Pilger sees nothing wrong with some forms of bestiality and is cheered by the left. At least Cory is repulsed by it. Funny how quickly the moral relativist are so absolutely sure Corey is wrong. What hypocrites!

I think we are over looking the intent of the thread,but ask no restrain it.
I submitted my thread before the clown went.
Say well done to Abbott.
But refuse to even think Cory had a right to say such silly things.
In fact there lays a problem.
As Romney, an already beaten candidate, spoke out his own doom so did Cory.
But I think we see evidence of just how far removed politics has become from what it once was.
Like actors on the big screen almost anything is said but often not believed by them.
I have waited for Abbott to slip in such away, any one can.
We are shallow, we except acting, fall at the feet of stars, not politicians.
Cory was is and again will be afar right leader even pusher in a party that is too,both Liberal and for some radical.
We must confront the facts, worse is being served up!
Know lies dressed to frighten.
We are confronted with a Parliament, a world, that puts victory before truth.

Irrespective of Cory's 'slippery slope' theory there are those who reconize bestiality.

For example, Professor Peter Singer OAM is quoted as saying on national TV recently.

"We should consider whether sexual gratifacation with an animal is really wrong"

Peter Singer received an OAM last year, is a strong advocate of animal liberation, a phillosopher of note and heads the Ethics department of Princeton University.

There is a website devoted to Singers quotes.

Banjo let us face it some will propose any sexual act, including Child sex.
However the link between same sex and this is not to be found.
Let us be honest.
Do we wish to see anyone,from any side of politics use this type of junk comment in Parliament.
Anyone with any understanding of this bloke will understand he is an extremist.
A fire lighter, just read his own page.
Far from his first deliberate insulting action.
I must again say, I am not a fan of homosexuality,but understand it is seemingly unavoidable for some.
A current Liberal Bill to be put in Parliament, to allow a lifetime commitment that is not a wedding but a partner agreement.
To be available to all sexes seems a fair second choice.
No good softening the truth, on any issue, this bloke went past decent far past it.

not to long back the murder of the unborn for convenience was thought repulsive by the vast majority. Now it is accepted by many as a right. Social engineers know the public need time to sear people's consciences enough to accept the unacceptable.

Belly and others say Cory should not be allowed to say what he said but I heard no protests about Deveny's vile comments or Singers sick philosophy which argues for bestiality in 'certain 'circumstances. The main problem is that many refuse to accept the sick state of the human heart.

Belly,
Did this bloke go beyond the pale?

In Brazil homosexuals got 'marriage' rights in May, and now others are calling for polygamy to be recognized. We have had calls also for legal polygamy here.

The greens here have a policy of lowering the age of consent.

As i pointed out some people are at least questioning the law about bestiality.

My personal view is that i do not care if homosexuals have a union under law, but do not call it marriage. Marriage means a union between a male and female.

So if we allow homosexual marriage, where do we draw the line. Is polygamy, incest, bestiality or child sex more offensive than same sex activity? What about same sex polygamy or same sex incest? I find them all offensive. If we draw a line can we hold it?

Where on the 'slippery slope' would you draw the line?