Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha.

Wait, fuck you Joe! :p

I don't even understand how it's possible to acknowledge that discrimination against females exists, but not against males. It's just intellectually dishonest.

What I believe is the exact same oversimplified arguments homosexuals use to justify their behavior can be used by a lot of other groups

Including heterosexuals.

we all agree are immoral.

We don't all agree it's immoral.

A victory for homosexuality is an indirect victory for feminism,

That's not even a sexual identity....

transsexuals,

Possible.

bestiality,

Nope.

polygamy,

Possible.

pedophilia,

Nope.

and perverts of every kind.

And nope.

So is disputing me just an effect of you mocking goodmale's argument? Do you even believe any of the crap you're arguing in your dispute to me?

So is disputing me just an effect of you mocking goodmale's argument? Do you even believe any of the crap you're arguing in your dispute to me?

Do you support neutering and spaying because they can't give consent to that but we do it anyway

I support the owner in legally neutering or spaying their animals. It does not require consent in a court of law to do so. Where as, if the issues were to arise about rape or consensual sex between humans and animals, that cannot be established in a court of law.

but let me guss you will say there is a difference because "neutering is not as bad as rape"

No actually, it's not as bad, but that is definitely not my reason. Don't get me wrong, I don't like neutering, but I realize if I want to have animals and they have territorial issues, I just might have to.

so before you say that

Yeah I wasn't going to.

there are still both wrong and until you take action at banning neutering and spaying

Way to convince me. They're wrong, so believe it.

your just a hypocritical.

Again, I didn't argue for that reason, you assumed. But even if I did, it's not hypocritical.

And anyway animals can give consent

Prove it.

and your are getting yourself into a argument that you don't even know much about like I do.

Certainly doesn't sound like you do.

Isn't it a little hypocritical to support homosexuality but not bestiality...

Nope. Not even in the slightest.

As he says his partners consent just like gay partners? Why are you judging his lifestyle, he isn't hurting anyone.

His desired partners, being non-human animals, cannot give consent. Hypothetically, let's pretend that objectively, the non-human animals wants to consent to sex. Humans have no way of verifying this. They are not able to tell us whether or not they give consent. Consensual sex is all about ethical law and non-human animals cannot contribute to that.

Not a whole lot

Aside from the person arguing for Zoophilia being an orientation, does it have anything to do same-sex couples being allowed to adopt?

except they are using the exact same argument as homosexuals to de-criminalize their actions. Goodmale has even gone so far as to tell me it is an "orientation

And I certainly will not support Goodmale's argument on it, he is in the wrong and I could refute his arguments if necessary. I absolutely disagree with his opinion on the subject.

With that said, is there is another reason?

Exactly. lol

Do you mean Zoophilia? If you do, what does Zoophilia have to do with same-sex couples allowed the ability to adopt?