-species sex is pointless"←In mammals it gives sexual pleasure (a fun activity that relaxes the animal and makes him happy which also makes him healthier) also, some mammals, insects, plants, fish, bacterias, viruses, etc, can have sex with other species to hybridize and create whole new species. Inter-species sex is common in bugs, plants, bacterias, etc. Not so common in bigger creature. How about that for an evolutionary advantage?
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 26
@DiscoveringReligion
"but they will literally hump anything that moves"←Not true, like I have said before, not every animal is attracted to humans, which is why some people will train those animals to have sex with humans, even so, the animal will not always consent to be trained, some animals just don't want sex with humans.
If dogs where like you say (hump anything) I would have had sex with 100 dogs instead of only 25 in my 19 years of being active.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 27
@DiscoveringReligion
"There is no chance of reproduction, the dog is just indiscriminately humping the nearest objected it can find."←Same for masturbation and homosexual sex, so what is your point with that?
"Second, homosexual males exhibit female tendencies"←That happens only in transsexuals (or effeminate homosexuals)
"putting greater strain on the already limited resources."←If any, the more babies the better, more resources can be collected with more hands.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
►Part 28
@DiscoveringReligion
"As the clan gets larger and larger the demands of the clan will often exceed that of the resources"←False, even with the current world population, we have enough resources for everybody. And homosexuals exist in small population or big population. This has nothing to do with evolution, is just a coincidence that homosexuality will be beneficial in this cases.
You reason of homosexuality be an evolutionary benefit are a joke.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 29
@DiscoveringReligion
I can do better than you.
Did you know that there is a gay gene that makes humans be attracted to males?
When females have this gene, they are very fertile, they will seek sex and have many babies. Those babies will be born with the same gene, females will have many babies and males will have 0 babies. The gay gene increases fertility, is beneficial for female humans at the cost of male humans not reproducing. There are studies about that.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 30
@DiscoveringReligion
Google "'Gay gene' could make women more fertile" ←Now that is a real evolutionary advantage.
"children that are born to the elderly father are more likely to be gay."←I want to see that study, what is the source?
PS: I can say the same thing, babies born from the "elderly" are more likely to be come zoosexuals, and help to raise the other poeple children and collect resources. If you think that is an advantage for homos, then is also for zoos.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 11
@DiscoveringReligion
"What's with the name calling?"←I said quote: "if you see all bestiality as a abuse, you are an idiot."←Why? Because there is plenty evidence bestiality is not always animal abuse, if you believe is always abuse, then you are believing something that is false, you would be going against evidence, that would make you an idiot.
I didn't call you an idiot, I said "IF you believe that" if you don't believe that, then I'm not calling you an idiot.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 12
@DiscoveringReligion
"What's with the name calling?"←I said quote: "Do not let your stupid feelings do the thinking"←I'm not insulting you (unless you are an emotion) I'm insulting human emotions (yours or my emotions) which are stupid when it comes to debating.
So, I didn't insult you, but it seems you are too emotional and you felt insulted just because I used some "bad words" so, like I said before, leave emotions out, no need to feel insulted for no reason.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 13
@DiscoveringReligion
"There is a big difference between getting your dog used to being touched all over his body, verses grooming him for SEX."←No difference, the quote you mention was about "puppy handling exercises" and you call that "sexual grooming" yes, we recommend zoos to get their dogs used to be touched anywhere, but that is the same recommendation given to any non-zoo by dog trainers or veterinarians. We recommend zoos to do puppy handling exercises.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 14
@DiscoveringReligion
"What I'm specifically talking about it touching a dog to get it sexually aroused and then encouraging the dog to penetrate you."←That is not "puppy handling exercises" we don't recommend people doing that with puppies. If you talking about that, we only do that with adult animals. And there is nothing wrong with that, a bitch or a human will "touch" a male dog to sexually arouse him to encouraging the dog to penetrate. Are you against that?
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
►Part 15
@DiscoveringReligion
"I see no difference between this and showing a child pornography or touching a child's genitals with the aim of getting them sexually aroused and willing to explore their sexuality with you."←We don't have sex with puppies or children, only with adult animals. The thing you mention about zoos telling other zoos to touch a puppy genitals is called "handling exercises" it is a NON-SEXUAL desensitization training, that is also done by NON-ZOOS.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 16
@DiscoveringReligion
I repeat, we don't fuck immature animals, only zoopedophiles would do that.
We don't encourage puppies to have sex because they are not sexual yet and they are too young to properly consent to have sex. Zoos and NON-zoos encourage "handling exercises" because vets or zoos may want to handle the dog genitals when he becomes an ADULT. You wrongly think that "handling exercises" is a zoo practice, when non-zoos do the exact same thing. (face palm)
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 17
@DiscoveringReligion
"Therefore, sexually grooming a dog from an early age is essentially training it to have sex"←Wrong, like I said before, just because a dog is desensitized to be touched in his genitals, it does not mean that the dog will be sexually attracted to humans. I know male dogs that don't mind to be touched, but will not get aroused if I masturbate them. They are not attracted to humans sexually. I know zoos that did " puppy handling exercises" and...
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 18
@DiscoveringReligion
I know zoos that did "puppy handling exercises" and their adult dogs do not want to have sex with them. They will not allow penetration or will not penetrate. I also did those exercises and my k9 boyfriend do not like some sexual activities.
Puppy handling exercises only ensures that the dog will not have a fear as an adult to be touched in some areas, that is all it does. It doesn't ensures you that the dog will like to have sex with humans.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 19
@DiscoveringReligion
"Therefore, sexually grooming a dog from an early age is essentially training it to have sex."←Wrong again, I have had sex with dogs that never got those exercises. Even dogs that have an irrational fear of being touched in their genital can be desensitized as adult dogs. Puppy handling exercises is a nice thing to do for any dog owner, but it is not essential for zoos or non-zoos to do those exercises on their puppies.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 20
@DiscoveringReligion
"It is not giving true consent, it is just doing what it's trained to do."←Half wrong in this one, to train a dog you need the dog consent, you can't train a dog to do something that he/she doesn't want to do. Even after a dog has been trained to do something, the dog has free will to do the "trick" if the dog feels like doing it. My k9 boyfriend knows many non-sexual tricks and he only do them if he is in the mood for doing them (consent)
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 21
@DiscoveringReligion
"It is not giving true consent, it is just doing what it's trained to do."←Also, desensitization and handling exercises, are not technically training, and do not violate the animal consent, the animal can still chose who they allow to pet them (with a clear mind) Those exercises are used to remove irrational fears, so the animal can behave and think in a normal way. A desensitized dog can give consent in a normal way, without irrational fears.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 22
@DiscoveringReligion
"It is not giving true consent, it is just doing what it's trained to do."←Also, nothing wrong with a dog (or any animal) who was trained to do sex tricks that are harmless. Even if you call that not true consent, who cares, humans can train their dogs to do any ticks they want, it is legal to do so.
I personally don't find it moral to train a dog for sex and so I never trained any of my dogs for sex. But I will not stop people from doing it.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo
LOL Why are you so hostile? You said, "I didn't call you an idiot, I said 'IF you believe that' if you don't believe that, then I'm not calling you an idiot." In other words I am not allowed to disagree with your opinion, but if I do, then I am an idiot. So you are only indirectly calling me a name, that's MUCH better. You also called my explanations for homosexuality a "joke". I'm not emotional, I just take offence to being called names indirectly or otherwise. It's rude.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
There is no need to call names, you are more than capable of presenting a cohesive argument without it. In fact, that is just what you did. You made a convincing argument that demonstrated animals can give consent for sex and humans do not force animals to have sex against their will. I retract my previous objects on that point.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
It appears you either failed to understand the mechanism I have presented or you do not understand evolution. You said, "False, even with the current world population, we have enough resources for everybody." But that's not what we are talking about. 300,000 years ago humans had to survive as hunter-gatherers. Therefore, the "resources" in question are plants that can be gathered and animals that can be hunted. We are not talking about farms and processing centers.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
As tribes of hunter-gatherers used up the resources in one area, they were forced to move on other regions. It appears you are taking what I said in the context of fully evolved Homo sapiens living in the 21st Century, LOL. When I say "evolutionary advantage" I am referencing populations of humans and sub-humans that existed many hundreds of thousands and even millions of years ago.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence of a gay gene. Yes, researchers are making strides in that direction, but there is no study that conclusively demonstrates homosexuality is genetically inherited. I am not say that couldn't be true, but they just haven't found it yet. Regardless, there is solid scientific data that shows homosexuality is the result of hormonal imbalances in vitro.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
I've actually studied homosexuality in medical school, in addition to Dr. Marc Breedlove's research on hormonal involvement in developing sexual orientation. Breedlove was featured in a piece by "60 Minutes", which you can view here:
watch?v=IoZoRbP-0WM
In closing, you made a very good argument for bestiality and I accept your premises. Although I do not personally agree with the act, I do not pass moral judgement on you. I just ask next time you watch the name calling.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
►Part 33◄
@DiscoveringReligion
"When I say "evolutionary advantage" I am referencing populations of humans and sub-humans that existed many hundreds of thousands and even millions of years ago."←Can I see your evidence that this is the reason why homosexuality exist? If not, you are only telling me a theory, that sound plausible but that could be false. The "gay gene makes females fertile" has been proven with studies, can you say the same of your theory?
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 34◄
@DiscoveringReligion
"there is no conclusive evidence of a gay gene."←There is evidence, they tested the hypothesis in families with gay genes, all the females in the family tree where statistically more fertile than family trees of people that don't carry the gay genes. Gay gene makes females more fertile, this cause the gay gene to survive, which explains why homosexuals exist even that they don't reproduce.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 34◄
@DiscoveringReligion
"Regardless, there is solid scientific data that shows homosexuality is the result of hormonal imbalances in vitro. "←I do not denied that is true. What I denied is your correlation between hormonal changes making you "gay" in the whom and being born in a tribe 50, 000 years ago.
We know that gay gene makes females fertile and so the gay gene keep existing.
But why hormonal chances makes people "gay" and how that keeps passed by evolution?
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
►Part 31◄
@DiscoveringReligion
"In other words I am not allowed to disagree with your opinion, but if I do, then I am an idiot."←I can show you evidence that bestiality is not always abuse.You can disagree with evidence if you want (feel free to do so) but that would make you an idiot.
For example, If some one thinks that water is made of angel tears even after showing evidence that is made of H2O, don't you agree that person is being an idiot by ignoring evidence?
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
►Part 32◄
@DiscoveringReligion
"You called my explanations for homosexuality a "joke"←That explanation of yours is not a "Evolutionary advantage" it is only a side effect of being homosexual, it doesn't explains why homosexuality exists or why it gets passed on the genes even that homosexuals do not produce (doesn't explain why 10% of the human population is constantly homosexual)
My explanation of the gay gene making female humans more fertile is a evolutionary advantage.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago
@DogsneedpIeasuretoo
The incidence of homosexuality in evolving populations of early hominids ensured greater group stability, allowing the elderly male patriarch to mate later and later in life, thus increasingly reinforcing the stability of the group. Therefore, the later in life the patriarch reproduced, the more homosexual offspring he would have, leading to greater group stability and thus conveying a greater evolutionary advantage. If you do not agree with me then you are an idiot.
DiscoveringReligion 3 months ago
@DiscoveringReligion
Before I believe or disbelief your statement, can I see the evidence that support that statement?
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago