.. homosexuality.

It had to happen.

First they normalized homosexuality.

Now the fool who got the American Psychiatric Association into declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder and has some of his 'pioneering crap' in the Smithsonian institute is now advocating bestiality "as long as the animal doesn't mind."

According to Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH), Kameny wrote an e-mail to them saying that while he was personally opposed to bestiality, he found it an otherwise "harmless" quirk, so long as it was consensual with the animal involved.

"Bestiality is not my thing," Kameny wrote. "But it seems to be a harmless foible or idiosyncrasy of some people. So, as long as the animal doesn't mind (and the animal rarely does), I don't mind, and I don't see why anyone else should."

.....

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060403.html

Just a simple question.

How does the animal signal consent ?

I mean seriously...

What kind of animal "doesn't mind" having something crammed up its digestive system from behind?

Would that be one woof or two ?

How does the animal signal consent ?

"Moooooo!"

Jeff now THAT is the funniest thing I read all day.

The guy is a quack and for him to advocate animal ****ing needs to be in a straight jacket.

edited....

You talking about ducks Marianna ?

Then I guess that would be a Quack Quack Quack !

do the goats hold beauty contests?

You know the problem is that we have to discuss any of this seriously. It's a ridiculous outrage!

In a few years, the minervas and Thalias of the next generation will be solemnly assuring us that they know plenty of people who have sexual relations with their dogs and why not and it's all perfectly normal and what are we supposed to tell them?

Good grief...
oh m g.
minerva and thalia so so bad. wish you disagreed with me as nicely as you disagreed with the likes of ice tea, jeff.

No kidding....Jeff really!

But seriously, Jeff has a point.

It's a slippery slope.

Once we normalize and accept one kind of peversion, how can be draw the line elsewhere ?

50 years ago, homosexuality would be considered an outrageous peversion.

Today, people are prepared to accept it and promote it.

50 years down the road sex with a horse would probably be fine as well.

I don't think you or Thalia are bad! I think you are wonderful and both of you are probably better people than I am. I admire the heck out of you guys.

But I think you have followed the culture into wacked-out looniness on the issue of homosexuality. I don't BLAME you...most people have been convinced to think that way.

But I don't think it's sane.

And Wudjab's point with this thread is that there is an increasing looniness about sexuality that began with the decertifying of homosexuality, an obvious mental disease. And the road leads to further looniness.
that's your opinion. many doctors (not society) think otherwise nowadays.
no need to answer my posts back like that.

Wow this came so fast. Well what do we expect from a society where immorality became a normal thing supported by science..

So whatever science says, everything can be normal.

I wonder what is coming next :rolleyes:

my friend told me she read in the news paper that a man from i dont know where wanted to marry a horse .. but the judge said no why ? ... because the horse didnt reach its legal age ! .. too young to get married :XD::XD:
aaahahahaha
and its not a joke ...

You know the problem is that we have to discuss any of this seriously. It's a ridiculous outrage!

In a few years, the minervas and Thalias of the next generation will be solemnly assuring us that they know plenty of people who have sexual relations with their dogs and why not and it's all perfectly normal and what are we supposed to tell them?

Good grief...
And the Jeffs of the next generation will tell us that it's ok for a husband to tear into his wife's anus because after all he isn't a complete ****ing stranger since he's married to her.

Thank God we all have so much of that lovely common sense, are so down to earth and in touch with reality. :yes:

Hey! You need an goat's consent, but not your wife's.
:hyper:

Puts things into some real perspectives.

cats dont' have sex with dogs because they are different species.
it so happens in nature that animals have sex with their own sex because they were born that way.
now please don't call it ridiculous, because there are far more ridiculous things you've read over here and you didn't speak about them in such a way.
it's not a disease. it happens in many species.
it happens because of hormone upsets inside the mother's womb.
it can happen because of upbringing.
you can treat it with drugs or shock therapy i guess. but then again you can treat pretty much anything like that and the results are not very human. you can turn a homosexual into a drug addled zombie. fantastic. you can also treat a nymphomaniac and a person with ocd's. if you want.
so i think the most christian thing a person can do is to live and let live, as long as it doesn't infringe on your rights.
if they want to have sex their own way, let them do so as long as it's not in your face. the decent ones won't kiss in your face either or hold hands.
most of the time you won't even know that they are gay because they choose to tell you they are celibate.
anyway , i'm done with this. i'm fed up of your reaction.
i don't patronise you and don't you patronise me by saying that i was controlled by society into thinking such. my opinions have been formed through the books i've read, the reasearch i've made and the people i met.

i was brought up in a very macho society, with gayness being thought of as a 'sin'. with people bashing gays. my religion has taught me to do nothing else but reach out and love.

Hey, the Jeffs of any generation don't think anuses and sex are related.

We'd call that assault and battery if it was done without consent.

But here's another straw horse for you since you collect 'em! :p

http://coxberryfarm.com/db5/00469/coxberryfarm.com/_uimages/StrawHorse.jpg
Would forcefully ramming your wife in her other orifices also be "assault and battery"?

Oh my. Mustn't ever call it rape!

Is it all about the terminology to you?

Keep the straw horse. You might need the straw for fuel to burn a couple of witches.

This thread is getting rediculous now. And Thalia why do you try to turn this thread personal towards jeff. I agree with him and he didn't offened anyone. I believe as he does that people who think gay marriage is normal ( Like you and minerva do ) will in the future agree and support animal with human sex. Also live and let live right ?

But seriously, Jeff has a point.

It's a slippery slope.

Once we normalize and accept one kind of peversion, how can be draw the line elsewhere ?

50 years ago, homosexuality would be considered an outrageous peversion.

Today, people are prepared to accept it and promote it.

50 years down the road sex with a horse would probably be fine as well.
Apparently, you can't have sex with a horse. Since it can't be called sex.

But you can have .. er.. a hot steamy session of "assault and battery" upon the animal, *IF* it doesn't consent, mind you.

Wow, cool down people.
I thought everyone here thought having sex with animals is sick.
Just cause a gay dude (surprise, surprise, Kamney's a fag!) says it isn't doesn't mean it is.

If I live in a society that puts 'having sex with animals' as something that's 'normally accepted', I'd honestly rather not live at all. I don't think the American or Western society in general will be gullible enough to be lulled into this one...Hopefully.

Wow, cool down people.
I thought everyone here thought having sex with animals is sick.
Just cause a gay dude (surprise, surprise, Kamney's a fag!) says it isn't doesn't mean it is.

If I live in a society that puts 'having sex with animals' as something that's 'normally accepted', I'd honestly rather not live at all. I don't think the American or Western society in general will be gullible enough to be lulled into this one...Hopefully.
No threadlike.

Jeff here is trying to imply that if you are not physically sick to live next door to/work with/ ride a bus with/be friends with... a homosexual, in a few years time you'd be marching for "beastiality rights".

I'd like to see Jeff's crystal ball.

LoL @ Thalia.
accepting gays doesn't mean accepting to have sex with animals!
There's a huge difference.
Apparently Jeff is paranoid :p
It's alright Jeff, we all love you :p

This thread is a prime example of why 11 year olds need to NOT be on Sabla.

*imagines 11 year old looking 'beastiality' up.*

*shudders*

LoL @ Thalia.
accepting gays doesn't mean accepting to have sex with animals!
There's a huge difference.
Apparently Jeff is paranoid :p
It's alright Jeff, we all love you :p

Kamney who has made the claim finds there is no such thing as 'sexual perversion' which I (and most likely you) would find outrageous. In his opinion there is no such thing as a huge difference between accepting gays and accepting animal partners. PETA is silent up to now :p

wut's this ****in thread all about? I don't get it?

is it about them queers or about them ppl ****in animals?

^So what you're saying is a wife is like some sort of object I can do with whatever the hell I want? Just because she said "I do"
You know when someone marries someone else it isn't because they're giving them consent to rape them and become their slaves.
Last I heard wifes were still human being.

------------------------------


Some guys are attracted to asians, that's fine.
Some guys are attracted to blacks, perfectly normal.
Some like 'em thin.
Some like 'em thick.
Some like 'em with the same type of genitalia.
Some like them with a furry body and a tail.
What's the difference?

Sexual tendancies vary greatly, most people though are somewhat alike but if there's padre here who has a totally different view, there's no need to burn the heretic, back off and just let him do his thing.

With the way things have been going on, the society we're heading towards will probably have bestiality in the softcore section of porn.

The future's a comin' lil' children now y'all best learn to deal or else be left off very far behind.

^So what you're saying is a wife is like some sort of object I can do with whatever the hell I want? Just because she said "I do"
You know when someone marries someone else it isn't because they're giving them consent to rape them and become their slaves.
Last I heard wifes were still human being.



Not at all!

If a man tells me that he forced himself on his wife, I'll tell him that he's a cad and a swine.

But he hasn't violated her intimacy the way a rapist does. Because they already have an intimate relationship.

But in a woman's eye he has. For me **me** just because a woman consents to marriage doesn't mean the man has any free rights to her body. She has to let him know that the sex is consensual through voice or body signals. Anyway, everyone knows how I stand on marital rape. I see it as rape and my mind cannot be changed.

I'M CONVINCED THIS WORLDS COMMIN TO AN END lool..

THIS IS FREKEN SICKNING! :|
What has come to this world, That Gets ppl F*****G Animals!??

And how are they getting this "consent" anyways?

I have given it some thought and I originally removed the names of mentioned member from the original post that gave offense.

I gave it some further thought and decided that more radical surgery was a better idea. That will make some of the thread unintelligible, but that's okay.

I had no idea that using the names of certain members in the way I did would be received with such pain and anger and if I had I never would have used them. I thought this was just another occasion for good natured, hammer and tongs intellectual debate.

My misjudgment. I offer my apologies and express my regret.

Well, do you really want an answer? I mean are you really interested in what I am actually saying?




No jeff. I do not because it is obvious you have no ****ing idea what you are talking about.

Do you want me to spell it out, or is this enough for you to understand there are obvious factors that make the reason as to WHY you and I see it differently?

I've never tasted Kangaroo. Do you think I'll sit here and argue with an australian on what it really tastes like because, well, I've read so much about it, in 5 languages?

I know your agenda here is to highlight that marriage gives a man a right to his wife's body. But in the process you are forgetting what it's like to have something taken from you by force. When you don't want to give it. When you're unready, or unable to.

You seem to THINK that when a husband decides to take that which he has not been given express consent to AT THAT MOMENT will end up in a playful "hard to get" scenario. A little "oh please no, please no" and then she'll quieten down and get so excited.

What a typical fantasy. :hmm: Talk about playing it down.

You might want to check with reality though. It's not as much fun.

Knowing the person who's doing that to you makes it a hundred times harder to come to terms with it. It FEELS terribly WRONG, you FEEL VIOLATED, but then have to face people like you playing it down, telling you it's not really that bad.

Forget that you have to wake up the very next day, look your rapist in the face and act like nothing really happened while you get on with making him breakfast and dinner.

No jeff. I do not because it is obvious you have no ****ing idea what you are talking about.

Do you want me to spell it out, or is this enough for you to understand there are obvious factors that make the reason as to WHY you and I see it differently?

I've never tasted Kangaroo. Do you think I'll sit here and argue with an australian on what it really tastes like because, well, I've read so much about it, in 5 languages?

I know your agenda here is to highlight that marriage gives a man a right to his wife's body. But in the process you are forgetting what it's like to have something taken from you by force. When you don't want to give it. When you're unready, or unable to.

You seem to THINK that when a husband decides to take that which he has not been given express consent to AT THAT MOMENT will end up in a playful "hard to get" scenario. A little "oh please no, please no" and then she'll quieten down and get so excited.

What a typical fantasy. :hmm: Talk about playing it down.

You might want to check with reality though. It's not as much fun.

Knowing the person who's doing that to you makes it a hundred times harder to come to terms with it. It FEELS terribly WRONG, you FEEL VIOLATED, but then have to face people like you playing it down, telling you it's not really that bad.

Forget that you have to wake up the very next day, look your rapist in the face and act like nothing really happened while you get on with making him breakfast and dinner.


That is indeed hard to argue with.

What's saddest about this very unpleasant thread is that is based, I believe on a hoax; what you have here is a far-right wing website claiming that a prominent academic/activist sent them an e-mail with the outrageous content Jeff quoted, a claim that has, as far as I can find, been picked up by no reliable news source but that has, predictably, become a topic of scandalized comment on sites with similar leanings.

There is absolutely no evidence that the e-mail was authentic, nor do the statements it contains track with any other public statement by the purported author, who is a prolific author and commentator.

It's clear that there are issues here that resonate strongly for many of us. I pains me deeply to see people whose comments I've enjoyed use words like "fag", just as I'm astounded (and confused) that others can believe that there are forms of forced sex that aren't rape.

I hope, nonetheless, that we can contine to have civil conversations on these and other sensitive topics.

Because you believe it's a hoax doesn't make it a hoax.

http://americansfortruth.com/news/gay-icon-kameny-says-bestiality-ok-as-long-as-the-animal-doesnt-mind.html

PS : Lifesitenews is NOT a FAR RIGHT WING website.

On the contrary it's a Christian website that discusses issues related to Christianity.

wut's this ****in thread all about? I don't get it?

is it about them queers or about them ppl ****in animals?


Steers and queers?

I wonder if anyone can "prove" that sexual desire for animals is evil. What is wrong with it, other than it seems obvious that humans and animals aren't meant to mate?

What can demonstrate that there is something wrong with it other than the fact that most of us feel a repugnance for it and that it seems obvious that it isn't "fitting" or "normal"?

These are the very things that made it convincing to most people over the centuries that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural. But it is now a heresy--"disturbing" "saddening"--for anyone to dissent from the rubbish we see everywhere these days.

Do you know what happens if you try to look up "bestiality" on Wikipedia? You get transferred to something else. Know what it is?

"Zoophilia"

Now isn't that a much nicer word?

Why do you think they have retitled the article? I must be a trogolodyte if I insist that the reason is obvious: "Bestiality" is so ugly sounding, so judgmental. It assumes that there is something wrong, something repugnant in the act.

"Fornication" ever heard of that? An ugly word for an ugly thing. But it's been driven out of the vocabulary.

"Adultery" becomes "love affair".

"Sodomy" becomes "gay love"

Having lost your mind and thinking you are a man when you are a woman becomes "transgendered".

And "bestiality" becomes "zoophilia".

And don't stop there. Read the article...where's the cutting edge thinking on "zoophilia" these days?

More recently, research has engaged three further directions - the speculation that at least some animals seem to thrive in a zoosexual relationship,[38] the thesis of psychological research that zoosexuality is closer to a sexual orientation than a sexual fetish, and the supposition that science apparently is closing in on confirming the capacity for authentic emotion in animals, and their enjoyment and choice of actions (including sex) driven by an internal feeling that certain things are pleasurable.[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

When we ask why in the world we are expected to countenance unnatural lusts, we are met only with sighs and shakes of the head and an attitude of gentle superiority from the likes of Expatriato. Or fury and anger.

Well then?

What IS wrong with besti... Sorry! zoophilia? Common, pleasurable, all throughout history, harmless, you can't do anything about it, you don't want to penalize people and make them feel bad for something they can't help, it's all just social conditioning.

No: we've heard this song before. Before we were all inundated with "research" and subjected to tons of beautiful movies and TV programs and endless lectures from beautiful people, we could all see perfectly well that homosexuality was perverse and unnatural. The idea that one day everyone would be going around insisting it was normal and that you could lose your job or be fined for not treating it as normal seemed to outlandish to be believed.

But that's the place we live in now.

Wudjab is entirely right. You can't pick and choose among sexual depravities. Once you let one in the door, they all come in.

Very well said Jeff.

Unfortunately the world morally changes and it changes to the worst. People use scientific researches to manipulate with words and difinitions where they depict the nasty things as good covered with love. While, they use the same word manipulation to describe people who condemn such things as nasty anti-freedom people. What a change !

Thanks, El Rey.

But these things CANNOT BE SAID in the West. They are heresy. If you say them, you become a fringe person, a hater, a nut.

Yet they are not only true, but OBVIOUSLY true.

I don't think things can change unless we regain the courage to say that they are obviously true and simply refuse to be ashamed of them.

We began simply with "tolerance". Live and let live.

Now we have been driven to the point where objecting to homosexuality gets you fined as a human rights abuse (in Canada), face the closure of your business for refusing to photograph "gay couples" in you wedding photo business, unremitting propaganda in the public schools about the normality of "gay sex", etc., etc.

Homosexual "marriage" is now not adopted by the people but forced on us by the courts.

One man who is homosexual himself but opposes "gay marriage" tried to ask homosexuals he knows if religious freedom should be preserved. Should religious people be allowed to teach that "gay marriage" is wrong?

"No!" is the answer from many prominent homosexuals, according to this active homosexual writing for other homosexuals:

Although California marriage-equality leaders won't say what impact they expect the new decision to have on religious freedom, activists in other states haven't been so shy. Openly gay Washington state Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, and a representative of the largest Michigan gay-rights group, the Triangle Foundation, have both told me that people who continue to act as if marriage is a union between a man and a woman should face being fined, fired and even jailed until they relent.

So if a traditionally religious business owner wants to extend his "marriage discount" only to couples married in his eyes, the Triangle Foundation's Sean Kososky says, "If you are a public accommodation and you are open to anyone on Main Street that means you must be open to everyone on Main Street. If they don't do it, that's contempt and they will go to jail."

Seattle's Michael Taylor-Judd, president of the statewide Legal Marriage Alliance, said if a newspaper writes that a given same-sex marriage wasn't really a marriage, "it is certainly in the realm of possibility for someone to bring a (libel) suit, and quite possibly to be successful." Kososky agreed: "I would be sympathetic to some damages. They need to be slapped publicly."

Sharon Malheiro, a lawyer and LGBT activist from Des Moines, Iowa, affiliated with the state's gay-marriage lobby, ONE-IOWA, told me if a teacher in a marriage-equality state taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, "then it becomes a job performance issue" and the school district should take appropriate action.

Now, nobody gay in history has lost his assets, his job or his freedom for writing, teaching and running a business guided by his belief that marriage is a union of any two individuals who love each other. So why do gay activists support limitations on the freedom of speech, the media and religious expression for anyone who disagrees with them?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/363878_califgays21.html

We have to be forced to agree that all this nonsense is true, otherwise we should go to jail.