




Moderator: Community Team
mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
NomadPatriot wrote:mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
who exactly is advocating for big government.. ?
you obviously have zero clue what you are talking about
mrswdk wrote:NomadPatriot wrote:mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
who exactly is advocating for big government.. ?
you obviously have zero clue what you are talking about
So your position is that the government should not interfere in people's lives by outlawing bestiality?
mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
Depending on how you define rights of animals, outlawing bestiality is no more big government than outlawing normal rape.
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
Depending on how you define rights of animals, outlawing bestiality is no more big government than outlawing normal rape.
Dukasaur wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
Depending on how you define rights of animals, outlawing bestiality is no more big government than outlawing normal rape.
What if you marry the animal?
mrswdk wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
Depending on how you define rights of animals, outlawing bestiality is no more big government than outlawing normal rape.
Three possible responses to this statement. Pick one at random - lucky dip!
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Dairy farm a.i. is no more sexual assault than a physical at the doctor's office.
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:So when a woman goes for a pap smear she's been raped?
Sticking hands into animals, which must be done occasionally (like delivering a foal or something) is a procedure like any humdrum medical procedure.
But since raping them has no material benefit to them
You could get even more philosophical and say rape probably doesn't bother them either since that's an anthropomorphized view of an animal's psyche, so i guess anti-bestiality laws are more for a human's peace of mind than anything else.
mrswdk wrote:Just swap ‘cow’ for ‘human’ if you’re struggling to see the difference between the situations:
If a doctor touches a woman’s vagina while helping her give birth, is it rape?
If a farmer locks a woman in a shed and repeatedly sticks sperm in her vagina to make her pregnant, so that she’ll lactate and he can collect her breast milk, is it rape?
mrswdk wrote:In the US it's defined as: "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Hope you haven't been labouring under any false impressions all these years, NP. Maybe at least take a break from the Slutwalks until you've had a chance to do some research?
NomadPatriot wrote:I just was wanting you to post that definition. .... thanks for proving me right..
mrswdk wrote:Another classic back-and-forth with NP:NomadPatriot wrote:I just was wanting you to post that definition. .... thanks for proving me right..
It's great that you've given such hard and detailed thought to the question of exactly where the line between 'rape' and 'not rape' is though.
The ram wrote:I've always said that the LGBTQ nonsense is the gateway to legalise paedophilia. Gays are more likely to be paedophiles, when homosexuality was legalized here in Britain an organisation called PIE thought the time was right for it to be legal, it was too early but you know it's coming.
NomadPatriot wrote:The ram wrote:I've always said that the LGBTQ nonsense is the gateway to legalise paedophilia. Gays are more likely to be paedophiles, when homosexuality was legalized here in Britain an organisation called PIE thought the time was right for it to be legal, it was too early but you know it's coming.
not that I condone what you are saying. but if you are going down that road. wouldn't you put Bi-Sexuals above gays on that chart since they are attracted to both sexes...?
but why would gays be more likely to be pedo's..?
are you saying little boys are more attractive then men..?
I wanted to make things beautiful, funny and [HIV] positive
The ram wrote:I've always said that the LGBTQ nonsense is the gateway to legalise paedophilia. Gays are more likely to be paedophiles, when homosexuality was legalized here in Britain an organisation called PIE thought the time was right for it to be legal, it was too early but you know it's coming.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users