I present to you: the most appalling rage comic I’ve ever seen. And that’s even if the story it tells — one of a very bad romantic breakup — isn’t true. (Which I really, really hope is the case.) How bad is the comic? Even the denizens of r/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu, Reddit’s home for horrible rage comics, found it a bit distasteful. (Though this evidently didn’t stop all that many of them from upvoting it.)
Just so you know, when the dude in the comic refers to ‘karma,” he’s saying that if he gets upvotes for this comic, he’ll put the videos in question online.
Yeah, it’s that kind of breakup. So here’s the comic. TRIGGER WARNING for really really assholish behavior and nonconsensual sexual exploitation.
Found via the always awesome ShitRedditSays.
The problem here is that Simon is assuming that it needs to be proven that homosexuality is not deviant and un-simple and offensive to others. This does not in fact need to be proven, unless the person you’re talking to is a bigot
Shorter Simon: “Cats and dogs living together! Men will start marrying box turtles! AGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!”
@random6x7:
You can also take consensual sex between adult siblings as an example.
Read Peter Singer, he thoroughly debunked this cop-out.
CassandraSays:
God, I shouldn’t use analogies. I’ll ask you this simple question, Cassandra, and I hope that at least this one does not offend you:
What is true?
A: There are consensual acts that are “deviant” but homosexuality isn’t one of them.
B: There is no justification for the whole concept of “deviancy” of consensual acts.
As an example of what? Of other adults consenting to sex you find icky?
Simon, I maintain my santorum point. Using zoophilia to say homosexuality is a slippering slope, because if we legalize gay marriage there is no moral anymore and everything must be allowed – but I totally meant no disrespect to the homos – is the way bigots have argued against gay rights since the dawn of the lgbt movement.
However, if I bring a dolphin to prom, I’m pretty sure that will be a little more troubling than if I bring a girl, and one might make you forget the inconvenience of the other. ^_^
Simon, what do you mean by “deviant”? That’s the kind of word that seem awfully fogy to me.
@Kyrie:
Look, I know this argument is some kind of evergreen, but still I’ve never read a good rebuttal to it.
Kyrie:
I’ve no idea, I didn’t come up with this word, it was Cassandra. I have no definition for it.
One thing my ex-wife suffered from…
During the invasion of Iraq she frequently had the indecency to be Palestinian (i.e. rag-head, sand n&&&&r) during the Two
MinutesTerms of Hate.But Simon can totally understand how her coworkers felt justified to call her those things.
Okay, here’s two!
1. Queer relationships happen between two people who are capable of informed consent–adult humans. Bestiality relationships do not. (Side note: it’s kind of horribly insulting to compare humans to nonhuman animals in this way.) Therefore as long as we maintain the ethical standard of informed consent, the way to bestiality is not at all open.
2. If you want bestiality to be illegal, outlaw bestiality. And stand firm on that position. No reason to go against completely other things just because they might lead to the thing you don’t want. That’s like outlawing Tylenol because you’re opposed to heroin use–what you need to do is outlaw heroin! (Side note: and it’s usually a dirty lie from people who are bigoted against Tylenol but think they can’t sell that one to the public.)
@ Simon – That is a (really boring and obvious) trick question. It is not possible to have consensual sex with an animal.
Addendum since Simon is determined to be as stupid as possible in his pursuit of this whole “you must prove that homesexuality is OK” thing – it is not possible for a human to have consensual sex with a non-human animal. What non-human creatures do among themselves, sexually speaking, is none of our business.
Also, Simon, one thing you’re right about – you really shouldn’t use analogies, because you’re not very good at it.
Also: some of the “slippery slope” consequences are things that really don’t bother me. If someone wants to be in a relationship with an inanimate object, that’s kind of silly in my view, but I don’t see the harm, and maybe they really see something in that spatula that I don’t.
Polygamy is something I wish we could have, but I understand the legal situation is messier than with gay marriage–do insurers have to cover multiple spouses? can three or four people file taxes jointly? what happens if a healthcare decision has to be made for an incapacitated person and their spouses disagree?–so I’m sort of resigned to the fact that it probably won’t happen. Still, I hate to see it thrown out on grounds of knee-jerk ickiness.
Incest is the one I’m not sure about. I don’t know if it’s possible for a relationship between two people who grew up together to be free of troubling power dynamics, and to what degree “troubling power dynamics” should be a legislative issue. (If they didn’t grow up together, I have no problem with it; if people with genetic diseases can get married, then two people with similar genetics shouldn’t be banned.) But again, these are thoughts relating to the specific situation, not to general “ickiness.”
The general idea that “if we allow one abnormal thing, we’ll have to deal with all the abnormal things, and that’s icky!” is… well, it’s simple-minded, to say the least.
I wonder, Simon, if you really understand what consent means. What you’ve said here about consensual sex with non-human animals, as well as comments you’ve left elsewhere about consent just being some sort of comforting illusion, make me doubt it.
@CassandraSays:
Animals can have consensual sex with you as consensual as they can have sex with each other. Now you can argue that this applies to under-18-youths as well (ok, if they have sex with each other, but not with adults of a certain age), but honestly, I don’t think an animal can suffer from the manipulation by an adult as a young girl or boy could.
btw, this is the article by Peter Singer.
@Holly Pervocracy:
I don’t want it to be outlawed.
You are judging this way of arguing too harshly. I am just asking questions™, if somebody says “Marijuana should be banned because it’s addictive and dangerous for your health” then I can ask “Do you want alcohol to be banned, too?” and if he says “No” then I found an inconsistency in his reasoning, because his argument could be applied to alcohol as well but he doesn’t want to do this for some reason. There’s nothing bigoted in that. I just want to show that you (1) have the choice to either treat even the really icky things like incest equally in all respects (not just not punishable), or (2) most of your arguments like “what’s wrong with it?”, “it doesn’t harm anybody” are too simple.
Good luck in convincing others of your ideology, if you take option (1), because if you look at stories like this, where even I would say “Yes, it was just icky, but, oh God, don’t punish that… and especially leave this poor girl and her mother alone.”, you won’t have the majority of people not on your side.
It’s just shows imho how ridiculous it is, that you feel the constant need to cuddle with the mainstream and “common sense” (which is the reason for existence of this site) who are in reality not on your side.
You think I am bigoted and try to hide it, no, I am honestly confused, really. 😉
“Animals can have consensual sex with you as consensual as they can have sex with each other. ”
No, they cannot. Singer is wrong.
Whenever people start babbling about zoophilia I always think of a particular little trail of internet crumbs I followed one day that led me to the discovery that there are some zoophiles who want to fuck sharks. Which is just about the best case of the Darwin Awards I’ve ever heard of. Please, creepy perverts who want to fuck animals, go ahead and put the moves on a Great White. I’ll bring the popcorn.
oh damn, we need a preview feature 😉 one quotation mark forgotten and that’s the result…
And again:
@CassandraSays:
Animals can have consensual sex with you as consensual as they can have sex with each other. Now you can argue that this applies to under-18-youths as well (ok, if they have sex with each other, but not with adults of a certain age), but honestly, I don’t think an animal can suffer from the manipulation by an adult as a young girl or boy could.
btw, this is the article by Peter Singer.
@Holly Pervocracy:
I don’t want it to be outlawed.
You are judging this way of arguing too harshly. I am just asking questions™, if somebody says “Marijuana should be banned because it’s addictive and dangerous for your health” then I can ask “Do you want alcohol to be banned, too?” and if he says “No” then I found an inconsistency in his reasoning, because his argument could be applied to alcohol as well but he doesn’t want to do this for some reason. There’s nothing bigoted in that. I just want to show that you (1) have the choice to either treat even the really icky things like incest equally in all respects (not just not punishable), or (2) most of your arguments like “what’s wrong with it?”, “it doesn’t harm anybody” are too simple.
Good luck in convincing others of your ideology, if you take option (1), because if you look at stories like this, where even I would say “Yes, it was just icky, but, oh God, don’t punish that… and especially leave this poor girl and her mother alone.”, you won’t have the majority of people not on your side. It’s just shows imho how ridiculous it is, that you feel the constant need to cuddle with the mainstream and “common sense” (which is the reason for existence of this site) who are in reality not on your side.
You think I am bigoted and try to hide it, no, I am honestly confused, really. 😉
Also, it amuses me that Simon is so fixated on the issue of whether or not animals can consent to sex with people. Again, it’s quite clear that he doesn’t understand how consent works, or why it is that most societies legally bar adults from having sex with children.
Actually, any time he writes anything about sex I shudder, if we’re being honest.
Animals can have consensual sex with you as consensual as they can have sex with each other.
No. No they cannot. A boy dog and a girl dog can communicate with each other as equals, more or less. A person and a dog cannot communicate; the dog doesn’t know that the human intends to have sex, can’t communicate clearly with a human, and doesn’t understand what sex means to a human.
if somebody says “Marijuana should be banned because it’s addictive and dangerous for your health” then I can ask “Do you want alcohol to be banned, too?” and if he says “No” then I found an inconsistency in his reasoning, because his argument could be applied to alcohol as well but he doesn’t want to do this for some reason.
No, they’re different substances. They’re not exactly the same amount addictive and dangerous. I know you’re SIMPLE, but for fuck’s sake, believing one thing doesn’t mean you have to believe all the other things, or however this is supposed to work.
Also, can we stop with the analogies? Arguing about whether it’s okay if a fish fucks a walrus, or whatever, has really little bearing on whether it’s okay if two consenting adult humans fuck.
It is.
End of story.
Every time Simon posts, this is what I hear in my head: “Shut the fuck up, Donny, you’re out of your element.”
Is ‘animals cannot give consent, therefore it is morally wrong to have sex with them’ really such a difficult argument to comprehend? Really?
Is ‘if a person does not or cannot give consent, it is legally and morally wrong to have sex with them?’