• 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?

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
When you think about it, you could make an argument that it's not. Animals aren't people after all. We have no problem slaughtering them for food or performing science experiments on them. We use their skins for clothing. We keep them as pets. What do you guys think? Is there an argument that while it's certainly disgusting, it may not actually be immoral?
 

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
Thanks Jungle. I know what you are trying to convey but it's a little too "slippery slope"

Kinda reminds me of the Marquis de Sade's Parable of the Pig actually.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
It is not "inherently" immoral, but my problem is that it may CREATE new diseass in the human race and to do something with such hazard knowingly( you would need to know thias hazard exists) would be immoral on my view.

Beyond that, yeah it´s disgusting but I think killing animals for gastronomical pleasure is worst than just make them feel uncomfortable (or comfortable? :s ) with this kind of... very gross behaviour :p
 

.lava

Veteran Member
When you think about it, you could make an argument that it's not. Animals aren't people after all. We have no problem slaughtering them for food or performing science experiments on them. We use their skins for clothing. We keep them as pets. What do you guys think? Is there an argument that while it's certainly disgusting, it may not actually be immoral?

We may have problems with experiments on animals and killing them for fashion. I don't know how to put these under the same title with having them as pets since pet is a friend.

It's been discussed before and i was convinced beastiality is rape. I still believe it is

.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Are you really going to question whether someone has morals again because they disagree with you?

Technically, she just asked "which" morals he has. Insuficient data to really say she is saying he has nomorals and not actually asking which kind of moral parameters Skwim uses.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Drolefille said:
CynthiaCypher said:
And what morals are those?
Are you really going to question whether someone has morals again because they disagree with you?
It's alright. I'm sure CC. has no ulterior motive lurking within her question. Right CC.?
Anyway, I suspect my morals aren't too different from those of others: Try to do no harm, respect the rights and privileges of others, be as just and fair as one can, etc. etc. Now, if you expect anyone to justify an position, and I assume that's what you're ultimately looking for here, then in this case I would first have to know why it should be justified. Just what is puzzling you about my answer? To me it seems quite reasonable.
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
back to the bestiality topic again - just when you thought it was all done and dusted......

of course it's immoral.

bestiality is wrong for 3 main reasons:

1. Depravity
2. Immorality
3. Disease


since when was it considered normal behaviour for a person to have sex with their dog?
 

ankarali

Active Member
It's immoral. We spoil psychologie of the animals. The aim of the sexual relation is to have a child and from this relation there is no child. It is against the nature also.
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
I agree.

Glad to see someone else also mentioning the Order of Nature.

It's just obvious commonsense.

does anyone actually know of a way in which man and beast can produce child?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
back to the bestiality topic again - just when you thought it was all done and dusted......

of course it's immoral.

bestiality is wrong for 3 main reasons:

1. Depravity
2. Immorality
3. Disease


since when was it considered normal behaviour for a person to have sex with their dog?

ROFL! :biglaugh::biglaugh:
It's immoral cause it's immoral! Love it!
Martin, do you know what circular reasoning is?

Disease? One's more likely to contract a disease from another human than from an animal. If we're so concerned about disease why do we eat them and let them sleep on our beds?
What universal moral principles does X action contravene? How is it harmful? --That's what you should be asking.

Since when does "normal behavior" have anything to do with morality? Normal's different everywhere and changes constantly.

Your basing your morality on what disgusts or disturbs you, not on a concrete demonstration of harm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Me Myself

Back to my username
Glad to see someone else also mentioning the Order of Nature.

Behold, an abomination of nature:

chair.jpg
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
LOL!
Anytime you hear emotional terms like abomination or depravity you know emotion has full control of the situation.
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
When you think about it, you could make an argument that it's not. Animals aren't people after all. We have no problem slaughtering them for food or performing science experiments on them. We use their skins for clothing. We keep them as pets. What do you guys think? Is there an argument that while it's certainly disgusting, it may not actually be immoral?

I agree that the logic doesn't follow that raping animals is bad but killing them is fine. But that's why I don't eat them.
I think it's all immoral. Even if it's necessary for survival and this can be justification, it's still immoral imo. Now, this also come down to how you define morality. I see it as any sort of destructive (physical, mental, spiritual) activity has some level of immorality whereas constructive activity is moral. Hurting animals in any way is horrible. Even if not as bad as harming humans, it's still not a good thing.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
When you think about it, you could make an argument that it's not. Animals aren't people after all. We have no problem slaughtering them for food or performing science experiments on them. We use their skins for clothing. We keep them as pets. What do you guys think? Is there an argument that while it's certainly disgusting, it may not actually be immoral?

Part of the problem with this world is most people get more upset with beastiality and prostitution than with, say, bombing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
 

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
When you think about it, you could make an argument that it's not. Animals aren't people after all. We have no problem slaughtering them for food or performing science experiments on them. We use their skins for clothing. We keep them as pets. What do you guys think? Is there an argument that while it's certainly disgusting, it may not actually be immoral?


No i dont think its inherently immoral. But i do not agree with your post at all. I would say that we do have a problem slaughtering animals for food and for scientific experimentation, just because it is in fact done, doesnt make it suddenly without moral importance. People who claim it isnt morally relevant are basically wrong, and are often in denial of acknowledging the quality of life of the animal thats at stake.
Your distinction that they (animals) 'are not human after all' conveys to me a view of human superiority, a speciesism that is illegitimate. Its something i see pushed by certain cultures and religions which is a shame. Its completely unfounded to make a claim that because a creature is of a different species than yourself that they automatically posesss no attributes in similar, or that purely because of the difference in species, that any qualities of theirs is not worth considering. For example torturing another human being isnt wrong because its a human being, its wrong because that creature feels pain and can suffer. He/she just happens to be a human. That is why the torture of a monkey for example is also equally as wrong, because their conscious experience of pain and fear is likely just as real as the human beings. Empathy and reason should clearly show you right from wrong based on how your actions likely affect others sentient beings who show various characteristics like an ability to feel pain and pleasure.


Back to bestiality, i dont think the textbook definition is fundamentally immoral. A thought exercise might be, imagine an alien race arrives at Earth, and begin living on this planet with us. Now imagine that this race is like the classic scifi aliens that are green or blue, but are very attractive, essentially looking like humans in almost all respects. (Perhaps think of Avatar as an example). Now to have an attraction and to have an intimate encounter seems fairly innocent here, and the simple fact that they are 'non human creatures' bears very little moral weight.
Coming back to reality, it is an oddity that a human might be attracted to non human animals that are very different, and maybe that is objectively problematic or pathological, but its not immoral in my book.
It is if the animal is essentially being raped and is in distress. Because thats demonstrative of what i consider to be at the heart of immoral behaviour, which is the neglect to consider the mental life of the creature who is being affected by your actions.
 

Bismillah

Submit
ankarali said:
It's immoral. We spoil psychologie of the animals. The aim of the sexual relation is to have a child and from this relation there is no child. It is against the nature also.
That is not true, the aim of sexual relations can also be, and legitimately so, to derive pleasure from it. Islam is very emphatic on this issue and the rights a husband has over his wife and the rights a wife has over her husband in this regard.
 
Top