I understand, that definition suits a specific purpose, such as a person might be sexually aroused by what is forbidden, and as such in a context where inter-racial sexual relations were forbidden that could be considered stimulation due to paraphilia.

But what I meant was different, and I may not have the right term, but for lack of a better term I used paraphilia to mean anything that I, personally, do not consider sacred union. As such, inter-racial sex doesn't fit that description, for me, as I outlined it earlier.

So, with that in mind, the logic stands.

Also true.

Animals are waaaaay more complex creatures than you give them credit for, and I'm not about to speculate about what goes on in the head of a raped horse, although keep in mind that horses and dogs respond to authority very strongly.  We've bred them for obedience for centuries.

But all that is besides the point.  The main question is this.  Why would allowing marraige between two consentual adult humans suddenly lead us to allow relationships between a human and a horse?  You said that it would, so please explain the WHY behind that statement.

I accept your argument, but the silence of a human is much stronger imho. I'll just leave it there since we both agree it's a rabbithole we don't want to fall into.

TheWHY. So, as I explained to Jay, in my humble opinion, there is such a thing as absolute morality, that is defined above and beyond the personal experiences of each person. You may not agree with that, and that's your pre-rogative, but as a believer in the divine and his holy statutes, it is my opinion that anything that is outside of his ordinances, that is accepted, paves the way to loosening the sacredness in other areas. So, for instance, opening the door to pedophilia is a step to opening the door to homosexuality, to bestiality, and vice versa.

I have no pragmatic reason for this except my own personal conscience and senses of the results of these activities. That's all I can say.

Your argument is weak because it's completely dependent upon your subjective definition of sacred union. Using your logic, I could define 'sacred union' as 'two humans in love'. Which would mean that homosexual marriage falls under the category of 'sacred union'. Therefore, I could make the argument that homosexual marriage is not a step towards beastiality, and it would be just as valid as your argument.

You could, and you do. The only difference between you and I is that you pretend to be objective, while I do not. I'm basing my judgement on my personal values, which are subjective, as do you.

*record scratches*

Did you just basically state that if an animal doesn't make it known in some form a human can understand that they don't want your sexual advances that it means they do want your sexual advances?

Dafuq?

Wait, if a dog is humping your leg.......

Sorry, I can't read for you so I'll paraphrase what I wrote using your words. (Record scratches indeed)

If an animal doesn't want your sexual advances then it means they don't want your sexual and will make it known in some form a human can understand that they don't.

If that's your personal belief than that's fine and dandy.  You're an individual, and you're free to determine your behavior based on your personal beliefs.  If you think that homosexuality is going to lead you down the road to bestialty, then by all means don't have gay sex.

The problem is that the person who said this quote was not just some guy on a message board.  He was a senator, who is in charge of making policies.  It is his job to look at the evidence and make informed and educated decisions.  It's not ok for him to legislate based on his personal opinons, religious beliefs, or anything besides sound logic, reasoning, and evidence.

Well, as Runa said, you're using the Slippery Slope argument.

Also, I see you're basing your stance on your religious beliefs. Nothing I can say about that without starting a religious debate. So, I'll get out of here since I really need some sleep.