homosexuality is as unnatural as beastiality, can u distinguish between the two please?

Question

this question was given to me as answer to my previous question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsW3lMWVjqbHdEMU1G.lYiXsy6IX?qid=20060711103247AAoFWJG

i'm kinda lazy today, i don't even feel like explaining about consenting adults. So, please do me a favor, typ a short answer to enlighten this sweet innocent girl who asked me this.

Answer 1

Dear stupid girl;
Beastiality is rape. The animal cannot consent to being used in this way.
Now, two human adults of the same sex however, CAN consent. The two have NOTHING to do with each other. And the one does not lead to the other. In fact, beastiality is practiced by straight, white males. Most from the southern US, who are lonely because thier sisters are away for a few days.
Do you understand now?Or do we need to dumb it down some more for you?

Answer 2

The sweet innocent girl is correct: both are unnatural, even though two consenting adults are involved.

There is no gay DNA, either.

Are you saying that if a consenting adult animal and a consenting adult human were involved, it would be correct? You are wondering how you would get consent from an animal? You need to visit some of the secret live shows involving a stallion and a woman. On second thought, you better not: it is absolutely revolting (so I've been told by friends who saw it).

Answer 3

Homosexuality: It's a sexual preference, you can be homosexual without practicing it. When you practice it, it's understood there's consent from both sides, otherwise it's plain rape.

Bestiality: It's used by the sexual act itself between a human and a non-human animal and it's not considered a "preference" per se (some might disagree). Even if it's questionable whether some animals like this practice, it's generally accepted that there is no consent from the non-human side, so, it's considered an abuse.

I wouldn't say bestiality is unnatural, it's sex between two animals. I would say it's immoral though, since it implies unnecesary abuse and lack of consent from the non-human side. Killing an animal for food ain't considered an ambuse (then again, some might disagree).

Some people confuse "ethics" and "morals" with "nature", having sex in public can be natural, it isn't morally acceptable though.

Answer 4

The key difference is that when two adults decide to commit an 'unnatural act' it is up to them. However when a human decides to have sex with an animal they are abusing an animal that has no choice but to comply.

So one is an act of love between two consenting adults and the other is an act of animal abuse.

The question by the way is very unoriginal and by comparing bestiality (or in some examples of this question pedophilia), it is just another method used by homo prejudiced people to peddle their hate speak against those who do not think and act as they do.

Answer 5

As both exist, I can't see how they could be considered unnatural. I would remind you that there is ample evidence that homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom, and that inter-species sexuality exists as well.
Distinguishing between the two is simple. One involves sexual relations between humans of the same sex, and the other involves sexuality between a human and another animal.
As to the person who used evolution as an argument against both of these activities, I would remind you that there is also ample evidence throughout the animal kingdom, that sexuality involves far more than procreation.
I would also add that I am not endorsing either of these activities, merely answering your question.

Answer 6

Firstly, you start your question with a statement, and an unproven, and incorrect one at that. Homosexual behavior is observed in nature all the time. It therefore cannot be "unnatural".

As for the rest of it, homosexuality is having sex with the same gender of the same species. Bestiality (not "beastiality", that is a common mis-spelling) is having sex with either gender of another species.

You might want to keep your agenda out of your questions, or at least get your "facts" straight.

Answer 7

Hahaha.. wow. I'm glad my life isn't full of the same kind of people as the Internet seems to be..

Zoophilia isn't wrong because it's "unnatural", or goes against some kind of special Ten Commandments from Mother Nature that we're all somehow supposed to know. Zoophilia is wrong because it's abusive to the animal. Consenting homosexuality is not abusive to anyone (except the tender, tender sensibilities of the occasional fundamentalist).

How's that?

Answer 8

It is about time we agree on something. As I do believe, homosexuality is a great danger that threatens the world's social fabric and a disease. In the same way as a virus kills the human body, this danger brings about subtle social collapse. Homosexuality, prostitution, pre-marital and extra-marital sex, sexual misdemeanors, pornography, sexual harassment and the increase of sex-related illnesses, are a number of important indications of the collapse of moral values.
With 22 million dead in 20 years, the proportion of sex-related illnesses is an important criterion to help indicate the extent of the problems facing humanity. According to the records of the World Health Organization (WHO), sex-related diseases forms one of the largest segments of illnesses. These reports show that of an estimated 333 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases occur in the world every year.18 In addition, AIDS continues to be the most serious problem. Statistics of WHO indicate that the total number of AIDS deaths since the beginning of the epidemic have been 18.8 million persons.19 The report of the World Health Organization for the year 2000 sums up the situation succinctly: "AIDS is unique in its devastating impact on the social, economic and demographic underpinnings of development." Among the most frightening developments is the spread of homosexuality. The audacity of today's homosexuals makes one think of the end of the people of Lut who were noted for their homosexuality. As it says in the Qur'an, when they flamboyantly rejected Lut (as)'s invitation to the right path, Allah destroyed the city and its people by a great disaster. As a reminder, the remains of this perverse society still lie beneath the water of Lut's Lake (the Dead Sea).

Answer 9

I am not sure I would consider these on equal footing as a Christian, but, I do not believe either is normal. Humans are the only animal that I know of that really perverts the normal order. I have seen young puppies and dogs who acted as if they would mate with others of the same sex. I have never seen one who would actually refuse a female of the same species who was in heat in favor of a male. Animals mate only with the opposite of their sex in nature. Perhaps someone has had two male dogs that managed to connect but I have never heard of it.
Peace of Christ,
Debra

Answer 10

No it is not...In fact boys and girls are often attracted to each other as small children and are TAUGHT that it is not right. There are natural human instincts that drive us toward eachother. What I mean is that we don't care to be alone through our lives and need the bonding with another person regardless of gender. We've also a great need to be loved and cared about, and that too is regardless of gender. Finally, It is Religion that makes homosexuality "wrong"...I ask...Who are they to judge or force rules upon us that make little if any sense? PEACE!