Why Should Bestiality Be Against The Law?

[nnmartin]

Tiberius, Painted Wolf and Skwim:

Why are you supporters of bestiality?

 

[internationalist]

Tiberius, Painted Wolf and Skwim:

Why are you supporters of bestiality?

Because of the decline of Christian morality. Pagan traditions and atheism encourage immorality in the name of freedom.

 

[Valjean]

people are not naturally attracted to animals in a sexual way.

this is not due to cultural conditioning but just a reality of the order of nature.
Humans are not meant to have sex with animals - get over it.

There might be some deviants out there who like to think it is natural but they no doubt have psychological or emotional baggage of some sort.

Perhaps they just can't find a normal sexual partner so make do with an animal instead.

Bestiality is in no way normal.

It is only for perverts, deviants and hillbillies.

Nmartin, your assertions are emotional, not reasonable. Tailoring social policy or law to emotion impedes social progress and, as SW pointed out, causes cruel persecution of "deviants" and heretics.
Your above statements echo those of past conservatives denouncing homosexuality, women's rights or abolitionists.

People have been having sex with animals everywhere and forever. Perhaps they are statistical outliers/deviants, but so what? So are left handed, homosexual and red-headed people.

Prohibit what is harmful, not what you find odd or disturbing.

 

[riley2112]

hillbillies.

watch the hillbillies remark, :yes: I don't find animals all that sexy.

 

[Tiberius]

Tiberius, Painted Wolf and Skwim:

Why are you supporters of bestiality?

Have a look at my post over in the simple philosophies thread. I say that my morality is based on three rules.

1. Don't hurt other people.
2. Don't involve others if they don't want to be involved.
3. If someone is hurting and you can help, you should help them.

Given that if a human and an animal have sex and both want to do it, none of those rules are being broken, I don't see a problem.

Can you show me what harm comes to the person? Can you show me what harm comes to the animal? Bear in mind that I am talking about situations where both parties went along with it.

 

[Tiberius]

Because of the decline of Christian morality. Pagan traditions and atheism encourage immorality in the name of freedom.

I'm sorry, did I see your name in that list? No? Well then stop projectiong your insecurities onto others, okay?

 

[Tiberius]

Here's a couple more links for you to refute. (no doubt you will refute any source given)

I will refute it if the argument is flawed.

Center for Disease Control official arrested for Bestiality | Go Fish Ministries, Inc

First of all, the article claims they are sexual deviants in order to show that they are sexual deviants. Circular logic. Now, what they did to the kid is unforgivable, I agree. But what harm came to the animal? They discuss the harm done to the kid, but they completely ignore the animal. Now, as long as the animal wasn't forced to participate against it's will, I expect that the animal is doing just fine now. If the animal was forced, then it was rape and she should be punished for that.

The second claim is that bestiality is known to cause miscarriages in pregnant women. However, they do not provide any source for this claim. I certainly haven't heard this before, and I'm not going to accept it as truth just because it appeared in a news article. However, even if it is true, the fact remains that pregnant women do all sorts of things that can harm their unborn babies, such as drinking and smoking, and yet no one would think to make a law saying that pregnant women can't smoke or drink.

Thirdly, given that the website is a Christian website, I don't think it can be called an unbiased source. They make numerous moral judgements - not reporting the facts.

bestiality - definition of bestiality in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The second definition does say "Conduct or an action marked by depravity or brutality", but I see no reason to think that it refers to sexual activity between a Human and an animal. After all, the first one says, "The quality or condition of being an animal or like an animal", which is clearly not referring to sexual activity between a human and animal. The second could just as easily be referring to going to the toilet in public, as dogs tend to do. Sexual activity is only mentioned in the third, and no mention of it being bad is made.

for those that don't fancy following the second link here is the gist of it:

Reasons for engageing in bestiality Actor has difficulty forming normal relationships with humans or was never interested in sex with humans. Alternatively, the animal may be used as a sex toy and an animated object for sexual gratification.
Diseases linked to bestiality Worms, fleas, ticks, salmonella, campylobacteriosis, viruses which theoretically can mutate and cause new medical problems, legal and social stigmas

Okay, let's take them in order...

Reasons for engageing in bestiality Actor has difficulty forming normal relationships with humans or was never interested in sex with humans.

First of all, who wrote this? Sounds like something I'd expect from a kindergartener. Very bad English, which I would not expect to see in a proper dictionary.

Secondly, this is not the only reason people have sex with animals.

And thirdly, is your problem with the act of sex between a human and an animal, or the fact that the person seems to have trouble forming relationships with humans/is sexually unattracted to humans?

Alternatively, the animal may be used as a sex toy and an animated object for sexual gratification.

Oh yes, because no one ever has sex with a person for that reason, do they? A man who goes to a prostitute is using her in the same way. Should we make prostitution illegal too?

Diseases linked to bestiality

Oh goody!

Worms, fleas, ticks, salmonella,

All of which are common among Humans without the need for screwing the pooch.

campylobacteriosis,

Among the most common of infections in Humans, so preventing bestiality is not likely to cause any significant reduction.

viruses which theoretically can mutate and cause new medical problems,

Oh no! They can't even say that it WILL happen! Just guesswork! How terrible! All these hypothetical diseases that you may or may not catch!

legal and social stigmas

The same was once said about interracial marriages.

You have once again failed to make a point, Martin...

 

[nnmartin]

Your above statements echo those of past conservatives denouncing homosexuality, women's rights or abolitionists.

Similar does not mean the same.

Bestiality will never become right however progressive society becomes.

People only want to legalise it as a reasoning for legalising something else.

People have been having sex with animals everywhere and forever. Perhaps they are statistical outliers/deviants, but so what? So are left handed, homosexual and red-headed people.

again, you have highlighted some vague similarities but they are not the same as bestiality. Having red hair and engaging in bestiality are worlds apart.


Another member joins the bestiality supporters club!


Seyorni, Skwim, Shadow Wolf and Tiberius - anyone else?

 

[Tiberius]

Similar does not mean the same.

Well then how about we try something a bit closer to home?

There was once a time that anyone who had a sexual fetish about being urinated on kept it secret, because if it became public they'd be ridiculed. TYhese days, however, we think of it as rather normal. Sure, not many people go for it, but those who are into water play aren't labelled as freaks or deviants, are they?

Bestiality will never become right however progressive society becomes.

Oh, Martin... You need to learn how to tell the difference between opinion and fact. You are doing it rather poorly at the moment, I'm afraid.

People only want to legalise it as a reasoning for legalising something else.

This is one of the most insanely stupid arguments I've ever heard. Please learn why the SLIPPERY SLOPE argument is a flawed one, and then, for the love of God, don't ever use it again.

again, you have highlighted some vague similarities but they are not the same as bestiality. Having red hair and engaging in bestiality are worlds apart.

You fail to see the point, which is that even if bestiality became legal, only a very small percentage of the population will take part in it.

Another member joins the bestiality supporters club!

Seyorni, Skwim, Shadow Wolf and Tiberius - anyone else?

Maybe if you show a proper reason why it's wrong you'd be able to thin the ranks a bit. So far all you have done is use two fallacious arguments - that it's icky and the slippery slope argument.

 

[nnmartin]

The second definition does say "Conduct or an action marked by depravity or brutality", but I see no reason to think that it refers to sexual activity between a Human and an animal. After all, the first one says, "The quality or condition of being an animal or like an animal", which is clearly not referring to sexual activity between a human and animal. The second could just as easily be referring to going to the toilet in public, as dogs tend to do. Sexual activity is only mentioned in the third, and no mention of it being bad is made.

So now you are just trying to refute a dictionary definition of bestiality to a pointless exercise in semantics.

It would be more interesting if you were to refute the notion that sex between a human and animal is abnormal and depraved.

How about giving that a try?

 

[nnmartin]

There was once a time that anyone who had a sexual fetish about being urinated on kept it secret, because if it became public they'd be ridiculed.

Again - not the same as bestiality.

This is one of the most insanely stupid arguments I've ever heard. Please learn why the SLIPPERY SLOPE argument is a flawed one, and then, for the love of God, don't ever use it again.

Don't you see though that this is exactly what you are also doing - just in reverse gear!

ie: once there was a time when inter-racial marriage was banned etc....

You fail to see the point, which is that even if bestiality became legal, only a very small percentage of the population will take part in it.

There are small numbers of people doing things far worse than bestiality - we still ban them though - and rightly so.

 

[Tiberius]

So now you are just trying to refute a dictionary definition of bestiality to a pointless exercise in semantics.

It would be more interesting if you were to refute the notion that sex between a human and animal is abnormal and depraved.

How about giving that a try?

Like any sexual fetish, there are some who are grossed out by it and some who enjoy it.

Why do you think you can claim that any fetish you don't enjoy is abnormal? Is it abnormal to dress in latex and be sexually attracted to feet?

Why don't you try to show me that Bestiality is wrong? All you;ve done is produce tired old arguments that fall apart.

Again - not the same as bestiality.

If you're going to keep dismissing everything that isn't bestiality, then does that mean that you want to ignore every other issue? After all, nothing is going to be the same as bestiality, so I doubt you'd accept any point based on something else (apparently the concept of an analogy is foreign to you).

So let's ignore everything but bestyiality then, okay?

Don't you see though that this is exactly what you are also doing - just in reverse gear!

ie: once there was a time when inter-racial marriage was banned etc....

Do you think that allowing black people and white people to marry each other is a bad idea?

There are small numbers of people doing things far worse than bestiality - we still ban them though - and rightly so.

As you seem to love saying: Again - not the same as bestiality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

again, you have highlighted some vague similarities but they are not the same as bestiality. Having red hair and engaging in bestiality are worlds apart.

What's the difference between BDSM, homosexuality, inflicting pain, first cousin relationships, fecophilia, anal sex, oral sex, urophilia, bestiality, and masturbation? They are all different forms of sex, but they are all things that some people want nothing to do with, find disgusting, but yet many people find them desirable and have been normal in some places.
And there is also angry sex. Many people don't see the point of it, or see how it's possible, but those who have had it speak highly of it. Same for anal sex and play. Many are grossed out by it but many people like it so much they want just that during a sex session. Many people also believe a mouth should never be used to give sexual pleasure, but for some it's a regular part of sex play.
Actually where I live on the state level oral and anal sex are both illegal. It can't be enforced, it does not protect anyone, but yet they are on the books and some states have arrested and charged people with having oral sex.

ie: once there was a time when inter-racial marriage was banned etc....

To demonstrate the social conservatives and traditionalist have a way of loosing out to those who are more progressive and open minded. Even if bestiality and zoophilia were socially acceptable, not that many people would be into it. We have the freedoms to participate in many legal fetishes, but because they are statistically rare they are singled out as paraphilias.

There are small numbers of people doing things far worse than bestiality - we still ban them though - and rightly so.

I'm pretty sure we've been down this road, that laws do not exist to protect people or else tobacco would be illegal. Many chemicals widely used today would also be banned if the law existed to protect. Some laws do, such as making driving while intoxicated illegal, but who is being protected by laws prohibiting alcohol sales on Sunday? And who is being protected by making it illegal for a liquor store to sell a cold soft drink, as in the case where I live. And if laws really existed to protect people, our entire legal and justice system would be an entirely different entity.

 

[Skwim]

again, you have highlighted some vague similarities but they are not the same as bestiality. Having red hair and engaging in bestiality are worlds apart.

What's the difference between BDSM, homosexuality, inflicting pain, first cousin relationships, fecophilia, anal sex, oral sex, urophilia, bestiality, and masturbation? They are all different forms of sex, but they are all things that some people want nothing to do with, find disgusting, but yet many people find them desirable and have been normal in some places.

Nnmartin has found it a convenient tactic to ignore the value of the analogy---I'm assuming here that he knows what an analogy is--- and pretend such comparisons are worthless because they don't = the same, which he then feels gives him the right to ignore any and all.

Nnmartin, please be aware that all of us here recognize that an analogy ≠ the same, and also recognize an analogy it's a perfectly valid way of presenting a point. As Douglas Hofstadter (Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science) points out

"Analogy plays a significant role in problem solving, decision making, perception, memory, creativity, emotion, explanation, and communication. It lies behind basic tasks such as the identification of places, objects and people, for example, in face perception and facial recognition systems, It has been argued that analogy is "the core of cognition"
Source: Wikipedia
​

So let's have no more of this "It's not the same" silliness. Okay?

 

[Valjean]

It seems to me a thing is right or wrong inasmuch as it contributes to pain, suffering or harm.
A given sexual practice might seem objectionable to others, but if there's no harm in it, wouldn't it be no-one's business but the participants?

 

[nnmartin]

how about necrophillia then - not harming anyone, consent not needed as we are talking about an inanimate object - should we legalise that too?

There is an analogy for you Skwim - do you accept its validity?

 

[Skwim]

It seems to me a thing is right or wrong inasmuch as it contributes to pain, suffering or harm.
A given sexual practice might seem objectionable to others, but if there's no harm in it, wouldn't it be no-one's business but the participants?

That's the way I've always looked at it, even it involves whips, chains, and spaghetti.

 

[Tiberius]

how about necrophillia then - not harming anyone, consent not needed as we are talking about an inanimate object - should we legalise that too?

There is an analogy for you Skwim - do you accept its validity?

Of course, it's much easier to go and get a pet dog than it is to get a dead body.

 

[McBell]

how about necrophillia then - not harming anyone, consent not needed as we are talking about an inanimate object - should we legalise that too?

Since when can a dead person enter into a contract?
Since when can a dead person give consent?

you really are grasping at straws...

 

[Skwim]

how about necrophillia then - not harming anyone, consent not needed as we are talking about an inanimate object - should we legalise that too?

There is an analogy for you Skwim - do you accept its validity?

If you're talking about intercourse then it would be rape, just as if the person was temporarily unconscious. There is no wiggle room in "lack of consent." If consent isn't given, for whatever reason, then the act amounts to rape.