-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is beastiality immoral?
- Thread starter -Peacemaker-
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
ah, back to your same unsubstantiated claims.
Let me guess, you are not going to offer anything to support your claims in this thread either, are you?
Its immoral. I never did like the idea that we can treat animals any way we please. Even if you want to make them into bacon, they should at least not suffer.
I'm struck by the numerous references of men raping animals, but the usual situation is the other way around -- a consenting human being...mmm.. 'serviced' by a willing male animal.
I think most would agree that unwanted or forced sex with a presumably unwilling, female animal is abusive, but what do people think of the Fido-on-top scenario?
I think most would agree that unwanted or forced sex with a presumably unwilling, female animal is abusive, but what do people think of the Fido-on-top scenario?
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
The viewpoint of the animal aside, it strikes me as repulsive to want sexual intimacy with anything or anyone who isn't roughly my mental and psychological equivalent. I feel similarly about 50-year-olds having sex with 14-year-olds. Whatever argument for consent that can be made, my personal morals require a level of developed awareness, communication, and critical thinking. Any kind of relationship where the power balance is always tipped or where the other party can't care for unintended (or intended) effects of my actions (like a disease, pregnancy, etc.) is immoral to me. I can't answer if it's moral for others.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Animals cannot consent, therefore it is abuse.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
It makes no difference to me.
Although, all in all, the number of people who practice this has got to be incredibly low. I don't really care about the legislative aspect or morality of it for others. Like Phil indicated, there are more important things to focus on.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
...You do know the slippery slope is actually the name of an extremely well known fallacy, right?
As for the "psychological harm" bit, present your evidence.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It would likely impact the dog's behavior and make it aggressive due to the whole alpha hierarchy thing dogs have. It would see itself as the dominant one.
Also, it would call into question the psychological health of the mount-ee.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
The problem is in the term moral. Morallity is a subjective term that means entirely different things depending on the culture, region and time period in question. Because if this, it can be made to look like beastiality can be moral. However, if you look at human culture throughout history you will not find a culture that considers beastiality moral. When practiced it is always done in secrecy. This tells me that as a species, we instinctually know its wrong and therefore immoral.
Now if you look at homosexuality in the same context, you will find the opposite. Historically there are many, many cultures and societies that accepted homosexuality as normal and some that considered it a blessing from the gods. This tells me that current homophobia is due to cultural conditioning rather than instinct.
Also, since we know homosexuality has been accepted for far more centuries than it has been rejected, and beastiality has never been accepted, we can conclude that a current shift towards accepting homosexuality will not mean an automatic acceptance of beastiality. No matter what the fundamentalists say.
Now if you look at homosexuality in the same context, you will find the opposite. Historically there are many, many cultures and societies that accepted homosexuality as normal and some that considered it a blessing from the gods. This tells me that current homophobia is due to cultural conditioning rather than instinct.
Also, since we know homosexuality has been accepted for far more centuries than it has been rejected, and beastiality has never been accepted, we can conclude that a current shift towards accepting homosexuality will not mean an automatic acceptance of beastiality. No matter what the fundamentalists say.
And this justifies raping them how, exactly?
(Rape is assumed given a nonhuman animal generally cannot give consent)
For me it is immoral. But my morality isn't everyone else's morality. Too bad for them though!
No, just false imprisonment.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Pet ownership is a symbiotic relationship. The pet can't survive on its own and the pet owner benefits from owning the pet in many ways such as better mental & emotional health.
Domestic work animals such as oxen, horses and hunting dogs might be closer to slavery though. Medical test subjects too. Food animals maybe.
Domestic work animals such as oxen, horses and hunting dogs might be closer to slavery though. Medical test subjects too. Food animals maybe.
If they're the aggressor, the "top," isn't that implied consent?
I don't think harming animals for sexual gratification is very moral at all, it isn't as bad as having sex with children but it is still pretty bad. Animals can't give consent.