I really don't see the difference between a person basing their policies on personal belief and a person basing their policies on personal values based on naturalism. I honestly don't see how one is superior to another.

First of all, don't bother with happydolphin.  I'm sure his intentions are pure, but he's kind of inconsistent and a little off with his logic centers.  

As for horse rape...I kind of don't see the big deal.  I mean, I'm not saying 'go rape horses', I just don't imagine horses see it as rape.  I've worked in stables, in kennels, a bit of vet work (was just volunteering but it counts), and I've owned enough animals to know two things:  1 - If an animal doesn't like what you do, even if they submit to you as its master, they tell you.  and 2 - Animals don't see sex as some horribly sacred taboo, so they don't tend to put the kinds of weird, arbitrary limits on their sexual behaviour.  Humans are one of the only species that feel SHAME when it comes to sex and sexuality, one of the only species that put sex up on a pedestal as some holy bond, a dog will hump your neighbour's leg if it smells of bitch and a stallion will swing happily if he catches a scent of mare, they don't care like we do.  To them, sex with them is no more an atrocity than, say, putting a leash or collar on them, or perhaps having them tattooed.  It may be a little uncomfortable, and they may not like it, but like everything else their masters do, it's really no big deal.  just part of daily life. 

Besides, of all the things we do to our pets, I'd say body mutilation and forced labor are considerably worse than sex.  (declawing, docking tails and ears, spaying and neutering, making them work for us, racing, shows, obedience for entertainment).  After all, a dog will hump anything, realistically speaking, what's so morally wrong about letting them do so?  

Again, not condoning such behaviour, but logically, the only parties we're offending is ourselves.  we don't LIKE the idea of lowering ourselves to bestial tendencies, we find the idea repulsive, and even though such acts were normal throughout most of human history (I once read some of the earliest porn scribblings on caves involved a man and donkey or horse), sex has become taboo in the last few centuries with the puritans taking over.  Now homosexuality is deemed a sin, bestiality is considered abuse, and paraphilias are considered mental diseases.  

I'm kind of a hippie, though.  Live and let love I say.  

or maybe I'm just overreacting to a co worker telling me he hates Elton John because this co worker of mine "Doesn't like fags" and I'm bi myself, which is halfway there and my one friend who also works with us is gay and....yeah.  Either way, Live and let love bros.  As long as nobody's hurt, there's nothin wrong with having fun, even if what you enjoy isn't what society deems as normal.  Anyone openly likening one sexual act/orientation to another simply becuase they deem them both repulsive is simply ignorant.  This australian politician is just the latest in a line of backwards thinking traditionalists who can't handle the idea that maybe other people don't see the world the same way they do.  Bullies will be bullies, and bullies often bully because of ignorance; too bad these bullies are the ones in charge. 

You're underrating animals, and you're overrating humans.  First off, if you have a human who is deranged enough to have sex with an animal do you think he's going to be looking for signs that the animal wants him to stop?  And IF we find that someone is having sex with an animal, how can we determine if the animal resisted?  Can't exactly put it on the witness stands.

And if this is the case, why are Pitbulls so commonly abused?  Surely, an abused Pitbull could easily kill its human abuser if it wanted to.  So why doesn't it?  It's because they're bred for obedience.  Also, much like humans, they come to respect authority.  If you kick a pitbull when it's a pup that's too small to fight back, it will grow up thinking the human is stronger than he is, and will come to assume fighting back is futile. There is more to it than that, but if animals were as simple as you say and would simply fight back against whatever they found objectionable, you wouldn't have all the animal abuse that goes on.

How about some objectivity with objectivity?

What right do you have to impose your beliefs on others, and tell them that they cannot do such a thing? Are you in the same group seeking to make the drawing of Mohammed illegal?

And what right do you have to do the same? What makes your values more valid than mine?

Fact: they aren't. The hour of reckoning is at hand.

@JWein. I said you had a good argument already, I was just clarifying my statement to viper which he inadvertedly butchered.

In other words, if they don't display some kind of message that you can understand to mean "no" they are actually accepting, perhaps even wanting, your sexual advances?

Yes, that's what I was implying, whether it was correct or not. I don't pretend to hold all the answers.

Politicians should be basing their policy on observable fact, studies, and logic.

For instance, we have many states and countries where gay marraige is legal.  So, is bestiality more prevalent in these areas than others?  That's something that can be observed, measured, and proven.  So, that's something you can use to make policy.  Religion isn't verifiable, and doesn't really make usable predictions of the outcomes of certain policies, so it should not be used to shape policy. 

@Runa:  Welp, I think I've talked about horse fucking about as much as I care to today.  Good night folks!!!

I knew you'd say that..

The fact of the matter is that, while you're working towards forbidding gay marriage, to quote Louis CK: "Nobody is being gay AT you". So how exactly is this affecting you, personally?

Well, I was going to reply with something that could help clarify how my PoV fits with yours, but I prefer go to bed, as you just made me realize how sick this topic is in the first place.

Good night bro.