The Church once taught that slavery was God's will, and took a position of compliance in regards to the Holocaust. But when it comes to homosexuality, that's an evil so great they can't 180 on.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I could not imagine being anything other than Catholic. It is the only worldview that embraces the whole of humanity and gives honest answers, not just popular ones, to all of life's questions. It is the thinking person's religion and I thank God I'm Catholic and not a small minded biggot like David Marr and other purveyors of his tyrannical world view.
@power4350 I used to be catholic but became anglican after the pope covered up the child molestation cases and showed the corrupt nature of the church
Could you also pray to your deity to provide me a new Honda Integra DC5 preferably black, a playstation 3 with a Play TV along with FIFA 12 and Battlefield 3? I ask because He "loves" me
David Marr a sniggering psuedo intellectual of the left. I emphasise psuedo intellectual as somebody who peddles other peoples ideas. The man is a journalist not a philosopher.
how come hamas dont "love" the people they slaughter and torture but this "god" throws innocent people into hellfire and torture but he still "loves" them. no offence but u have to be retarded to believe some of this stuff
being gay is a total perversion and gays know it. That's why they themselves call themselves "bent' "twisted" "sick" . If you say that there is nothing wrong with being gay then you may as well say there is nothing wrong with pedophiles because the only difference is the age. Having said all of that. If I saw a gay person hurt and needing my help I would help because they are human. I just don't like what they do and they try to tell us that it is normal. It's simply not.
@saaust1 You have issues. I am serious. Comparing homosexuals to child molesters is akin to comparing wholesome apples to vile Christians. There is something fundamentally wrong with you if you see no difference between the actions of consenting adults and an adult forcing him or herself on a child. I pity you.
@DEricKesler I was talking about the act of same sex and that is simply SICK and makes me want to throw up. You can not tell me it is normal it never has been and never will be. But people like you try and tell the world that it is normal and it is ok. Go into any public toilet and you see the disgusting things written on the walls by gays. All for our young children to see. But I guess that's ok with you as well.
@saaust1 It does not matter if it is normal or not. It does not matter if you find it repulsive or not. It does not matter if it shocks children or not. What matters is that adults should be free to sexually express themselves in whatever manner that they please.
@saaust1 The vandalism of public restrooms is a separate issue. Regardless, if you don’t want to teach human sexuality to your children, then you should not have children. Seriously, if you are too immature to have that conversation, then you are too immature to be a parent.
@DEricKesler As a parent it is my job to protect my children it's very clear you don't understand that at all. Now we can go on about this until the cows come home. I have my opinion and you have your opinion that is what we call freedom of speech.
You have exercised this freedom and so have I. I placed my first comment on here to exercise my freedom of speech and anyone else can. Im not here to change anyone's mind. So this is the end of my comments to you and others.
@saaust1 Please stop exploiting your child to further your hateful political agenda. Studies have proven time and time again that parents who are active with their children have the greatest influence on a child’s development. If you set your mind to the task, you can fill your child’s head with all the hate and fear and revulsion that you want. Nothing the secular world does can stop you. Hopefully, your children will not come to hate and fear and revile themselves.
Slavery was normal back in the day, women having no rights was normal back in the day, stoning for stupid reasons was so normal back in the day, etc etc.
Point being, there's nothing normal about being normal - and homosexuality has been with us since the age of time (Please do some research on how homosexuals have been treated over the past centuries). You're perverted for calling other perverted and like it or not - anal sex is very very common. So stfu.
but so ya subjective point and if you don't like it fine then don't do it , but you should know that you can't demand that of others........
for 3 , actually i think dnpt kinda explain that 1 well with his knowledge that i mentioned earlier , but ya as i was reading this i was noticing so many thing's from both sides that neither side were calling each other on , wheres i live for that stuff :) .........
jolly good, i can already see an improvement in this conversation, dnpt was dodging the whole "caregiver thing".
on that note, would you agree that, for pets at least, you are that pets parental(-like) caregiver? you feed the animal, clean up after it, give it a home, even bathe it in many cases(you being, the average pet owner). Is there a circumstance that you know of where a parental caregiver has sex with the one they're caring for, children, old people, handicapped people are examples.
my second point did seem to go on the assumption that i see humans as "higher" than animals, that's because we are, bluntly speaking, higher on the food chain, we have civilization, we have domesticated our animals, we care for them (note on a global scale, humans are like the caregivers of domesticated animals), we are more intelligent. In what sense are we not higher? in the same way, our standards should be higher.
And on 3, apart from questionable sources, I conceded the point to him.
...ummm but yes , in the case of care takers for other animals , it is a requirement , especially for horses apparently , i herd that well you know how ppl with horses have to take super good care of them with their grooming and all , for males they can't skip out on their crotch , and sometimes (like any other male human or not) the horse likes it when he's getting treated down there......
but thanks to the new washington state law banning all bestialic contact , if the horse does get erect from being groomed down there then the caretaker that was just doing their job can get sent to jail for "animal abuse"
at least that's what the thing i was reading was complaining about anyways........
and as for the other thing (finally) , all those examples are also subjective , only you/us humans think any of that stuff is relevant , does the planet were on think any of that stuff is relevant? of course not
but now lets see how those ideals hold up in relativity
so what "standards" are we lowering our self's to when we fap with our hands or another inanimate object?
not to mention you've failed to explain how any other kind of interaction with non human animals isn't "lower our standards"
indeed children don't have sexual tension, however a caregiver still doesn't provide it when they do. the horse doesn't need it's caregiver to care for it in a sexual matter, there are other horses for that. if you're cleaning the horse around the crotch, then you aren't doing anything purposefully sexual.
"does the planet we're on think any of that stuff is relevant?" is the planet relevant to this conversation? or this issue? not really.
what standards do we lower ourselves to when masturbating?
None, as there is no second party involved to object to anything. my argument is based on the animals rights, and inability to "cry rape". animal rape is happening, humans may be able to say something about it, but animals can't.
with inanimate objects, again, no second party involved.
i have only given a few examples to dogs, I more use the term "animal".
Here's what I would require of animals for me to be alright with zoosexuality, I would need them to be at such a sentient state that they can properly and intellectually communicate with us, sure, they can sense emotions, and communicate by pulling away and growling, but this is nowhere near the point where they can tell someone if they're being abused.
For this same reason, we shouldn't have sex with drunk/drugged people or handicapped people.
a drunk/retarded human has this mental capacity to display emotion that you believe other animals do not but is impaired - only from it's norm - from w/e scenario you wish to chose
where as a non-human animal which you believe does not have the proper mental capabilities to express simple emotion such as sorrow , anger , happiness , lust , hunger , which most animals on this planet clearly do , is not impaired
your suggestion is pro-zoophilea but your trying to make it look anti-zoophilea......
(omg so many danm comments >_> , yt's 500 character limit sucks AAASSSS! lol)
and what it would take for zoo's and non-zoo-pro-zoos (lol) to change their view on bestiality would be if it brought pain to them or them self's or any other kind of real negative effects from the act itself , but luckily for us that is not the case (as it sometimes is with things like pedophiliea) but rather it is a much more positive thing to do then not , after all everybody's gotta fap lol.......
that this whole concept of "standards" which you feel is a good excuses to gap our self's from sexual contact with those of another species is not written in the molecular structure of matter , it is just an idea that someone came up with and ppl agreed with that idea
the point behind this being not that that point is invalid , just that it is irrelevant to those who see differently
but again , we are an object , a dildo is another object , why would you try to state other wise?.....
not to get too technical but idk an animal species that doesn't have a cry to symbolize pain
indeed it is , and us zoos cry our heart's out when it does
and now your statement is completely contradictory , saying they can but then they can't of the very same thing , a 5 year old is able to recognize when a dog is signaling it is in pain , surely you are able to recognize that as well?
but that example is the exact opposite of what your trying to suggest with it now---
well now your just completely disregarding your position of a "caretaker" that you bestowed upon yourself , it is your duty to take care of those and all other needs , trying to get out of it by saying "oh there's others that can take care of this and that" for the things you don't particularly like when your more than able too makes you not it's caretaker in which case that relationship which you feel is ok to say 2 sentient beings having sexual contact with each other is not ok does not apply
oh look now you made our planet cry by hurting it's feelings
what does the planet have to do with any of this?
oh nothing
just like how the rest of the universe doesn't have anything to do with our planet or anything else
where you see irrelevance i see relevance , with out this blue ball of wonder we would not exist , i think that is of huge relevance , to our ideals not so much , the point was to put your ideals into perspective to show----
I see that perhaps I didn't explain my position well enough, as you seem to have interpreted it in a way I thought I hadn't implied, so let me explain a few points.
mental ability, I never said animals cannot display emotion, I was just saying emotion is an aspect of mental ability, more, i was talking about an animals/drunk persons/retarded persons ability to understand concepts (not emotion).
your comment on what it would take you to stop ties in nicely to the next part of my comment...
I'm disregarding my position of humans being caretakers? most certainly i'm not
A caretaker, does not have sex, with the one they are caring for. This leaves open an equally large opportunity for rape, a child/animal won't "bite the hand that feeds it" so to speak.
Would you say a caretaker is not doing their job by not having sex with their child? (adoptive child).
Note when I mention child, I mean well up until 17, when they are perfectly able to have sexual relations, physically.
a dildo is an object, we are an object, yes, i agree, however, we (humans and animals) are a sentient object. we feel pain, inanimate objects don't.
and i'm sorry, i cannot find the rest of your comment speaking about how you're putting things into perspective.
But however you meant it, the planet cares not for it's inhabitants many deeds. so on the matter of zoosexuality, which is all we are speaking of, the planet, is of no relevance.
hay been a while , i could say a bunch of reasons why i haven't been on to reply (which are all true) but really when a conversation reaches this point it always happens and i just tend to lose all interest in the convo
so im gonna try to keep it short if that's even possible
now lets see something like i see that now you are showing you are basing your stance on fictional concepts and not objectional relativity......
with a claim like that i could say the same thing that they could feed them poison (which the entire "pet owner" population does guilty as charged) and because they can't verbally say in your own human made up spoken language that they have been poisoned it is wrong for us to feed them or something like that.....
"ability to understand concepts"
humans aren't the only animals on this planet that know what sex is , i really think it's odd how we/they forget so many simple things like that.......
"So, you'd stop if it brought pain to the animal, however there are many animals out there being sexually abused"
.....are you trying to imply that those are zoophiles raping those animals in those news reports? i really hope that is not what you are implying.......
"A caretaker, does not have sex, with the one they are caring for"
by your definition* which is not the real definition because i have already explained that a real one would
the human animal is being the submissive one , if it's a chick getting f#$%ed then your entire argument flies out the window
and again i find the comparison of something sexually immature to something sexually mature in the filed of sex to be quite flawed until shown that there is no significant difference between the 2 stages of life , so until then i think were done here
nothing personal i actually think your pretty cool for trying to back up your argument with logic and not "your sick"......
I'll just clear up a few points I made that I guess I didn't explain properly.
feeding a dog poison vs. sexually abusing a dog, if we stopped feeding dogs, the majority of them would die, so it depends on what's necessary, sex with a human (for the dog) certainly isn't necessary, so my argument of opportunity for sexual misconduct stands.
Am I implying that zoophiles raped those animals? yes, but I'm not claiming they're the only ones. Would you claim no zoophile does?
I've been using the wrong term, it just occured to me, not caretaker, caregiver, a caretaker cleans buildings etc... so i'm sure you knew what I meant.
Anyway, A caregiver is the one that teaches the one they're caring for what is right, and what is wrong, the on they're caring for will believe pretty much anything, including "sex with me is ok". this is indoctrination, and abuse.
I don't really get what you mean by the "the human animal"
k i'll change feeding to playing and poison to just regular abuse , your argument re-crumbles , lol
yes i would claim that , any self respecting zoophile like myself anyways , im not exactly in control if a zoosadits goes around claiming to be a zoophile raping animals in name of love or w/e
humans don't have a problem differentiating rape from regular sex between each other , why it's so hard for them to tell the difference in other supposedly "lower" species is beyond me.......
nope i've already quoted this once , looks like i'll have to do it again
caregiver = "An individual who attends to the needs of" whoever , idk why you thought changing the meaning of everything this debate has been going on for so long now would do you any good because it hasn't , if that was an error on your part i understand , but if your just trying to grasp at straws and trade all sensible logic for 1 sided biasisims in a desperate attempt to regain this argument then im rather disappointed
"the human animal" = the human female in that scenario
and don't worry , it will never come to an end as long as there is someone for me to correct , i swear if i found a way to make me correcting someone look pretty i could fap to it no problem lol.....
so aside from that last slip up , and claiming that zoos rape , which proudly being one i take enormous offense to , what you said , god im tired -.- .......
also im just very surprised at how well yt has been treating out comment posting o.o
I agree, no self respecting zoophile would sexually abuse an animal, i'm claiming the ones that do, aren't self respecting. I think abuse happens in all demographics, genders abusing genders, species abusing species. It's naive to think it doesn't happen. I'm not claiming it's a common thing, in fact i'm sure they're isolated incidents.
I wasn't claiming what a caregiver is, I was claiming what a caregiver does, which is more than what the definition defines.
You're right, playing with a dog (non-sexually) does open up opportunity for regular abuse, but which do you think leaves the largest opening for any sort of abuse?
Why is it harder to tell the difference between sex and rape with animals, for the same reason I already gave, a human can tell you whether they've been raped or not, in the animals mind, there's nothing wrong with rape, it's simply a display of dominance. They can't tell you they've been abused.
that point is pointy (<-lol just felt like it) , i would argue the validity of sex being required in these taking care of scenarios
for children , as far as i know (which is nothing) they don't need any release of sexual tension until puberty , after that if they wanna have a super fappy fun time then by all means as long as they don't breed
but you see now the entire scenario has declined to weather or not the care giver wants to do their job in this department---
which the only reason it has backing for your side right now is because for some reason the whole world has demonized sex, which is just ridicules to me
most ppl don't want to have sexual encounters with immediate family members (can't blame em) but some do
most nurses don't wanna give an 80 year old fart a blow job but im sure some do lol (not to mention at that age a male wouldn't have a sex drive anymore)
same goes for mental retards
though they are to vague an example to be used on their own
(ya your probably gonna have to "repeat yourself" but really what's a little copy/pasta for the sake of continuity?)
for 2 , k 1 there is no such thing as that is an entirely subjective point (doesn't matter how many ppl you get to agree with you) , and 2 any human that believes they have some "higher" worth than the rest of reality to uphold have their heads stuck up society's ass for far to long , or something to that effect i once read in a debate of something........
so i will take you on in your summarization you made back there where dnpt totally botched his chance
for 1 i would agree that we are their "caregiver" , so why would you say that when caregiver = "An individual who attends to the needs of another" , release of sexual tension being 1 of the many needs it is our jobs as "caregivers" - which you just said we are - to take care of?
do note that this point is only relevant for an individual's "pet" , casual sexual encounters are still fair game
1. do you know you can also get a dog to do anything, with his consent? sex for instance. a dog will do anything to please his master, sad but true.
Most handicapped people are perfectly able to read emotions.
2. I'm not speaking of laws and faith, in fact my comment specifically said i wouldn't bring faith into it. but laws can be established based on morals. in fact they are. no killing, for instance.
2.5 Only the mind? that is half of the creature, which includes your examples (social skills, environment etc...), to ignore this in your reasoning is like saying, because a dog is physically able to have sex, then it's fine (that's a good example of rape).all those thing related to the mind, are handicapped compared to humans.
so yes, i can compare it to children and handicapped people, you haven't actually given a reason why not.
3. Where does this information come from? "100 dog owners to 1 zoosexual" I'm sceptical of your source.
Aside from that, I will concede that a dog can be tested for infectious diseases, but as i've been showing you, i have more than one reason why sex with animals is not ok.
omg dude i knew i shouldn't have let you continue after this guy's "summarizing" >_> , i so wanted to jump in right there and say a shit load of stuff i wanted to say , and now look at what you've gotten yourself into........
you'll have to excuses my friend's lack of debating skills , while he may be knowledgeable and has been actively doing this for a very long time he is foreign and seems to have a lack unspoken social suggestions
i , on the other hand , need to win , and do win.......
1. let me put it to you like this, why is it not abuse to feed a mentally handicapped person, but it is to have sex with them? (rhetorical question meant to put your question in perspective), dog's, compared to humans, are mentally handicapped, they require feeding, and a home sure, but they don't need you having sex with them. They call it rape if you have sex with a handicapped person.
2. Of course these aren't written down (at least I haven't seen it), common sense, shouldn't need to be.
I would never use the argument that "god says it's bad" as i'm an atheist.
The human standards for sex, are the the moralities of sex, having sex with a handicap (your dog, compared with humans), having sex with a child (by human standards, dogs are like children), and various other things which are unrelated to this topic. (search sexual standards).
3. some of them can be obtained by other means, like blood transfer (aids for instance, from monkeys etc...), This is why we take great care in ensuring no transfers of any fluids when dealing with some dead animals, and in testing for animals used for food.
However whatever you want to call it, they can be obtained through sex, so again you're leaving an opening for these diseases.
4. Added note, Do you see anything wrong with sex with cows? (not asking if you participate in said actions.)
such a shame that a couple guys can't have a mature conversation of differing view points on a mature subject with out having some idiot kid join in and shit all over everything that was already established in the conversation , i was really enjoying reading a discussion on this subject that didn't involve swear words or profanity or even any death threats in it :/ ..............
*ahem* did anything I said in there have a death threat in there? Really... valid points are made... Yea, I could have went and not have put swear words in there... but you don't have to go in and point the bad parts out because you don't agree with what I'm saying
lol my apologies , i actually just skimmed over what you said and had assumed it was worse than i see now that it actually is
still , i'll still stand by my point , even though it wasn't you know , but that other times it's still not a nice thing to see , but i can't help but feel that what you were saying here wasn't already talked about earlier on in this conversation? maybe im wrong there too idk , i was very tired late last night when i read all this lol...........
and if you don't have anything that can say what you're doing is correct... and nothing that can back it up... it shows how much you know about what you're doing...
all of them will say not because it's not what people are used to, but it isn't right... you're teaching this animal bad habits and bad living standards, and probably you're giving yourself TONS of problems in the future.
A dog is like a child (like what supertriko said) and you should care for it and show it what's right. if a parent taught it's child to have sex with it... then it will do so, thinking it's what it has to do... The dog doesn't understand... it's not saying yes or no, you're confusing the fuck out of it and the poor thing obviously is having no joy whatsoever... ask any doctor, any veterinarian, hell ask anyone of any profession, I don't care...
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo but an adult dog, and a human child have similar mental abilities, so while it may not physically hurt them, how can you have sex with something that's like a child in their mind, rather like having sex with a mentally handicapped person. They may enjoy it, but it doesn't mean you should betray the trust that's given to you as a caregiver by having sex with the dog.
Just because something wants sex, doesn't mean you should provide it.
So we agree, sex with children is wrong, i wasn't trying to say it wasn't. I used your food analogy as a way of comparing children and dogs (mentally), stating that if both are of similar mental abilities, why is sex with one ok.
yes, we're animals, but we are advanced mammals, higher thinking apes, as in, far beyond that of a dog.
You're your dogs caregiver, a caregiver does not mate with the one they take care of. Dog's look up to humans, stop using that against them.
of course you don't ask a dog what it wants to eat, because an animal is rather like a child, you care for it, you choose what food's are good for it, but you don't have sex with it.
an animal is at full mind for a dog, but you are a human, which means your sexual standards should be that of a human.
you're degrading yourself to that of an animal by lowering your standards.
And now I seem to have reached a wall, because what you see as ok, I see as not, I can't see a way to argue with that. I see taking advantage as a bad thing, yet you happily said you're doing it.
You see a dog as not being able to give consent as a human does a good thing. I see the opposite.
If we're relating a dog's mentality to a drunk person's mentality (not literally of course), Then why is it not ok to have sex with a drunk person, but it's fine for dogs?
Do I agree they 'can' consent, yes, but can they understand consent? no.
just as a drunk person giving consent, isn't real consent.
a pet doesn't have to have an owner, however they feel a natural desire to have sex, hence they'd hump your leg if they were horny, they're not having sex with you because they like you, but for the sake of relief, sure, they may like sex, but they'd just as soon have sex with anything else.
So no, having a pet is not taking advantage, but having sex with it is.
"had" cats, and tell me, you see having a pet, as similar to having sexual relations with them? taking advantage of their natural desire to mate. whether or not they enjoy it.
But to actually answer your question, yes, they enjoyed being my pet, But I would never use that to take advantage of them.
Dog's indeed have a natural desire to please their leader, they do that in any way they can. no matter how I see it, you're taking advantage.
obviously, you want to win this argument so you can keep your conscience clear about your sexual relations with dogs, actually, no matter what i say, you wouldn't stop would you?
the last thing I wonder is, why just dogs? why not any animal?
whatever the disease is called, prevention is the best medicine, just as aids can be transmitted through sex, so can it be transmitted through any blood transfer.
Of course children should not be tagged as a sex offender, are you suggesting I said as such?
Parents should prevent children from having sex, it is physically damaging in most cases to the girl.
Animals are unable to be fully informed, communicate consent, or to speak out about their abuse.
Yes, there are more std's in humans than dogs, however, humans have built a natural immunity to these diseases, however, introducing diseases from another species can be extremely harmful.
In what country can a minor have sexual relations with a minor?
just because some country makes it legal, doesn't make it right.
Age is not what i was referring to when talking about minor's.
I was talking about the mental capacity of a dog. It can't consent, in the way that we do.
that still doesn't take away from the fact there are diseases you can get from animals, brucellosis can be obtained from dogs, along with leptospirosis, and the majority of the diseases i mentioned earlier.
if a child enjoys sex with an adult, and consents to it, does that make it alright?
no, it does not, the child may understand what saying yes or no is, but is in no position to give consent
now why is a dog, who's brain is far less developed than our own, any different?
By acting homosexually you make an empty vessel of yourself? Sex is fundamental for creation? So her point is that we should never have sex if it is not to create, to have babies... How absurd is that?
I can't believe you people, How can one connect a human marraring an animal too two adult humans with mutual respect establishing a relationship. I say if you want to stop gay marriage then your the kinda person who next week would start burning gays at the stake. Hey Bigots please go take your bible and shove it!
why do people like marr defend homosexuality but draw the line at incest or beastiality? they are all unnatural, victimless sexual acts. hey marr, why dont we legalize man and animal marraige??
Okay, so as long as a 5 year old child could 'conceptualize' marraige, you would have no objection to her marrying a 90 year old man? or a mother and son? its creepy and people shouldnt be given the option.
First off; i'm gonna apologies for calling you stupid. Your not stupid.
Secondly; animals and children are a different issue. "Middle & late childhood" children from 6 to 11 years old are still tackling with emotional constituencies and won't fundamentally understand what marriages emotionally consists of... the consent of that child would be an embryonic one. Personally thats disgusting; but going back to the marrying an animal, thats just impossible to do.
if Marr had any guts he would debate a muslim imman on islamic views on homosexuality in a similar fashion. they are far more radical than christian views!!!
would he dare say exactly those things to an imman? he would end up with a fatwa on his head!
its strange how we never see any other religions being treated in this way on mainstream television. christians are easy targets because you can insult their beliefs without being "antisemitic" or "islamophobic"
Yes right...let people believe in discrimination, bigitory, illogical beliefs that just leads to priests fucking innocennt kids and covering it up, wars, burining people, ramming planes into buildings, oppressing women and restricting people's rights in a Lberal democracy. If you were part of a society group we would resign and protest but to enable this sort of behaviour is just dangerous to other people. People should grow up, religion is just made up in fact christianity is a pagan myth.
Great response: "They are deeply loved - but they all go to hell!" How hypocritical is that?
And everyone knows that this not only applies to Gays, but also to Atheists, Muslims, women who had an abortion, divorced couples, and so on.
Of course this "bigotry" can be rather sincere. It then requires a rather delicate schizophrenic mixture of love and contempt. Which is so artificial that it's psychologically impossible to uphold it without this constant stupid reference to "The Teachings".
I am stunned by the ignorance of this audience regarding what Christianity says about homosexuality. Why they talk about what the Pope says, as if he is the mouthpiece of Christ, I don't know. The apostle Paul wrote in the letter to the Romans that homosexuality was wrong. There is a broader agenda at work here.
Hmmm. The question remains: Is it right to support a religion which is dedicated to the blatant abuse and repression of different groups, including but not limited to; homosexuals, heathens and children out of wedlock? David puts an excellent view; that we should not support anything founded on repression and subjection.
Define immorality. Is it right to enshrine arbitrary codes of conduct based on largely erroneous beliefs? Is it right even to have the concept of morality? It is impossible for anyone to reach their true potential as an individual without defining their own subjective codes of conduct, an ethical standard, rather than a proscribed "moral" one. If we fail to further our own individuality we lack humanity.
Any that try to impose non-subjective codes of conduct are guilty of murder of a cruel and insidious kind. We can not allow any group to remove our individuality, nor can we allow society to define the ethical right. Right and wrong are entirely subjective concepts and defining them in the subjective gives, in turn, definition to the subject.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
She seems to be a decent lady just telling the truth and that idiot Marr was extremely rude to her. What can you expect from a guy that thinks we should let in every single person into our country that arrives on the shore with no visa or passport.
I don't mean to trivialise the video but I've been wondering for a while what kind of accent Marr has? At first I thought it was cultivated Australian but it has distinct differences from it.
It's the sophisticated Sydney latte sipper accent. The accent of the upper middle class intelligentsia. It's an attempt to iron out the yokel twang of the country without progressing too far into the British Aristocracy.
Being a gay atheist obviously I thoroughly disagree with Angela, but she's only speaking her beliefs. She has the right to do that and to call her worthless is to say far worse than what she did.
Why should any respect an institution which has wreaked so much havoc upon humanity and led to the creation of an exclusionary and irrational moral code? Why should we respect anyone who fails to consider their beliefs in the light of logic and past thinking - even Kierkegaard, who espoused Christianity, declared that the Church as an institution was morally bankrupt and that one should determine one's own path, rather than blindly following a bible or a church. David makes an excellent point
but fails to take his argument far enough. Dawkins gets it right in The God Delusion (though the book isn't wonderful). He argues that religion deserves no respect because of the damage it does - encouraging the rise of fanatics, diverting the scientific process, proscribing freedoms and equality, encouraging bigotry and forcing conformity.
Why must we respect the beliefs of people who ascribe to such an aggressively negative institution? What respect do they, or their church, deserve?
I'm not disagreeing with you. I have absolutely no respect for religious beliefs. But I respect the people who believe them. I only responded because you included Angela personally in your statement, saying she's a stain on the earth. That's a human being you're talking about. So yeah, that's just my view. I don't respect religion, but I think it's important to respect other people.
I take your point and I will, thusly, rectify my statement: Angela's opinion and the Catholic church, and for that matter, religion in general, are stains upon the earth and each deserves to be stamped out (though, of course, not through force - we wouldn't want to lower ourselves to their level). Angela may be worthy of some respect, however, her opinion and beliefs are not. I would rather enjoy it if, as David puts forward,
Angela and believers such as her would be subjected to a taste of their own medicine - with the Catholic church, however, I doubt you'd find any civilised atheist willing to carry out the heinous and despicable acts upon people that believers have in the name of their faith.
The Church once taught that slavery was God's will, and took a position of compliance in regards to the Holocaust. But when it comes to homosexuality, that's an evil so great they can't 180 on.
anaemia 3 months ago
marr is a fucking legend. he blasted that right wing nutter scott morrison on qanda a month ago, it was so fun to watch
lukes6962 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I could not imagine being anything other than Catholic. It is the only worldview that embraces the whole of humanity and gives honest answers, not just popular ones, to all of life's questions. It is the thinking person's religion and I thank God I'm Catholic and not a small minded biggot like David Marr and other purveyors of his tyrannical world view.
power4350 8 months ago
@power4350 I used to be catholic but became anglican after the pope covered up the child molestation cases and showed the corrupt nature of the church
MamaMario13 7 months ago
@MamaMario13 what and the anglicans are any better??!!
timebandit71 6 months ago
Comment removed
TheFockerizer 5 months ago
@power4350
Could you also pray to your deity to provide me a new Honda Integra DC5 preferably black, a playstation 3 with a Play TV along with FIFA 12 and Battlefield 3? I ask because He "loves" me
TheFockerizer 5 months ago
@TheFockerizer I think you are confusing God with Santa... God does not grant wishes, He gives life. You have got that so be greatful.
power4350 5 months ago
@power4350 But santa isn't real!! I've grown up from that fairytale!!
TheFockerizer 5 months ago
Why would anybody in their right mind want to be a part of the catholic church anyways? It's corrupt and abusive.
markstruemind 8 months ago
Did she just call gay people cre cre creatures?
HotGeneration100 11 months ago
Who is that sour bitch spouting Catholic hate speech?
MAKEDANOS 1 year ago
@MAKEDANOS its not just gays, the pope also hates jews and muslims: the vatican supported the holocaust during hitlers rule
MamaMario13 1 year ago
@MamaMario13 To be fair, Jews and Muslims also hate Christians in addition to each other.
MAKEDANOS 1 year ago
@MamaMario13 And it goes without saying that Jews and Muslims hate homosexuals too.
MAKEDANOS 1 year ago
@MAKEDANOS oh yes but all religion is rubbish, talking snakes, virgin births, islam, buddhism etc
MamaMario13 1 year ago
David Marr a sniggering psuedo intellectual of the left. I emphasise psuedo intellectual as somebody who peddles other peoples ideas. The man is a journalist not a philosopher.
MrClassicist 1 year ago
@MrClassicist..... Boy you closet fag haters really do go out of your way to avoid having to admit you hate him because he is gay.
Fromanttodugong 1 year ago
i dont think its hateful, just leave the church and be an atheist, or mayb a lutheran i dont think they hate gays as much
MamaMario13 1 year ago
how come hamas dont "love" the people they slaughter and torture but this "god" throws innocent people into hellfire and torture but he still "loves" them. no offence but u have to be retarded to believe some of this stuff
MamaMario13 1 year ago
theolo-theologian
MamaMario13 1 year ago
love david marr, so arrogant and dismissve(but quite rightfully so). The classic left wing intellectual and we're all richer for his presence.
Pollysylabicify 1 year ago
being gay is a total perversion and gays know it. That's why they themselves call themselves "bent' "twisted" "sick" . If you say that there is nothing wrong with being gay then you may as well say there is nothing wrong with pedophiles because the only difference is the age. Having said all of that. If I saw a gay person hurt and needing my help I would help because they are human. I just don't like what they do and they try to tell us that it is normal. It's simply not.
saaust1 1 year ago
@saaust1 You have issues. I am serious. Comparing homosexuals to child molesters is akin to comparing wholesome apples to vile Christians. There is something fundamentally wrong with you if you see no difference between the actions of consenting adults and an adult forcing him or herself on a child. I pity you.
DEricKesler 1 year ago
@DEricKesler I was talking about the act of same sex and that is simply SICK and makes me want to throw up. You can not tell me it is normal it never has been and never will be. But people like you try and tell the world that it is normal and it is ok. Go into any public toilet and you see the disgusting things written on the walls by gays. All for our young children to see. But I guess that's ok with you as well.
saaust1 1 year ago
@saaust1 It does not matter if it is normal or not. It does not matter if you find it repulsive or not. It does not matter if it shocks children or not. What matters is that adults should be free to sexually express themselves in whatever manner that they please.
DEricKesler 1 year ago
@saaust1 The vandalism of public restrooms is a separate issue. Regardless, if you don’t want to teach human sexuality to your children, then you should not have children. Seriously, if you are too immature to have that conversation, then you are too immature to be a parent.
DEricKesler 1 year ago
@DEricKesler As a parent it is my job to protect my children it's very clear you don't understand that at all. Now we can go on about this until the cows come home. I have my opinion and you have your opinion that is what we call freedom of speech.
You have exercised this freedom and so have I. I placed my first comment on here to exercise my freedom of speech and anyone else can. Im not here to change anyone's mind. So this is the end of my comments to you and others.
saaust1 1 year ago
@saaust1 Please stop exploiting your child to further your hateful political agenda. Studies have proven time and time again that parents who are active with their children have the greatest influence on a child’s development. If you set your mind to the task, you can fill your child’s head with all the hate and fear and revulsion that you want. Nothing the secular world does can stop you. Hopefully, your children will not come to hate and fear and revile themselves.
DEricKesler 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saaust1 Why must you be such a retard. That is all.
dontbro 1 year ago
@saaust1
LOL are you simply retarded?
Slavery was normal back in the day, women having no rights was normal back in the day, stoning for stupid reasons was so normal back in the day, etc etc.
Point being, there's nothing normal about being normal - and homosexuality has been with us since the age of time (Please do some research on how homosexuals have been treated over the past centuries). You're perverted for calling other perverted and like it or not - anal sex is very very common. So stfu.
6hs2 1 year ago
@saaust1 hitler killed gay people
MamaMario13 1 year ago
@saaust1 its a form of love
MamaMario13 9 months ago
oh and btw dnpt , yes you did need help , badly , lol........
iamLI3 1 year ago
but so ya subjective point and if you don't like it fine then don't do it , but you should know that you can't demand that of others........
for 3 , actually i think dnpt kinda explain that 1 well with his knowledge that i mentioned earlier , but ya as i was reading this i was noticing so many thing's from both sides that neither side were calling each other on , wheres i live for that stuff :) .........
iamLI3 2 years ago
jolly good, i can already see an improvement in this conversation, dnpt was dodging the whole "caregiver thing".
on that note, would you agree that, for pets at least, you are that pets parental(-like) caregiver? you feed the animal, clean up after it, give it a home, even bathe it in many cases(you being, the average pet owner). Is there a circumstance that you know of where a parental caregiver has sex with the one they're caring for, children, old people, handicapped people are examples.
...
supertrinko 2 years ago
my second point did seem to go on the assumption that i see humans as "higher" than animals, that's because we are, bluntly speaking, higher on the food chain, we have civilization, we have domesticated our animals, we care for them (note on a global scale, humans are like the caregivers of domesticated animals), we are more intelligent. In what sense are we not higher? in the same way, our standards should be higher.
And on 3, apart from questionable sources, I conceded the point to him.
supertrinko 2 years ago
...ummm but yes , in the case of care takers for other animals , it is a requirement , especially for horses apparently , i herd that well you know how ppl with horses have to take super good care of them with their grooming and all , for males they can't skip out on their crotch , and sometimes (like any other male human or not) the horse likes it when he's getting treated down there......
iamLI3 2 years ago
but thanks to the new washington state law banning all bestialic contact , if the horse does get erect from being groomed down there then the caretaker that was just doing their job can get sent to jail for "animal abuse"
at least that's what the thing i was reading was complaining about anyways........
iamLI3 2 years ago
and as for the other thing (finally) , all those examples are also subjective , only you/us humans think any of that stuff is relevant , does the planet were on think any of that stuff is relevant? of course not
but now lets see how those ideals hold up in relativity
so what "standards" are we lowering our self's to when we fap with our hands or another inanimate object?
not to mention you've failed to explain how any other kind of interaction with non human animals isn't "lower our standards"
iamLI3 2 years ago
indeed children don't have sexual tension, however a caregiver still doesn't provide it when they do. the horse doesn't need it's caregiver to care for it in a sexual matter, there are other horses for that. if you're cleaning the horse around the crotch, then you aren't doing anything purposefully sexual.
"does the planet we're on think any of that stuff is relevant?" is the planet relevant to this conversation? or this issue? not really.
Continued...
supertrinko 2 years ago
...
what standards do we lower ourselves to when masturbating?
None, as there is no second party involved to object to anything. my argument is based on the animals rights, and inability to "cry rape". animal rape is happening, humans may be able to say something about it, but animals can't.
with inanimate objects, again, no second party involved.
i have only given a few examples to dogs, I more use the term "animal".
Continued...
supertrinko 2 years ago
...
Here's what I would require of animals for me to be alright with zoosexuality, I would need them to be at such a sentient state that they can properly and intellectually communicate with us, sure, they can sense emotions, and communicate by pulling away and growling, but this is nowhere near the point where they can tell someone if they're being abused.
For this same reason, we shouldn't have sex with drunk/drugged people or handicapped people.
What would change your mind about zoophilia?
supertrinko 2 years ago
a drunk/retarded human has this mental capacity to display emotion that you believe other animals do not but is impaired - only from it's norm - from w/e scenario you wish to chose
where as a non-human animal which you believe does not have the proper mental capabilities to express simple emotion such as sorrow , anger , happiness , lust , hunger , which most animals on this planet clearly do , is not impaired
your suggestion is pro-zoophilea but your trying to make it look anti-zoophilea......
iamLI3 2 years ago
(omg so many danm comments >_> , yt's 500 character limit sucks AAASSSS! lol)
and what it would take for zoo's and non-zoo-pro-zoos (lol) to change their view on bestiality would be if it brought pain to them or them self's or any other kind of real negative effects from the act itself , but luckily for us that is not the case (as it sometimes is with things like pedophiliea) but rather it is a much more positive thing to do then not , after all everybody's gotta fap lol.......
iamLI3 2 years ago
that this whole concept of "standards" which you feel is a good excuses to gap our self's from sexual contact with those of another species is not written in the molecular structure of matter , it is just an idea that someone came up with and ppl agreed with that idea
the point behind this being not that that point is invalid , just that it is irrelevant to those who see differently
but again , we are an object , a dildo is another object , why would you try to state other wise?.....
iamLI3 2 years ago
not to get too technical but idk an animal species that doesn't have a cry to symbolize pain
indeed it is , and us zoos cry our heart's out when it does
and now your statement is completely contradictory , saying they can but then they can't of the very same thing , a 5 year old is able to recognize when a dog is signaling it is in pain , surely you are able to recognize that as well?
but that example is the exact opposite of what your trying to suggest with it now---
iamLI3 2 years ago
well now your just completely disregarding your position of a "caretaker" that you bestowed upon yourself , it is your duty to take care of those and all other needs , trying to get out of it by saying "oh there's others that can take care of this and that" for the things you don't particularly like when your more than able too makes you not it's caretaker in which case that relationship which you feel is ok to say 2 sentient beings having sexual contact with each other is not ok does not apply
iamLI3 2 years ago
you can't have it both ways , debate wise anyways
oh look now you made our planet cry by hurting it's feelings
what does the planet have to do with any of this?
oh nothing
just like how the rest of the universe doesn't have anything to do with our planet or anything else
where you see irrelevance i see relevance , with out this blue ball of wonder we would not exist , i think that is of huge relevance , to our ideals not so much , the point was to put your ideals into perspective to show----
iamLI3 2 years ago
I see that perhaps I didn't explain my position well enough, as you seem to have interpreted it in a way I thought I hadn't implied, so let me explain a few points.
mental ability, I never said animals cannot display emotion, I was just saying emotion is an aspect of mental ability, more, i was talking about an animals/drunk persons/retarded persons ability to understand concepts (not emotion).
your comment on what it would take you to stop ties in nicely to the next part of my comment...
supertrinko 2 years ago
So, you'd stop if it brought pain to the animal, however there are many animals out there being sexually abused (read the news).
Yes, an animal can cry out in pain, but so does a bitten dog, or a dog that's been hit, there's no way for a third party to tell.
Can your dog go tell someone if you've treated it badly in sexual relations?
It may cry out during the act, but afterwards there's nothing the dog can do.
I call that a free opportunity to rape.
Continued...
supertrinko 2 years ago
I'm disregarding my position of humans being caretakers? most certainly i'm not
A caretaker, does not have sex, with the one they are caring for. This leaves open an equally large opportunity for rape, a child/animal won't "bite the hand that feeds it" so to speak.
Would you say a caretaker is not doing their job by not having sex with their child? (adoptive child).
Note when I mention child, I mean well up until 17, when they are perfectly able to have sexual relations, physically.
Continued
supertrinko 2 years ago
(yes indeed the char limit is annoying)
a dildo is an object, we are an object, yes, i agree, however, we (humans and animals) are a sentient object. we feel pain, inanimate objects don't.
and i'm sorry, i cannot find the rest of your comment speaking about how you're putting things into perspective.
But however you meant it, the planet cares not for it's inhabitants many deeds. so on the matter of zoosexuality, which is all we are speaking of, the planet, is of no relevance.
supertrinko 2 years ago
hay been a while , i could say a bunch of reasons why i haven't been on to reply (which are all true) but really when a conversation reaches this point it always happens and i just tend to lose all interest in the convo
so im gonna try to keep it short if that's even possible
now lets see something like i see that now you are showing you are basing your stance on fictional concepts and not objectional relativity......
iamLI3 1 year ago
with a claim like that i could say the same thing that they could feed them poison (which the entire "pet owner" population does guilty as charged) and because they can't verbally say in your own human made up spoken language that they have been poisoned it is wrong for us to feed them or something like that.....
"ability to understand concepts"
humans aren't the only animals on this planet that know what sex is , i really think it's odd how we/they forget so many simple things like that.......
iamLI3 1 year ago
"So, you'd stop if it brought pain to the animal, however there are many animals out there being sexually abused"
.....are you trying to imply that those are zoophiles raping those animals in those news reports? i really hope that is not what you are implying.......
"A caretaker, does not have sex, with the one they are caring for"
by your definition* which is not the real definition because i have already explained that a real one would
not to mention that your def only works if---
iamLI3 1 year ago
the human animal is being the submissive one , if it's a chick getting f#$%ed then your entire argument flies out the window
and again i find the comparison of something sexually immature to something sexually mature in the filed of sex to be quite flawed until shown that there is no significant difference between the 2 stages of life , so until then i think were done here
nothing personal i actually think your pretty cool for trying to back up your argument with logic and not "your sick"......
iamLI3 1 year ago
I'll just clear up a few points I made that I guess I didn't explain properly.
feeding a dog poison vs. sexually abusing a dog, if we stopped feeding dogs, the majority of them would die, so it depends on what's necessary, sex with a human (for the dog) certainly isn't necessary, so my argument of opportunity for sexual misconduct stands.
Am I implying that zoophiles raped those animals? yes, but I'm not claiming they're the only ones. Would you claim no zoophile does?
Continued...
supertrinko 1 year ago
I've been using the wrong term, it just occured to me, not caretaker, caregiver, a caretaker cleans buildings etc... so i'm sure you knew what I meant.
Anyway, A caregiver is the one that teaches the one they're caring for what is right, and what is wrong, the on they're caring for will believe pretty much anything, including "sex with me is ok". this is indoctrination, and abuse.
I don't really get what you mean by the "the human animal"
Continued...
supertrinko 1 year ago
I would never use the "Wisdom of repugnance" (aka, "you're sick") in an argument, as it doesn't actually argue anything.
Well, if this is coming to an end, then I have thoroughly enjoyed the conversation. But I enjoy debating so much, that I'll reply as long as you do.
supertrinko 1 year ago
k i'll change feeding to playing and poison to just regular abuse , your argument re-crumbles , lol
yes i would claim that , any self respecting zoophile like myself anyways , im not exactly in control if a zoosadits goes around claiming to be a zoophile raping animals in name of love or w/e
humans don't have a problem differentiating rape from regular sex between each other , why it's so hard for them to tell the difference in other supposedly "lower" species is beyond me.......
iamLI3 1 year ago
nope i've already quoted this once , looks like i'll have to do it again
caregiver = "An individual who attends to the needs of" whoever , idk why you thought changing the meaning of everything this debate has been going on for so long now would do you any good because it hasn't , if that was an error on your part i understand , but if your just trying to grasp at straws and trade all sensible logic for 1 sided biasisims in a desperate attempt to regain this argument then im rather disappointed
iamLI3 1 year ago
"the human animal" = the human female in that scenario
and don't worry , it will never come to an end as long as there is someone for me to correct , i swear if i found a way to make me correcting someone look pretty i could fap to it no problem lol.....
so aside from that last slip up , and claiming that zoos rape , which proudly being one i take enormous offense to , what you said , god im tired -.- .......
also im just very surprised at how well yt has been treating out comment posting o.o
iamLI3 1 year ago
I agree, no self respecting zoophile would sexually abuse an animal, i'm claiming the ones that do, aren't self respecting. I think abuse happens in all demographics, genders abusing genders, species abusing species. It's naive to think it doesn't happen. I'm not claiming it's a common thing, in fact i'm sure they're isolated incidents.
I wasn't claiming what a caregiver is, I was claiming what a caregiver does, which is more than what the definition defines.
Continues...
supertrinko 1 year ago
You're right, playing with a dog (non-sexually) does open up opportunity for regular abuse, but which do you think leaves the largest opening for any sort of abuse?
Why is it harder to tell the difference between sex and rape with animals, for the same reason I already gave, a human can tell you whether they've been raped or not, in the animals mind, there's nothing wrong with rape, it's simply a display of dominance. They can't tell you they've been abused.
supertrinko 1 year ago
lol "jolly good" XD
that point is pointy (<-lol just felt like it) , i would argue the validity of sex being required in these taking care of scenarios
for children , as far as i know (which is nothing) they don't need any release of sexual tension until puberty , after that if they wanna have a super fappy fun time then by all means as long as they don't breed
but you see now the entire scenario has declined to weather or not the care giver wants to do their job in this department---
iamLI3 2 years ago
which the only reason it has backing for your side right now is because for some reason the whole world has demonized sex, which is just ridicules to me
most ppl don't want to have sexual encounters with immediate family members (can't blame em) but some do
most nurses don't wanna give an 80 year old fart a blow job but im sure some do lol (not to mention at that age a male wouldn't have a sex drive anymore)
same goes for mental retards
though they are to vague an example to be used on their own
iamLI3 2 years ago
(ya your probably gonna have to "repeat yourself" but really what's a little copy/pasta for the sake of continuity?)
for 2 , k 1 there is no such thing as that is an entirely subjective point (doesn't matter how many ppl you get to agree with you) , and 2 any human that believes they have some "higher" worth than the rest of reality to uphold have their heads stuck up society's ass for far to long , or something to that effect i once read in a debate of something........
iamLI3 2 years ago
so i will take you on in your summarization you made back there where dnpt totally botched his chance
for 1 i would agree that we are their "caregiver" , so why would you say that when caregiver = "An individual who attends to the needs of another" , release of sexual tension being 1 of the many needs it is our jobs as "caregivers" - which you just said we are - to take care of?
do note that this point is only relevant for an individual's "pet" , casual sexual encounters are still fair game
iamLI3 2 years ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo
1. do you know you can also get a dog to do anything, with his consent? sex for instance. a dog will do anything to please his master, sad but true.
Most handicapped people are perfectly able to read emotions.
2. I'm not speaking of laws and faith, in fact my comment specifically said i wouldn't bring faith into it. but laws can be established based on morals. in fact they are. no killing, for instance.
continued...
supertrinko 2 years ago
...
2.5 Only the mind? that is half of the creature, which includes your examples (social skills, environment etc...), to ignore this in your reasoning is like saying, because a dog is physically able to have sex, then it's fine (that's a good example of rape).all those thing related to the mind, are handicapped compared to humans.
so yes, i can compare it to children and handicapped people, you haven't actually given a reason why not.
continued...
supertrinko 2 years ago
...
3. Where does this information come from? "100 dog owners to 1 zoosexual" I'm sceptical of your source.
Aside from that, I will concede that a dog can be tested for infectious diseases, but as i've been showing you, i have more than one reason why sex with animals is not ok.
supertrinko 2 years ago
omg dude i knew i shouldn't have let you continue after this guy's "summarizing" >_> , i so wanted to jump in right there and say a shit load of stuff i wanted to say , and now look at what you've gotten yourself into........
you'll have to excuses my friend's lack of debating skills , while he may be knowledgeable and has been actively doing this for a very long time he is foreign and seems to have a lack unspoken social suggestions
i , on the other hand , need to win , and do win.......
iamLI3 2 years ago
This is annoying that i must repeat myself.
1. let me put it to you like this, why is it not abuse to feed a mentally handicapped person, but it is to have sex with them? (rhetorical question meant to put your question in perspective), dog's, compared to humans, are mentally handicapped, they require feeding, and a home sure, but they don't need you having sex with them. They call it rape if you have sex with a handicapped person.
Continued...
supertrinko 2 years ago
...
2. Of course these aren't written down (at least I haven't seen it), common sense, shouldn't need to be.
I would never use the argument that "god says it's bad" as i'm an atheist.
The human standards for sex, are the the moralities of sex, having sex with a handicap (your dog, compared with humans), having sex with a child (by human standards, dogs are like children), and various other things which are unrelated to this topic. (search sexual standards).
Continued in final part...
supertrinko 2 years ago
...
3. some of them can be obtained by other means, like blood transfer (aids for instance, from monkeys etc...), This is why we take great care in ensuring no transfers of any fluids when dealing with some dead animals, and in testing for animals used for food.
However whatever you want to call it, they can be obtained through sex, so again you're leaving an opening for these diseases.
4. Added note, Do you see anything wrong with sex with cows? (not asking if you participate in said actions.)
supertrinko 2 years ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo absolutely not, i haven't agreed with most of your points. how can you think i do when i've been arguing each one?
I provide multiple reasons, which i'll summarize
1. You are a caregiver, caregivers don't abuse this privilege by having sex with who/what they're caring for.
2. indeed, a dog's mind is not like a human adults, you're lowering the human standard for sex (mentally), by following animal standards.
3. Animals add more STD's into the pool of ones we already have.
supertrinko 2 years ago
I've been providing logical reasons, you are simply choosing to ignore them.
supertrinko 2 years ago
(to the conversation below)
such a shame that a couple guys can't have a mature conversation of differing view points on a mature subject with out having some idiot kid join in and shit all over everything that was already established in the conversation , i was really enjoying reading a discussion on this subject that didn't involve swear words or profanity or even any death threats in it :/ ..............
iamLI3 2 years ago
*ahem* did anything I said in there have a death threat in there? Really... valid points are made... Yea, I could have went and not have put swear words in there... but you don't have to go in and point the bad parts out because you don't agree with what I'm saying
Plantationvideos 2 years ago
lol my apologies , i actually just skimmed over what you said and had assumed it was worse than i see now that it actually is
still , i'll still stand by my point , even though it wasn't you know , but that other times it's still not a nice thing to see , but i can't help but feel that what you were saying here wasn't already talked about earlier on in this conversation? maybe im wrong there too idk , i was very tired late last night when i read all this lol...........
iamLI3 2 years ago
pretty much I summed it up...
Plantationvideos 2 years ago
@iamLI3 you mean, i've had an audience? wow, pressure. :)
supertrinko 2 years ago
if 1 lowly zoo counts as one sure :P .......
actually i haven't said anything because dnpt requested i didn't , saying hes a big boy and he can handle himself and all that :P ..........
iamLI3 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
and if you don't have anything that can say what you're doing is correct... and nothing that can back it up... it shows how much you know about what you're doing...
Plantationvideos 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
all of them will say not because it's not what people are used to, but it isn't right... you're teaching this animal bad habits and bad living standards, and probably you're giving yourself TONS of problems in the future.
end of story
Plantationvideos 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A dog is like a child (like what supertriko said) and you should care for it and show it what's right. if a parent taught it's child to have sex with it... then it will do so, thinking it's what it has to do... The dog doesn't understand... it's not saying yes or no, you're confusing the fuck out of it and the poor thing obviously is having no joy whatsoever... ask any doctor, any veterinarian, hell ask anyone of any profession, I don't care...
Plantationvideos 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You're making your dog have sex with you... It doesn't know WHAT it is doing, It just wants to make you happy
what you are doing is making your dog your sex slave... that is horrible and is disgusting
Plantationvideos 2 years ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo but an adult dog, and a human child have similar mental abilities, so while it may not physically hurt them, how can you have sex with something that's like a child in their mind, rather like having sex with a mentally handicapped person. They may enjoy it, but it doesn't mean you should betray the trust that's given to you as a caregiver by having sex with the dog.
Just because something wants sex, doesn't mean you should provide it.
supertrinko 2 years ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo
So we agree, sex with children is wrong, i wasn't trying to say it wasn't. I used your food analogy as a way of comparing children and dogs (mentally), stating that if both are of similar mental abilities, why is sex with one ok.
yes, we're animals, but we are advanced mammals, higher thinking apes, as in, far beyond that of a dog.
You're your dogs caregiver, a caregiver does not mate with the one they take care of. Dog's look up to humans, stop using that against them.
supertrinko 2 years ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo
of course you don't ask a dog what it wants to eat, because an animal is rather like a child, you care for it, you choose what food's are good for it, but you don't have sex with it.
an animal is at full mind for a dog, but you are a human, which means your sexual standards should be that of a human.
you're degrading yourself to that of an animal by lowering your standards.
supertrinko 2 years ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo
And now I seem to have reached a wall, because what you see as ok, I see as not, I can't see a way to argue with that. I see taking advantage as a bad thing, yet you happily said you're doing it.
You see a dog as not being able to give consent as a human does a good thing. I see the opposite.
If we're relating a dog's mentality to a drunk person's mentality (not literally of course), Then why is it not ok to have sex with a drunk person, but it's fine for dogs?
supertrinko 2 years ago
Do I agree they 'can' consent, yes, but can they understand consent? no.
just as a drunk person giving consent, isn't real consent.
a pet doesn't have to have an owner, however they feel a natural desire to have sex, hence they'd hump your leg if they were horny, they're not having sex with you because they like you, but for the sake of relief, sure, they may like sex, but they'd just as soon have sex with anything else.
So no, having a pet is not taking advantage, but having sex with it is.
supertrinko 2 years ago
"had" cats, and tell me, you see having a pet, as similar to having sexual relations with them? taking advantage of their natural desire to mate. whether or not they enjoy it.
But to actually answer your question, yes, they enjoyed being my pet, But I would never use that to take advantage of them.
Dog's indeed have a natural desire to please their leader, they do that in any way they can. no matter how I see it, you're taking advantage.
supertrinko 2 years ago
In one point you say you won't stop, in another you say if i defeat you in a debate, you will. which is it?
yes, i've owned cats, mice, rabbits, guinea pigs. no dogs though.
you didn't answer my question as to why it's only dogs you choose.
supertrinko 2 years ago
obviously, you want to win this argument so you can keep your conscience clear about your sexual relations with dogs, actually, no matter what i say, you wouldn't stop would you?
the last thing I wonder is, why just dogs? why not any animal?
supertrinko 2 years ago
whatever the disease is called, prevention is the best medicine, just as aids can be transmitted through sex, so can it be transmitted through any blood transfer.
Of course children should not be tagged as a sex offender, are you suggesting I said as such?
Parents should prevent children from having sex, it is physically damaging in most cases to the girl.
Animals are unable to be fully informed, communicate consent, or to speak out about their abuse.
Note I am speaking of all animals.
supertrinko 2 years ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo
Yes, there are more std's in humans than dogs, however, humans have built a natural immunity to these diseases, however, introducing diseases from another species can be extremely harmful.
In what country can a minor have sexual relations with a minor?
just because some country makes it legal, doesn't make it right.
Age is not what i was referring to when talking about minor's.
I was talking about the mental capacity of a dog. It can't consent, in the way that we do.
supertrinko 2 years ago
that still doesn't take away from the fact there are diseases you can get from animals, brucellosis can be obtained from dogs, along with leptospirosis, and the majority of the diseases i mentioned earlier.
if a child enjoys sex with an adult, and consents to it, does that make it alright?
no, it does not, the child may understand what saying yes or no is, but is in no position to give consent
now why is a dog, who's brain is far less developed than our own, any different?
supertrinko 2 years ago
communication with animals is possible, but an animal doesn't understand the concept of consentual sex.
AIDS originally came from "some primates", it can now be passed around humans.
I gave more examples than aids though.
regarding your name, i'm sure dogs are perfectly capable of giving other dogs pleasure, they don't need us for that.
supertrinko 2 years ago
By acting homosexually you make an empty vessel of yourself? Sex is fundamental for creation? So her point is that we should never have sex if it is not to create, to have babies... How absurd is that?
mischachiaro 2 years ago
animals and incest?
first of all, incest creates genetic diseases.
look at the royal family, all the males are haemophiliacs. performing incest means you are subjecting your descendants to such diseases.
beastiality (zoophilia), like others have said, how would an animal consent?
again, disease, aids for instance, brucellosis, q fever, rabies, flea tapeworm, giardia, salmonella.
There are more too.
homosexuality may increase the risk of infection, but it doesn't create new risks.
supertrinko 2 years ago
I can't believe you people, How can one connect a human marraring an animal too two adult humans with mutual respect establishing a relationship. I say if you want to stop gay marriage then your the kinda person who next week would start burning gays at the stake. Hey Bigots please go take your bible and shove it!
mirrormask123 2 years ago
why do people like marr defend homosexuality but draw the line at incest or beastiality? they are all unnatural, victimless sexual acts. hey marr, why dont we legalize man and animal marraige??
thomasbannon 2 years ago
why are you so dumb? :P
how does one acquire consent to marriage from an animal ? how can an animal conceptualize such an event?
JoyeuxLj 2 years ago
@JoyeuxLj
Okay, so as long as a 5 year old child could 'conceptualize' marraige, you would have no objection to her marrying a 90 year old man? or a mother and son? its creepy and people shouldnt be given the option.
thomasbannon 2 years ago
@thomasbannon
First off; i'm gonna apologies for calling you stupid. Your not stupid.
Secondly; animals and children are a different issue. "Middle & late childhood" children from 6 to 11 years old are still tackling with emotional constituencies and won't fundamentally understand what marriages emotionally consists of... the consent of that child would be an embryonic one. Personally thats disgusting; but going back to the marrying an animal, thats just impossible to do.
JoyeuxLj 2 years ago
if Marr had any guts he would debate a muslim imman on islamic views on homosexuality in a similar fashion. they are far more radical than christian views!!!
would he dare say exactly those things to an imman? he would end up with a fatwa on his head!
its strange how we never see any other religions being treated in this way on mainstream television. christians are easy targets because you can insult their beliefs without being "antisemitic" or "islamophobic"
OperationKonrad 2 years ago
Hey Dickhead Marr,
If you dont like Christianity dont go to church. otherwise fuck off and leave Christians alone to believe what they want.
OperationKonrad 2 years ago
Yes right...let people believe in discrimination, bigitory, illogical beliefs that just leads to priests fucking innocennt kids and covering it up, wars, burining people, ramming planes into buildings, oppressing women and restricting people's rights in a Lberal democracy. If you were part of a society group we would resign and protest but to enable this sort of behaviour is just dangerous to other people. People should grow up, religion is just made up in fact christianity is a pagan myth.
obrien2517 2 years ago
Great response: "They are deeply loved - but they all go to hell!" How hypocritical is that?
And everyone knows that this not only applies to Gays, but also to Atheists, Muslims, women who had an abortion, divorced couples, and so on.
Of course this "bigotry" can be rather sincere. It then requires a rather delicate schizophrenic mixture of love and contempt. Which is so artificial that it's psychologically impossible to uphold it without this constant stupid reference to "The Teachings".
langengro 2 years ago
It's embarrassing watching this woman speak.
bucket34 2 years ago
Comment removed
ethanditterich 3 years ago
I am stunned by the ignorance of this audience regarding what Christianity says about homosexuality. Why they talk about what the Pope says, as if he is the mouthpiece of Christ, I don't know. The apostle Paul wrote in the letter to the Romans that homosexuality was wrong. There is a broader agenda at work here.
germanicelt 3 years ago
Hmmm. The question remains: Is it right to support a religion which is dedicated to the blatant abuse and repression of different groups, including but not limited to; homosexuals, heathens and children out of wedlock? David puts an excellent view; that we should not support anything founded on repression and subjection.
Shades2Of1Grey 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The real question should be, is it right to support immorality? Given the results it has had on western society.
germanicelt 3 years ago
Define immorality. Is it right to enshrine arbitrary codes of conduct based on largely erroneous beliefs? Is it right even to have the concept of morality? It is impossible for anyone to reach their true potential as an individual without defining their own subjective codes of conduct, an ethical standard, rather than a proscribed "moral" one. If we fail to further our own individuality we lack humanity.
Shades2Of1Grey 3 years ago 3
Any that try to impose non-subjective codes of conduct are guilty of murder of a cruel and insidious kind. We can not allow any group to remove our individuality, nor can we allow society to define the ethical right. Right and wrong are entirely subjective concepts and defining them in the subjective gives, in turn, definition to the subject.
Shades2Of1Grey 3 years ago 2
@Shades2Of1Grey dont forget jews
MamaMario13 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
She seems to be a decent lady just telling the truth and that idiot Marr was extremely rude to her. What can you expect from a guy that thinks we should let in every single person into our country that arrives on the shore with no visa or passport.
germanicelt 3 years ago
cree... cree... creature
stupid mole, there were "gay" saints conveiniently ignored today
slh950 3 years ago
I don't mean to trivialise the video but I've been wondering for a while what kind of accent Marr has? At first I thought it was cultivated Australian but it has distinct differences from it.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
No no, he's just a trained journalist who has muted his accent.
wayward1981 3 years ago
Sorry can you elaborate, I don't really understand linguistics but I have become more interested in it of late.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
It's the sophisticated Sydney latte sipper accent. The accent of the upper middle class intelligentsia. It's an attempt to iron out the yokel twang of the country without progressing too far into the British Aristocracy.
Shades2Of1Grey 3 years ago
Haha, I asked that question. Thanks for uploading it, I was just about to do it myself.
gnosis84 3 years ago
Dave wins all. Angela and the Church are both worthless, outmoded stains upon the earth.
Shades2Of1Grey 3 years ago
Yeah, there's a great way to fight bigotry...
Being a gay atheist obviously I thoroughly disagree with Angela, but she's only speaking her beliefs. She has the right to do that and to call her worthless is to say far worse than what she did.
andytoz 3 years ago
Why should any respect an institution which has wreaked so much havoc upon humanity and led to the creation of an exclusionary and irrational moral code? Why should we respect anyone who fails to consider their beliefs in the light of logic and past thinking - even Kierkegaard, who espoused Christianity, declared that the Church as an institution was morally bankrupt and that one should determine one's own path, rather than blindly following a bible or a church. David makes an excellent point
Shades2Of1Grey 3 years ago
but fails to take his argument far enough. Dawkins gets it right in The God Delusion (though the book isn't wonderful). He argues that religion deserves no respect because of the damage it does - encouraging the rise of fanatics, diverting the scientific process, proscribing freedoms and equality, encouraging bigotry and forcing conformity.
Why must we respect the beliefs of people who ascribe to such an aggressively negative institution? What respect do they, or their church, deserve?
Shades2Of1Grey 3 years ago
I'm not disagreeing with you. I have absolutely no respect for religious beliefs. But I respect the people who believe them. I only responded because you included Angela personally in your statement, saying she's a stain on the earth. That's a human being you're talking about. So yeah, that's just my view. I don't respect religion, but I think it's important to respect other people.
andytoz 3 years ago
I take your point and I will, thusly, rectify my statement: Angela's opinion and the Catholic church, and for that matter, religion in general, are stains upon the earth and each deserves to be stamped out (though, of course, not through force - we wouldn't want to lower ourselves to their level). Angela may be worthy of some respect, however, her opinion and beliefs are not. I would rather enjoy it if, as David puts forward,
Shades2Of1Grey 3 years ago
Angela and believers such as her would be subjected to a taste of their own medicine - with the Catholic church, however, I doubt you'd find any civilised atheist willing to carry out the heinous and despicable acts upon people that believers have in the name of their faith.
Shades2Of1Grey 3 years ago
:-)
andytoz 3 years ago
go Dave!
ArchieMoore 3 years ago
wha bang!
suburbanbliss007 3 years ago