>>16874112>>16874113Well, let's go over all of them:
>zoophiliaConsent is given through submission. An animal can consent to an action, they just can't give formal consent (also known as informed consent).
Formal consent is not needed because animal brains don't have similiar brain complexity that makes formal consent relevant.
>pedophiliaFair point.
>necrophiliaYou can very well create a mutual agreement wherein your body shall be donated or sold to a necrophilic person in case of death.
Or in other cases, you could sign an agreement that your lover gets to keep the corpse for as long as he or she wants after death.
These agreements can be made while alive and are akin to last wills.
Anyway, my point wasn't that these things should be included in LGBT.
My point was that, in the age of sexual liberty and nuance, the very same people who herald these virtues, whisper death threats to people who belong in these categories that don't really hurt anyone.
I'm not saying that pedophiles should start raping kids, that zoophiles should start kidnapping pets or that necrophiles should start digging out graves.
I'm saying that, to various extends, these sexual preferences can and are usually carried out in responsible ways so that no harm is caused to outsiders. That's all that should matter to stay consistent.
>>16874125This is a clear example of what I'm talking about.
It's no different from accusing someone for being homosexual when they're defending homosexuality; villifying them for the sake of villification.
