Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This raises an important philosophical question. When Captain Kirk set forth into the stars to nail green space babes, was it sex or beastiality?

LordofHats wrote:This raises an important philosophical question. When Captain Kirk set forth into the stars to nail green space babes, was it sex or beastiality?

Xenosiality.


Space Babes aren't animals. (well they might be, we'd have to ask Kirk about that )

CT GAMER wrote:

AustonT wrote:

halonachos wrote:

In the immortal words of Boromir.

Actually given his hand position I believe he may be bragging.
The correct caption for this picture is:
Rectum! Damn near killed him.

The origial name for the race was "Throbbit".

True story...

Laughed so hard I nearly died.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:This raises an important philosophical question. When Captain Kirk set forth into the stars to nail green space babes, was it sex or beastiality?

Sigged

Since they were mostly sentient beings at the same level as us, I'd say it's proper sex. Just kinkier. And potentially more risky.

Is not the same as

Don't knock it till you try it.

There is interspecies sex in nature, but the issue of consent makes human/animal sex categorically different.

It's difficult for me to imagine how a person could liken bestiality to homosexuality. Maybe it's a failure of empathy on my part. Maybe it's something wrong with them.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

That's a damn fine udder.

Damn fine.

Would you say it was...

udderly appealing?

Monster Rain wrote:Would you say it was...

udderly appealing?

I would, if I were asked to whey in on the matter.

Mannahnin wrote:It's difficult for me to imagine how a person could liken bestiality to homosexuality. Maybe it's a failure of empathy on my part. Maybe it's something wrong with them.

I think GG is getting undeserved gak for his reply. His answer was a proper question, to the person who claimed homosexuality was natural because the anus is capable of providing pleasure, because it was tight. However ridiculous it may be to actually link homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality when discussing what they really are, if your reasoning for saying it's natural is that it's a tight enough hole, then yes, horribly, homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality become equivalent, because ALL sexualities becomes devoid of moral implications.

At least I hope I understand him correctly.

Cherry-picking one dubious answer, apparently offered with salacious and humorous intent from amongst multiple more reasonable and obvious ones? You think he's getting undeserved gak? Welcome to the forum. You may want to check out his posting history.

Wasn't his answer directed toward that particular post? That was what I was getting.

Anyhow, if he is a known homophobic, then by all means, proceed with the well-deserved derision.

Meh, it's a fair enough question, since it was framed as a question. We are more or less discussing banging at this point, so it is in the overall sphere - even if it is found distasteful. Personally I think animals are the moral equivalent of fuzzy robots, if you want to bang an animal go for it. As long as you keep it where I can't see it. I mean, we've clearly decided on a societal level that "freedom" is to be valued more than "morality" (or at least the illusion thereof) so might as well go for it with gusto.

Animals are not robots.

I don't think that freedom is a higher priority than morality. Freedom is one thing I value, but other things are more important. Societally I think most of us feel that way.

'course they aren't actually robots, I just think they are the moral equivalent thereof - lacking higher thought or "soulless" if you want to come at it from that angle. gak, I like animals (well, mammals and a couple of the more badass birds), but I like robots too. A bit off topic, but there it is. And I have to respectfully disagree that we value morality over freedom societaly - we may value the idea of morality, but on a large scale we don't seem capable of living to that standard. I personally blame walkmans. Ruined kids forever.

There is a guy who recently invented a retail sexbot

Beh no. Animals are simply not a proper outlet for sexual urges. I mean, I wouldn't throw the guy in prison for years, but definitely charge him with animal abuse and put him in a ward for a while.

And animals are definitely not comparable to robots. God, if I have to make it my only goal throughout my career as a philo teacher, it's going to be to convert the greatest amount of young, fragile minds away from that Cartesian point of view.

LordofHats wrote:There is a guy who recently invented a retail sexbot

Yeah, we know.
possibly nsfw

You get all the lulz I have to give for tonight. That was epic!

That is a classic skit.

Hold on.....we had someone post about how dolphins enjoyed homosexual bonding in nature and lions had homosexual urges in nature. I know of quite a few lapdogs that like to get it on with peoples legs...and believe me....they initiated the leg sex. So this proves that animals do like to engage in sex with humans...so what if it starts with leg sex... if it moves on to other more intimate pleasures who are we to be bigoted about it.



GG

http://www.cracked.com/article/122_6-insane-dog-behaviors-explained-by-evolution_p2/

I like Cracked.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Wasn't his answer directed toward that particular post? That was what I was getting.

Anyhow, if he is a known homophobic, then by all means, proceed with the well-deserved derision.

Kovnik...you are new here, and yes I have been accused of homophobia by some of the posters on here. In their minds any type of oposition to homosexuality on moral grounds = homophobe. The point of my post was to poke a little fun at the idea that homosexual stuff that we see in nature somehow "proves" that it is acceptable for humans. It really sheds light on the different world view that people have.

So if, as a society we decide to make homosexuality equivalent to heterosexuality...why stop there? I think that is the basis of my satirical posts.



GG

generalgrog wrote:So if, as a society we decide to make homosexuality equivalent to heterosexuality...why stop there? I think that is the basis of my satirical posts.

You really love your slippery slopes, don't you?

I'm freeee...free falling.

It comes down to two things: Love and Tolerance. If you can't do the first, then achieving the second, one day at a time, will improve everyones' lives.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/WibmcsEGLKo

From such innocent beginnings this very quickly became an awesome thread

I was going to chime in on the original topic (you know, the mural that everyone seems to have forgotten about ) but I don't see much point in that anymore. I will say it anyway though; it seems to me that noone was offended by the painting, they simply got offended on the off chance that someone else might have got offended, and so got offended on their behalf. This, I think is something that seems to happen alot now; and is why so many stupid and petty things are deemed as "offensive"; not because people are offended, but because people are offended on behalf of other people who might, potentially be offended.

As to homosexuality, which seems to be the topic at hand now; as other posters have said, there's nothing wrong with it. I don't want to have anything to do with it, but what happens behind closed doors is other peoples business. And if that extends to animals? Well then I definitely don't want anything to do with it; but again, it is not my business to know.

As an aside, I live fairly close to Wales, which has something of a reputation

generalgrog wrote:

Kovnik...you are new here, and yes I have been accused of homophobia by some of the posters on here. In their minds any type of oposition to homosexuality on moral grounds = homophobe.

Yes. That's pretty much the definition of homophobia.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Is it natural for humans to have sex with animals?

If people do it, then yes. The use of "natural" in this sense is just a euphemism for "Things I'm comfortable with."

Im curious.. Do Christians like GG think that gay animals want to feth humans?