You said it, dead horse. I'm willing to forgo a long arduous agrument where we'll both end up with the same views we came in with. I've got a wife who'll gladly take up those kinds of discussions with me anytime. :)
I'd be surprised if Gel answered your questions about research. Does one really need research to tell them that animal sex probably hurts the animal? Chesty Puller wrote: > Actually, I let the comment drop because I didn't feel like getting into > that argument. There was a jibe in the initial title because the article > itself delves into that argument and that fact is that I myself have > actually predicted on this list that such utter nonsense would come to play > via the argument for homosexual marriage. And here I am, right about it. > > What I really find interesting is that your response to zoophilia is about > the same as many people's towards homosexuality. Logic aside, there are > many people who just don't think that homosexual marriage makes any sense > with the same emotion that you make clear in your post. However, that's as > far as I feel like discussing this issue because it's a dead horse. I will > decline to answer your direct question because my own feelings on any > marriage outside of male-female relationships are probably well-known or are > at least inferred with the responses that I've posted today to certain > threads. > > However, there was no question about the homosexual marraige in the response > to Gel. He insinuated that he knew of research that indicated that this > kind of relationship was actually harmful to the animal. That's what really > interests me - the fact that this research exists and the actual outcome. > Is it harmful because the animal was physically hurt? Is it emotional hurt? > Where in the world did they find test subjects? Why does Gel know about it? > > Those are the hard-hitting questions I have for Gel. > > - Matt > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ray Champagne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 3:47 PM > Subject: Re: Maybe one day we'll allow them to get married. > > > >>OK, fair enough, but I still think you're implying something ridiculous >>here...I noticed you didn't respond to the marriage comment, either. I >>mean, you put a reference to marriage in the subject, then played th >>passive-aggressive card (or actually, in this case it would be >>aggressive-passive), saying "I didn't make any statements". But that's >>not really what I wanted to know about anyways. >> >>To put it bluntly: Are you saying that if we let two Homosexshuls get >>married, we should let Fifi and her owner get married, too? >> >>Chesty Puller wrote: >> >>>I didn't make any statements, I asked why was it harmful to the dog. It >>>probably is harmful, but I don't know why it is, and I was asking Gel to >>>explain why it was since he seemed to know about the research. Sometimes >>>questions are meant to be answered as they are asked. >>> >>>- Matt >>> >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Ray Champagne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> >>>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 2:52 PM >>>Subject: Re: Maybe one day we'll allow them to get married. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Dude, are you serious? Are you asking why sexually assaulting a dog is >>>>harmful to the dog? Would you like it? >>>> >>>>And I'm sorry, but if you're fishing at comparing homosexual marriage to >>>>man and dog, it just is not comparable. One's the conscious decision of >>>>two willing persons, the other is abuse of an animal, plain and simple. >>>>They just aren't the same, and I get tried of hearing that argument... >>>> >>>>Chesty Puller wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Does this research exist? How would you get it? Why is it harmful? >>>>> >>>>>- Matt >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>>From: "Vivec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> >>>>>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 2:40 PM >>>>>Subject: Re: Maybe one day we'll allow them to get married. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Yup. >>>>>>Soon people will be marrying their dogs. >>>>>>*smirk* >>>>>>Why should ANYTHING be seen as immoral after all? >>>>>> >>>>>>The fact that the writer didn't touch on the research which says such >>>>>>interactions are harmful to the animal and should fall under Cruelty >>>>>>to animals is interesting. >>>>>> >>>>>>On 12/28/05, Chesty Puller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>http://www.slate.com/id/103801/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>- Matt >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:189988 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
