08-09-2017, 02:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-09-2017, 02:22 AM by egoldstein.)
Quote:Argument #8: Being zoosexual is only a choice, so it is unnecessary.
Why this argument fails: Zoosexuality is a sexual orientation just like any other sexual orientation. People are born zoosexual in the same way people are born homosexual — it is an orientation that cannot be changed.
This is a piss-poor retort, it asserts that zoosexuality is an orientation, but offers no substance to support the claim, it carries the same weight as the opposite assertion it is intended to refute. Anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Maybe it *is* a choice, I don't know. Assuming if it is, and in all cases, the assertion that it's unecesary is still pointless. There are many things in life which are not "necessary" and as a society we do not remove them or punish for them, many of them are even encouraged. Non-procreative sex of all types is "unnecessary", eating good food of a quality more than required to sustain life, having a nice house or car, the accumulation of wealth, every labor-saving device ever invented, and an absolutely astounding number of other actions which are typically engaged in and considered "good".
