Q: "Gatlin is bestiality moral?"
Reverend Gatlin: [Er...um...uh...er...uh] "There are many different definitions of moral and various interpretations of morality.
"Ergo, it would depend what the definition of is ... is."
After cornered, challenged, and struggling to answer a simple question of morality with some Clintoneque weasel words and usual cluelessness, Gatlin finally thinks he's got the definite answer to an obvious abomination and perversion:
"It is my personal opinion that bestiality is wrong and reflects badness of human character."
Poster Comment:
After careful, calculated thought, LP's brand-spanking new theologian Gatlin relies on a "personal opinion" to concludes that bestiality is merely wrong. (But NOT "immoral.")
Again, note that Gatlin relies NOT on God's Law. NOT on the Bible. And most conspicuously avoids answering the original question of whether bestiality is "moral."
So there you have it from LP's new resident spokesman on bestiality. Merely "wrong" and "bad." Juuuust a bit naughty, eh, Gatlin?
The embarrassing runaway trainwreck of a thread also netted a cornered Meguro...
Meguro avoided answering the question THREE TIMES by reacting as he always does when pinned down: By answering a question with a series of subsequent diverting questions. It didn't work this time. He finally answers the question after a FOURTH request. Follow along the comedic evasiveness from Post #9:
http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=348605&Disp=9#C9 Finally:
"Is bestiality moral Meguro?"
Meguro: "To me, nope. I consider it animal cruelty."
Notice the context. Meguro doesn't consider bestiality a "moral" act ONLY because it's "animal cruelty." NOT because it's an immoral act of perversion. NOT because it's disgusting. NOT because it's an unnatural act. And certainly NOT because it's an abomination.
http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=348605&Disp=20#C20
Birds of a moral relativist feather flock together.
