M.C #fundie

M.C #fundie freeconservatives.com

I'd rather have the beastiality lovers have marriage rights than the gays. Provided of course the animal is of the opposite sex. Much less disgusting in my opinion.

88 comments

old comment by MilkyWay

(apologise in advance for length of post)
Actually, this point of view makes sense. If we start with the premise that in a proper christian heterosexual "relationship" the man is the King and the woman is property, we also have the conclusion that the woman can not meaningfully give consent to sex. In fact, her consent is immaterial since her sexuality is the property of the man. If you have a "relationship" between a man and an animal, you have the proper christian situation of man being the King and the other creature being property, which can not in any meaningful way give consent to sex. However, in a homosexual relationship you have two males and therefore two people who have equal standing (or two women, still two people of equal status, though the status is lower). Therefore you have a situation between two equals, which means there in fact can be meaningful consent to sex. Moreover, according this logic there can not be the proper christian relationship of a dominator and a submissive between two males (or females). So this leads me to believe that the reason why bestiality is less of an abomination to these people than homosexuality, is that in their view the most important feature of a proper christian relationship is that it is between a dominator and a submissive and that the submissive is not in a position to refuse sex. Any "relationship" that follows this rule is inherently better than any relationship between equals, that allows for meaningful consent to sex. Ergo, bestiality is better than homosexuality. Just makes me wonder how could anyone have such a fucked up view of what's important in a relationship.

old comment by Gore

@MilkyWay

"(And btw, I apologise about any misuse of words as well and imprecise expressions. I was tired and English is not my native language...)\n\nBasically it seems that the central point of a proper christian \"relationship\" is that the dominated partner has no right to deny sex. \n\nSounds like an ideology cooked up by people who couldn't get laid any other way."

I can see what you're getting at, and it sounds very much like the self righteousness of tyrants within the tribe providing "divine" justification for horrifically immoral acts and in the same turn extending it to the male hegemons who would benefit and remain loyal. It's utterly barbaric indeed.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"I'd rather have the beastiality lovers have marriage rights than the gays."

Translated: 'I'm a closet zoophile'

"Provided of course the animal is of the opposite sex."

PROTIP: In Lebanon, beastiality is legal. But only if said animal is of the opposite sex. I'll be sure to see you off on the flight to Beirut, M.C.

"Much less disgusting in my opinion."

So M.C. thinks a human having sex with a non-sentient, non-consenting animal is normal, compared with two adult, sentient, consenting humans, eh?

*Presses Tannoy microphone button*)

Paging Dr. Freud. Dr. Freud, please go to Consulting Room 5.

image

'...I see. I must later consult with my colleagues messrs. Masters & Johnson, Kraft-Ebing, and Kinsey on this matter. Now tell me about your mother.'

M.C #fundie freeconservatives.com

88 comments

Confused?