Joined: June 2007
FTK, people tried to coach you on this earlier, but I guess we'll have to try again.
Elementary Reading 101:
"There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can’t obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn’t anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated."
Skatje states the obvious - lots of people care very dearly about their pets. I don't know if you have pets, but I'd certainly hope you care about them. She isn't talking about sex at all at this point - just caring about pets.
"Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?"
Having established that lots of people care greatly about their pets, she asks why its surprising that a few people take it even farther. This is not an endorsement, or even a judgment at all, but just a question about why this surprises anyone.
"That said, I remind you that my position isn’t based on my own personal wants. I just don’t see any reason to ban it other than the same reason things like homosexuality and sodomy were banned: it’s icky. I think it’s bad practice to put social taboos into legislature when no actual logical argument can be made against it."
And this is what we call a legal argument.
Sorry FTK - there isn't a moral argument anywhere in that.
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris