So there is this online group that supports gay rights, most of them being gay and don't like hateful/ignorant people who bash gays.....but when you mention beastiality they find it wrong saying animals cant consent (rape), sounds like they are being ignorant or hypocritical about us? hmmmmmm

and no, im not bashing gays ;)

i agre e hyps

I don't agree! gays and lesbians are human beings who deserve all the rights and privileges that straight people enjoy. Those who want to equate loving a dog or a horse with that of a fellow human being are the ones who need an attitude adjustment. :thinking:

Maybe I didnt write it out very well, because I agree with you silkythighs :huh:

Im trying to say, gays dont like ignorant haters against them, but it seems most of the gays give us that same treatment, I would think that being sexual deviants themselves they might have more sympathy?

you're not bashing gays, but you're calling them sexual deviants?

:blink: :wacko: :thinking: :wacko:

While an interesting side to take, it's not surprising at all. When someone believes that animals can't consent, it's not really a matter of open-mindedness as it is other issues, such as viewing animals as lesser creatures, abomination to be with them, etc, etc.

What I would find hypocritical is if someone practices an alternative lifestyle shunned by society, yet actually refuses to learn about the issues regarding other lifestyles like zoophilia. My belief is always that, if you want to disagree with something, at least have an informed reason for doing so. If you won't even try to understand the view of someone else, can you really expect people to try understand you?

Just because a person is gay doesn't mean they must support the zoo community. Again comparing the love two people share for each other, with a zoo's decision to love a horse or a dog irequires quite a leap in most people's thinking. I just don't see the connection myself :thinking:

Being a homosexual rights activist by no means guarantees that one is any more learned or open-minded than any other person. Just as other classifications of people have those that hate zoosexuality, those whom don't care, those whom are zoosexual themselves, and those whom are ignorant of the topic, so too will the homosexual group be divided in such a fashion. Some might be more willing to lend an ear to what we endure in terms of persecution, but that is likely only because they themselves understand how it feels to be persecuted. I would think that it's rare for people to associate one social "aberration" for another when they consider what should and should not be allowed. Hence, "Just because we do our thing, you can do yours." isn't so likely to fly off of gay people's lips. As always seems to be the case, the majority of people, in any subdivision of civilization, are loud, stubborn, and unintelligent. Hence, when some gay rights advocate is out in the streets yelling about the end of hatred and discrimination, chances are that they are just as likely to not give a damn about us. But then that's the majority. The minority may go so far as to actually have some idea of what zoophilia and beastiality are about before they form an opinion, but even then it's more than likely that they will not approve.

Quite simply, homosexuality and zoosexuality are not the same thing, not the same kind of persecution, not the same kind of "aberration", at least as far as most people are concerned. Some will support us, some won't, just like all other denominations. But then I must wonder, if the question were reversed, how many of us would support (or at least not discriminate against) homosexuality? I would guess that the ratio would be rather high for those who support, and not so many that don't. I will perhaps analyze that later, but for now I would ask you, the casual reader, to answer that on your own.

Discuss!

This post has been edited by KitsArriet on Aug 18 2007, 06:07 AM

Being gay doesn't mean you're tolerant or open-minded. There may be more open-minded, tolerant people in the gay community, but otherwise, it's like the average non-gay community.

I must admit it's not easy to understand what we do and how we think, so I sort of can understand that it's a difficult thing to think about or to accept. It's just not on the horizon for mosst people.

And, quite frankly, looking at the posts here I (unsurprisingly) see that our group is as far from being heterogeneous as possible. There are not only a few people here that I really can't understand in their uncaring behavior with animals. I don't expect non-zoos to understand.

Prank

This is going to be a toutchy thred no pun intended

So if I except my critters into my life and give them the respect of a friend as well as spend a little special time if the critter asks I need my thinking questioned.
I raped my dog for giving him some personal time after he jumped my leg.
I should know what an inheat mare acts like and what they do to say know.
If I tied one in hobbles the stud raped her but I fing that discusting and have sent mares home for there refusal..
You meet a dog and grab its prick that is rape you know nothing of the encounter or the animal. That move is sad for you both..

This life style comes at a price and one of the easy comitments should be to love the critters as a friend me thinks..
It is not hard to open your heart a little and spend some quality time playing ball. riding, talking to the critter.
You start the critter will learn simple inflexions as you have tought them. We send kids to school are they stuped no.

As long as the animal is willing, example, teasing or showing heat or grabing a leg or having an erection acumpanied by the aproprate vocalisations who cares if the animal has fun and we might get a turn on.. where is the rape.
You do not think an animal can say NO sorry they have hoves and teath and know how to use them..

The issue of caring should be across the lifestyles enough to speek cively and discuss the issues.

This does not always happen sadley to every ones loss.

Rus

We should be the last to cast stones

This post has been edited by rus80 on Aug 19 2007, 02:27 AM

Consider this: a lot of minorities discriminate against those that discriminate against them. You'd think they'd understand how horrible treating people like that is and not do that kind of thing, and of course some do (most I'd hope), but there are still those that don't. I guess it's like Einstein said: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

But homosexuals are sexual deviants. That's not bashing gays at all. There is nothing wrong with being deviant; it just means different. I find it strange that some people treat 'deviant' like a bad word. "OMG, you're deviant!!!"

how can anyone judge what someone feels in their heart and their soul... g.a.y men and lesbian woman are no different than you and I ... they are no less prejiduce.. they are no more open.. they and we are human beings whether we like it or not!... period.. people bash us and g.a.y.s because they do not understand?? because we deviate from the social norm... but to say g.a.y man or lesbian woman should be open minded is like saying we should be more open minded to lets say scat or to necrophilia to things WE(as individuals) think is sick... there is no way in this world I would want either of those things near me and I think the people who practice that are weird and disgusting... so I am closed minded?? yes I suppose I am then... telling someone they should be open minded because you assume they are sexual deviants is an insult ... because a g.a.y man or lesbian woman doesnt think they are deviants... they think they are just as normal as we are.. they love the same sex and want to marry each other... some of us here love animals and want the same ... I dont think it is normal that a man or woman wants an animal for a spouse... but who the hell am I to judge them?? they know what is in their heart and soul.. I dont... :blush:

This post has been edited by wyldfyre67 on Aug 19 2007, 10:45 AM

I was just about to say something that would probably be rather angry towards silkythinghs, but thanks Wyld, you said all that should be said and better than I could have.

Matters of the heart should not be judged by the mind.

And normal does not necessarily mean right.

And now everyone will probably attack me, but I do not find people who are into necrophilia, pedophilia, etc. disgusting. Just not my thing. In both cases the act is obviously wrong, and I want nothing to do with it, but that does not mean I cannot be friends with the person as long as they have not done such an act, they relaize themselves that it is wrong.

Please use logic if you're about to flame me.

This post has been edited by Prince_Xizor on Aug 19 2007, 07:29 PM

My only point was that gays shouldn't automatically be expected to support zoophile's. gay's are human beings who want to enjoy all the privileges and rights that straight people have. ie Marriage. What does any of that have to do with Zoophile's?

I respect a zoophile's feelings and all, but I'll just never accept them as being the equal in the slightest with human to human relationships, Sorry.

Good point, sometimes people do confuse the goals of homosexuality with zoosexuality when considering rights and laws. I'm reminded of the debates to establish zoophile rights among society similar to those acquired by g.ay community, but it's important to make the distinction that both of our lifestyle preferences, while similar in certain aspects, are not entirely the same.

As for reversing the question, I would assume that most beast/zoo people are generally very open-minded people. The fact that we enjoy the company of animals in sexual or romantic ways is a hard concept for many people to wrap their heads around, simply because of the species barrier. Regarding h.omosexual relationships, most people would probably state that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes shouldn't be anybody's business.

I think this is where animal consent starts to enter the equation, because someone who has absolutely no doubt for the consent between humans may not fully agree or imagine that animals are able consent as well. One could argue that this is ignorance towards the subject, but comparatively few people are willing to educate themselves on the matter. Not only that, if someone is actively against the subject with support from their ignorant reasons, then there is little chance that arguments from the opposing side will change their mind.

That's true, we can't expect people to be open minded just because they enjoy something outside of the norm. However, I think the intended issue presented by the topic starter is when someone who deviates from the norm expects open-minded consideration for them, yet refuses to give even partial consideration towards other deviations like zoophilia.

I'm inclined to agree. I won't bash it under the reason of "It's just wrong", I have my own reasons for not agreeing with those particular sexual deviations. However, I am open-minded enough to be interested in a reason why someone may pursue them, despite the fact that I don't agree.

I'm reminded of the opposition towards that Zoo documentary. People are told that it does not contain any sexual content, yet refuse to watch out of their own principles, hating the subject, yet refusing to learn why.