Hi Robert-I,

I'm back after a nice few days away with my family. Returning to the discussion ... I'll try to summarize the thread as it currently stands, and list the "outstanding issues". OK? Here goes...

A) I joined the thread here. [https://www.cblf.org/messages/53316.htm] I tried to lay out some examples of how zoophiles are really not all that different from any of us on this boards. It's simply that we have different objects of attraction.

B) You responded. [https://www.cblf.org/messages/53334.htm] You stated that animals have no capacity for "marital love".

C) I responded. [https://www.cblf.org/messages/53349.htm] I said, for me it wasn't so much about the marriage issue, but more about "loving relationships" in general.

D) You responded. [https://www.cblf.org/messages/53351.htm] This was a fairly detailed post. I can't claim to understand it all, but I think I follow the general thread of what you're saying.

E) I responded. [https://www.cblf.org/messages/53365.htm] Here I tried to list some of the characteristics of the "heterosexual norm" and the "alternative" sexual identities, and stated that I believe that all alternatives need to be viewed together (and either accepted or rejected together). [This is the main post that, I feel, hasn't really been addressed.]

F) You responded. [https://www.cblf.org/messages/53374.htm] You didn't really address the statements in (E), but took issue with having your loving marriage compared to a man having sex with an animal (but using cruder terms).

G) I responded. [https://www.cblf.org/messages/53378.htm] I basically accused you of being "zoophilophobic" (to use the term you later coined).

H) You responded. [https://www.cblf.org/messages/53384.htm] You briefly asked me if I am a "zoo", so that you could tailor your response appropriately.

I) I responded. [https://www.cblf.org/messages/53385.htm] Nope, I'm not a "zoo", I'm a religiously-abstaining BL.

Well, that's basically where it ended. It seems to me that the post in (E), and some of the statements in subsequent posts, have not yet been addressed. (F) onwards got side-tracked from the main issue. I'll list the relevant statements below for your reference (so it shouldn't be necessary to go back to the main posts unless you want to get some context).

********** From post (E) **********

As you know, I believe that homosexual relationships are NOT approved by God; neither are zoosexual ones. [At least on the latter, we seem to be in agreement.] I see the issue in fairly simple terms: Heterosexuality is the "norm". God obviously designed for men and women to be attracted to each other and to procreate. Now, as we know, there are exceptions to the rule: some are attracted to others of the same sex, others are attracted to animals, there are many different variations. The question is, are the alternative sexual identities (and practices) acceptable or not?

It seems to me that you take a very low-level, "targeted" approach to making this decision. You look at a particular sexual identity, and even a particular set of relational circumstances, and you ask the question, "Is this acceptable to God?" On the one hand, you have come to believe that "loving homosexual relationships" ARE acceptable to God. But on the other hand, you believe that "loving zoosexual relationships" (limited as that term may be) are NOT acceptable. [I know you have reasons for making this distinction; I'm not discounting them, I'm just stating the "bottom line".]

I think of it differently: I look at the "big picture". First I consider what all sexual orientations have in common. Then, I break them into two categories: "the heterosexual norm", and the "the alternatives".

First of all, what do all sexual orientations (hetero, homo, pedo, zoo) have in common?

- Sexual orientation is NOT a choice! I think we're probably all in agreement on this. [I certainly did not choose to be sexually attracted to boys.]

- All sexual orientations have fundamentally similar genetic or developmental origins. Obviously there are differences, otherwise we'd all have the same orientation; I'm just saying that, fundamentally, at the highest level, sexual orientation is formed in a similar way for all people.

OK, let's consider "the heterosexual norm" (excluding extremes such as sadomasochism):

- Heterosexuality is obviously necessary for the continuation of the human race, as it is the only means of procreation.

- Heterosexual relationships (particularly in the context of marriage) have clear Biblical support.

Let's consider the "alternatives". In this category I'd include homosexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, sadomasochism, etc.:

- On the whole, alternative sexual orientations do NOT allow for procreation. [If one considers sadomasochism an "orientation", this might be an exception, but few would consider it healthy, Godly, or normal.]

- No alternative sexual orientation has clear Biblical support. [This can be argued, of course, but if there IS Biblical support, it's debatable at best.]

- Some alternative sexual practices are clearly detestable (to any reasonable human being). For the sake of argument, I won't include homosexuality; but what about the extreme cases?: sex with animals, adults having sex with infants and toddlers, sex with the dead, sex involving physical violence. Without trying to be specific and say, "is it loving? is it monogamous?", at a high level, the fact remains that some alternative sexual practices simply are NOT acceptable, and can not be considered Godly by any decent human being. [My personal belief is that ALL alternative sexual practices are unacceptable, but I know not everyone agrees with this; still, the extreme cases should provide common ground for all of us.]

As I see it, these broad categories provide for a reasonable, logical grouping. Now few would argue AGAINST the heterosexual norm -- that should be a given. But what about the alternatives? It makes sense to me that all alternatives should be grouped as one, and should be accepted or rejected as one (rather than trying to justify why one or other subtle variation is OK). On that basis, and given the reasons listed above, it makes sense to me that all these alternative sexual orientations/practices should be rejected as "NOT approved by God".

********** From post (G) **********

To you, your relationship is loving. [And I completely agree!!!] But you see a zoosexual relationship as "f***ing". To a "zoo" (if zoophilia.net is anything to go by), the relationship he or she experiences with an animal is just as loving and intimate as one that two humans might experience. Though I don't agree with such relationships, taken purely from the perspective of the individuals involved, it is hard to argue that the relationships they experience are any less "valid" or loving than the relationship you have ... or even the relationship heterosexual couples have.

That's why an objective standard is needed! Without a standard everything is left up to perception and feelings.

I know, as a Christian, that you believe that God supports homosexual relationships, and you have what you see as good Biblical support for that belief. That may very well be, and I may be completely wrong on this issue! [It certainly wouldn't be the first time I have totally missed the boat.] But, setting aside for a moment the offense of the comparison, is it possible that similar arguments could be used to defend loving zoosexual relationships (limited as they are)?

********** From post (I) **********

I am a religiously-abstaining BL. I have absolutely no zoo tendencies. Honestly, I find it repulsive. But, I think it's important to at least try and see the other orientations from the perspective of the people with those attractions. That's why I have been reading their materials and playing "devil's advocate" in defense of their position. Well, if not in defense of their position, at least in defense of equal treatment for their orientation along side all other alternative orientations. As hard as it may be to believe, it genuinely seems to me that the people involved in this lifestyle feel they are "following their heart" and loving animals in a way that is morally right and beautiful. [They "seem" like nice people; just like us; not weird freaks.] I don't agree with their views, of course, but I find it difficult to see any fundamental difference in what they believe about their orientation and what gays believe about theirs. Yes, I know there are huge differences (in other ways); but for those involved, they're just trying their best to live in a loving way with their own particular set of attractions. In that sense, I think it's important to consider ALL alternative orientations together, apply the same rules across the board, and allow each to "stand or fall" based on that same set of rules. Make sense?

**********

OK, that's it. I hope the above summary is useful. Thanks for "hanging in there" with me.

Wishing you all God's best,
Rainboy