If you are going to cry, "fallacious slippery-slope!" about same-sex marriage

…make sure we haven’t already slipped there. The Slate has an article reporting on a “zoophile” using most of the arguments that homosex defenders use: slate.com/id/103801/

Liberals have a different problem. Most of them want to say that sex with your dog is wrong, but sex with a human of your own gender isn’t. The trouble is, Singer explicitly connects the two practices (both are non-procreative), and people who advocate sex with animals—“zoophiles,” as they prefer to be called—borrow the language of gay liberation. “I’m the first out-of-the-closet ‘zoo’ to be attacked because of my sexual orientation,” Philip Buble, a zoophile, told the Bangor Daily News four months ago. Buble says the “relationship” between man and beast “can develop to be a sexual one.” Testifying before a Maine legislative committee a week ago, Buble accused proponents of a ban on animal sexual abuse of trying “to force morality on a minority. It will be a disservice to zoo couples and would keep zoo couples from coming out of the closet and drive us deeper underground.” Commenting on Dearest Pet, the book that inspired Singer’s essay, other zoophiles articulate an “alternative sexual lifestyle” defined by “loving relationships with their animal lovers.”

Caligula would be proud.

In all seriousness they need to remember the animals can not consent! :mad:

Just because stuff like this needs a joke to lighten the mood.


It’s true they cannont consent. And I think this shows the weakness of consent-equals-moral-acceptability. After all, we don’t ask the cow for his consent to be chopped up, grilled and eaten. Basically they would retort that if killing and eating them is ok, then bestiality is not off the table.


“zoo couples”



If the animal finds that what is happening “feels good”, which should be easily identifiable via “scientific methods”, then isn’t that “consent”?

Of course it is.

Thus goes the inevitable road to Sodom and G-Town!


Gives a whole new meaning to the “New Zoo Review”, eh?

We’ve got some LIPSTICK on THAT Hippopotamus!


A decade ago, I would have been shocked by this.

Also, great name for that article.

If the animal finds that what is happening “feels good”, which should be easily identifiable via “scientific methods”, then isn’t that “consent”?

I’m sure you were being sarcastic, but it still set me off!

I’ve worked with animals all my life. They do not “consent” to uncomfortable things like bridles, saddles, and collars - they just get used to it. We train them to “consent” with a system of rewards and punishments. Eventually the saddle, bridle, and/or leash come to mean getting out and having fun - but it takes a while. And for some, it never happens.

We train them to stand still while various uncomfortable things happen to them, like getting shots or being shod - none of which are comfortable.

A pervert can train them to stand still, too. :mad: I doubt the animals are having fun.

Praying for the conversion of hearts,


Yes I was being sarcastic, but my point was that some “judicial pervert” WILL find that animals are either “toys” or “can consent”, due to their being “animals just like us” with “needs” that can be confirmed by “their not running away” (if nothing else), and to prohibit people from using “toys” or “consenting fellow-animals” for “amorous purposes” is unconstitutional.

That they will is not an endorsement that that’s a good thing. :slight_smile:


Ok what about this slippery slope…

We take away the right “to marry” to protect “the children”

Than we take away the rights of them to have a job to protect children. You kow teachers and priests like the church teaches.
Also they cant be exposed to gays so nothing in the service industry

Than we have to take away their rights in other jobs because they can affect husbands and damage familes, like the military as the church teaches but with all slippery slopes it keeps going from their No more jobs from gays in staight society.

Than lets look to the church in her history, in a council she declared that jews and muslims wearan identifing mark so we know who they are. Sounds good to me how about a pink triangle

Than lets take away property rights we cant have children near gays we have to protect them so nothing in range of families lets make them live in a ghetto. Its to protect the children after all, and we did it before like the japanese during WWII or the Jews in Rome it was to protect us.

Than the final step those ghettos or camps they are still a danger they have committed a crime against nature after all and the are nothing but a danger to the rest of us good moral people lets kill them, humanely of course.

Thats just as possible as the other way, and the church does support some of these ideas the final step however is the usual human step kill the problem to save the children.

What your arguement against that? All plausible and all happened during human history.

Lets face it this is balanicing act the right and the left have to fight against eachother to have a dynamic equilibrium. You fight for your slope they will fight for their slope and somewhere on top of the mountain I will hope niether side wins.

Two people of the same sex are not having a right taken from them.

They are given a LICENSE they shouldn’t have.

That license is not allowed by God. Do you prefer that this unGodly license should be granted, or God?


When I was younger I would have sided with you, but as I grew up I see both sides of the mountain lead to the destruction of human life. Liberals and conservatives, saint and sinners, base the answer to all there problems ultimately with killing people and violence, the police state is always the answer it seems. Even the church teaches that no human right is absolute that they all can be limited in order to protect, all the way up to death. Im tired of this. I think the world has enough blood on its hand thanks to the pure and wretched alike. If Prop 8 wins I will support the gays in trying to legalize it, If Prop 8 loses I will support you in protecting what you religion believes and trying to have it called back. Another words I dont want anybody to win ultimately. I want you both to fight, endlessly on, losing and gaining rights or liscences, left and right, right and left. Always fighting but hopefully no blood on anyones hands.

(For the record though I am prolife when it comes to a fetus and that is because I dont like killing so most of the politicians I vote for are obviously going to fight against this, but I would vote for a pro life log cabin guy or gal in a second)

I think “freedom” means, for a large number of people in the western world, the freedom to be your own little Caligula.

Very, very well said. :thumbsup: We have to be very careful about what is “offensive”. There are many right-wing evangelicals in this country who find Catholicism “offensive”. They see it as misleading and are afraid it might lead their children away from God and into idol worship. Any group of people who have been on the receiving end of discrimination and bigotry, IMO, ought to think twice about engaging in similiar acts against others.

Wow. There is a difference between slippery slopes and rabbit trails, and this last spate of posts are indicative of the latter.

Once liberals destroy the meaning of marriage, it opens up things like this as well as group marriages (more than two people) as well as marriage to minors, marriage to animals, marriage to the dead.

Satanic followers love that slippery slope, the easier to slip into Hades.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.