Joined: June 2007
|Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,14:07)|
|Quote (Nerull @ Jan. 05 2008,13:39)|
|Skatje does not consider it moral either - but she avoids passing judgment on others, and her entire point was that it shouldn't be illegal because it seem icky.|
From what you're saying now, the only difference between her position and yours is the degree to which you want to force others to comply with your views.
Are you willing to post something on the front page of Young Kosmos, quoting only the bit about you condoning bestiality - probably even snipping out the legal part, and leaving the moral argument out completely? And then post a picture of an animal with innuendo about your sexual habits underneath? Because thats what Sal did to Skatje.
I am not trying to *force* my beliefs on anyone. I am stating what my beliefs are, and you can quote me wherever you like.
1. I believe that bestiality is morally *wrong*. I believe that it is unquestionably unacceptable to have sexual relations with animals regardess of the circumstances.
2. I "condone" the act legally because I do no feel that the government should get involved in these issues *unless* it gets out of control.
So, if anyone decides to write a post on the moral issues of the act, quote #1. If you are writing in regard to the legal issues, quote #2.
Why do you get a different standard? Skatje's stance on legal issues was implied to be her moral stance - and indeed what she engages in.
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