Why Should Bestiality Be Against The Law?

[nnmartin]

Skwim and Mestemia - wrong.

No force required here.

The consent issue does not arise with a dead person, which is basically an inanimate object. This works in the same way as not needing consent when using a condom.

so for all those who say bestiality is ok because you are not harming anyone then you would also have to accept necrophilia.

and you wonder why I call you depraved and perverse!

rape.

1.the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

technically speaking, rape does not have to be intercourse either.

 

[nnmartin]

how about cannibalism as well whilst we are on the subject.

No victim there - shall we legalise that too!

 

[Skwim]

Skwim and Mestemia - wrong.

No force required here.

The consent issue does not arise with a dead person, which is basically an inanimate object. This works in the same way as not needing consent when using a condom.

so for all those who say bestiality is ok because you are not harming anyone then you would also have to accept necrophilia.

and you wonder why I call you depraved and perverse!



technically speaking, rape does not have to be intercourse either.

​

 

[riley2112]

​

:biglaugh:that is great.I love it

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Skwim and Mestemia - wrong.

No force required here.

The consent issue does not arise with a dead person, which is basically an inanimate object. This works in the same way as not needing consent when using a condom.

so for all those who say bestiality is ok because you are not harming anyone then you would also have to accept necrophilia.

and you wonder why I call you depraved and perverse!



technically speaking, rape does not have to be intercourse either.

My question for you is where do you get you don't need consent when using a condom? Using one means you are still having sexual intercourse.
As for necrophilia, it is disrespectful to the deceased. And unless they left a note before death, there is not any way to get any indication they want it unlike with animals, who can either allow it or retaliate.
As for cannibalism if you are murdering someone just to eat them it is wrong. It can also violate the wishes of the deceased.

 

[Tiberius]

Skwim and Mestemia - wrong.

No force required here.

The consent issue does not arise with a dead person, which is basically an inanimate object. This works in the same way as not needing consent when using a condom.

so for all those who say bestiality is ok because you are not harming anyone then you would also have to accept necrophilia.

and you wonder why I call you depraved and perverse!

Of course, there's the whole disprespecting the dead issue.

But as you are so fond of saying, necrophilia is not the same as bestiality!

And where the hell do you get the idea that you don't need consent if you use a condom? Bloody hell, what is wrong with your mind?

technically speaking, rape does not have to be intercourse either.

based on what?

how about cannibalism as well whilst we are on the subject.

No victim there - shall we legalise that too!

What about the person you are eating?

Why are you trying to muddy the issue, Martin? We are talking about bestiality, nothing else.

 

[nnmartin]

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.

your simple philosophy allows for necrophilia and bestiality.

Of course, there's the whole disprespecting the dead issue.

now you are moving the goalposts by inserting a new clause.

But as you are so fond of saying, necrophilia is not the same as bestiality!

that is true, but I was supplying an analogy for Skwim who supposedly has now left the debate.

What a shame - his intellectual input will be sorely missed (note:sarcasm)

And where the hell do you get the idea that you don't need consent if you use a condom? Bloody hell, what is wrong with your mind?

A condom cannot give its consent.

A seemingly absurd idea yet it highlights the fact that the consent issue is not always relevant - ie: necrophilia.

Why are you trying to muddy the issue, Martin? We are talking about bestiality, nothing else.

Other members have brought up ridiculous comparisons and analogies so they are getting a response.

 

[Tiberius]

your simple philosophy allows for necrophilia and bestiality.

Oh noes! Run for teh hills!!!

now you are moving the goalposts by inserting a new clause.

Never stopped you when it came to bestiality.

A condom cannot give its consent.

Yeah, but I don't sleep with a condom. I don't make love to a condom.

You can if you want, but I prefer a real woman.

A seemingly absurd idea yet it highlights the fact that the consent issue is not always relevant - ie: necrophilia.

Sticking your willy into a rotting person is a lot different than having sex with a living animal, health reasons alone.

 

[nnmartin]

Sticking your willy into a rotting person is a lot different than having sex with a living animal, health reasons alone.

let's go the Tiberius way for dealing with that statement.

1. In what way is it different?
2. do you have any proof of that?
3. do you have any empirical evidence to support that claim?
4. do you have a credible source?
5. just because you think it 'icky' why is it wrong?

I could go on, - I think you must see the point now though.

Yes, we are talking about an act that is even more foul than bestiality but it does show that the consent-based campaign for legalisation is on very shaky ground. (not to mention your 'philosophy').

Not harming others is often very difficult to define and also there are other factors which must be taken into account when banning something. You have highlighted this fact with the obvious glitch in your philosophy.

Now, just to restate the obvious - bestiality is depraved and immoral and constitutes a potentially serious health risk to the human population.

 

[McBell]

Skwim and Mestemia - wrong.

No force required here.

The consent issue does not arise with a dead person, which is basically an inanimate object. This works in the same way as not needing consent when using a condom.

so for all those who say bestiality is ok because you are not harming anyone then you would also have to accept necrophilia.

and you wonder why I call you depraved and perverse!

Again, dead bodies cannot give consent.
Not to mention the other laws on the books concerning the defamation of a corpse.

Going by your logic it should be perfectly ok for people to marry dead people.

The consent issue SHOULD not be a matter of concern when dealing with dead people.
I would like to think that most people understand that dead people cannot give consent.
I guess that concept is beyond you..?

Perversity is in the eyes of the perceiver, not in what is being perceived.
Interesting how perverse you make your self out to be each time you have to fall back on that particular ad hominem.

I do not have to wonder why you call others depraved and perverse.
Your continued practice of transference says it all.

 

[McBell]

Yes, we are talking about an act that is even more foul than bestiality but it does show that the consent-based campaign for legalisation is on very shaky ground. (not to mention your 'philosophy').

Except for the fact that consent is not the only issue...
Nice try though.

Not harming others is often very difficult to define and also there are other factors which must be taken into account when banning something. You have highlighted this fact with the obvious glitch in your philosophy.

I agree.
So your wanting to ban something merely because of your personal "ick" factor....

Now, just to restate the obvious - bestiality is depraved and immoral and constitutes a potentially serious health risk to the human population.

And right back to presenting your personal opinions as though they are facts.

Your hypocrisy is most impressive.

 

[Tiberius]

let's go the Tiberius way for dealing with that statement.

1. In what way is it different?
2. do you have any proof of that?
3. do you have any empirical evidence to support that claim?
4. do you have a credible source?
5. just because you think it 'icky' why is it wrong?

I could go on, - I think you must see the point now though.

Yes, we are talking about an act that is even more foul than bestiality but it does show that the consent-based campaign for legalisation is on very shaky ground. (not to mention your 'philosophy').

Not harming others is often very difficult to define and also there are other factors which must be taken into account when banning something. You have highlighted this fact with the obvious glitch in your philosophy.

Now, just to restate the obvious - bestiality is depraved and immoral and constitutes a potentially serious health risk to the human population.

First of all, the answer to your questions is the same for each one.

Living is different from dead. If you aren't aware of that, you need more help than you can get here.

Secondly, people tend to want the dead to have respect. By your logic, I guess you wouldn't have a problem with me taking a dump in your mother's coffin during the funeral.

And you keep going on about the health risks of bestiality (can we get the discussion back to that please?) and yet I have shown that there is not really that much of a risk when you compare it to the risk you take having sex with a person.

You say bestiality is depraved and immoral. By what objective method do you measure depravity and immorality?

 

[nnmartin]

How about the DSM, various respected dictionaries and all sorts of religious texts for a start....

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A condom cannot give its consent.

A condom is a piece of latex, or whatever your preference, but that's like saying you can't use a hammer to build a house because it can't consent.

How about the DSM, various respected dictionaries and all sorts of religious texts for a start....

The DSM doesn't have any mentioning of morality. It will state that not adhering to cultural norms and morals is a POTENTIAL symptom for various disorders (but it of itself, as well as being amoral, is not a disorder of itself), but the DSM does not define norms, values, or morals. Dictionaries, and even encyclopedias, do not define morals either but only rely information about a particular subject to the reader.
Religious texts I don't think you want to get into unless you want to make an incision just below someone's sternum, reach in and rip there heart, and dedicate the sacrifice to a pagan sun god. Or have sex with an animal or your siblings or first cousin. Either way I don't think you want to travel that path.

 

[Tiberius]

How about the DSM, various respected dictionaries and all sorts of religious texts for a start....

Dictionaries? Please. Dictionaries give the accepted definition of a word. They don't state what the definition is and everyone has to follow it.

And religious texts? According to the Bible, I can stone people who work on a Sunday. Is that moral?

 

[nnmartin]

How about mentioning a culture or group where bestiality is considered normal.

Show us an example of where in the World people undertake this activity on a regular basis and let's see where that goes...

 

[riley2112]

Honestly I can not believe anyone cares one way or the other, legal or not , the people that do it are and the people that don't won't. So who cares?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How about mentioning a culture or group where bestiality is considered normal.

Show us an example of where in the World people undertake this activity on a regular basis and let's see where that goes...

Here's this for starters:
Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here's another good one to look at:
Animal Lovers: Zoophiles Make Scientists Rethink Human Sexuality | Bering in Mind, Scientific American Blog Network
Which brings up, many people probably would be disgusted at the thought of a dog's tongue in there mouth. But because I have always had a dog in my life it has happened to me more than a few times. While I don't encourage it, when a dog is licking your face it tends to happen, and it's not the end of the world and it isn't that gross. Sex with an animal isn't my thing, but you only think it's gross and appalling because social and personal views.

 

[nnmartin]

a dog licking your face is hardly the same thing as bedding it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

a dog licking your face is hardly the thing as bedding it.

I didn't say a dog licking your face, I said a dog getting their tongue inside your mouth. That was to demonstrate the most people would think a dogs tongue in your mouth is disgusting. While I wouldn't say it's pleasant, after a few times you kinda get used to it. Now if you take this same basic concept of viewing things as disgusting as being a personal view point, and up it a few steps, you will start to realize that many things are only disgusting because it's what your told to think. Most Americans wouldn't even dream about cracking open a duck egg and eating a partially developed duckling, but in some parts of the world it's considered a delicacy. When you apply basic theories in human sexuality to it, then you will see that bestiality isn't really disgusting, it's just not your thing.
And nice way to dodge the articles I posted, especially the second one that explains bestiality is being used to define human sexuality.