Why Should Bestiality Be Against The Law?

[Zoe Doidge]

Surely this is another good reason to ban bestiality.

The fact that it is possible for a species jump of an extremely harmful virus.

It is also entirely possible (and far more likely) to contract an extremely harmful virus from having unprotected sex with humans, unless you take precautions.

On it's own, the risk of disease is enough to justify banning unprotected sex with animals, just as we would have justification to ban unprotected sex with other humans (unprotected in this context might mean a condom, but it could equally mean just having STI tests with any partners).

It is not sufficient for a blanket ban though, but then we already have reason enough for that.

 

[nnmartin]

I think blanket ban is fair because as with humans, condoms can break, slip off, not be used correctly or even at all.

Just the slightest chance of a devastating disease entering the human population is a good enough reason.


I really can't see any good reason why bestiality should be legalised and the only argument in its favour seems to be the misguided opinion that morality has no value.

 

[Valjean]

do you think it would be a good idea to ban man from having sex with primates?

I think that's a great idea. Should do wonders for the overpopulation problem.
I expect barnyard animals might become very popular, as well...

 

[McBell]

It is also entirely possible (and far more likely) to contract an extremely harmful virus from having unprotected sex with humans, unless you take precautions.

On it's own, the risk of disease is enough to justify banning unprotected sex with animals, just as we would have justification to ban unprotected sex with other humans (unprotected in this context might mean a condom, but it could equally mean just having STI tests with any partners).

It is not sufficient for a blanket ban though, but then we already have reason enough for that.

The problem here is that nmartin has made a much better case for banning all sex than he has for banning just beastiality.

No matter what he does, he always falls back to "i think it is disgusting therefore it should be banned".

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I wonder if Tiberius and friends will agree though

My position has always been that the only justifiable reason for banning it would be the difficulty in determining informed consent. Not your 'gods law' or your 'icky' reservations.

Surely this is another good reason to ban bestiality.

The fact that it is possible for a species jump of an extremely harmful virus.

It is ONE good reason - the same one that you were attempting (with difficulty) to articulate earlier. That said, if we are to examine the issue simply with respect to minimising the possibility of contracting a STI/STD then human/human sex is far more dangerous in that human/nonhuman sex results in far fewer STI/STD given that human/nonhuman pairings are most likely (because accurate stats are difficult to obtain) so uncommon in comparison to the prevalence of STI/STD

 

[Tiberius]

I think it is common knowledge that AIDS came from monkeys originally and their version is called SIV.

Humans can catch this form.

do you think it would be a good idea to ban man from having sex with primates?

Humans can also catch AIDS by having sex with infected Humans. And yet you wouldn't claim that we should stop people from having sex with other people because of it, would you.

Once again, you are using some instances to provide an excuse for a blanket ban.

Some animals have diseases that can be transferred to humans, therefore ban all sex between humans and animals.

Science has proven that AIDS came from primates.

Now here is a question for you and Tiberius: If an SIV+ monkey was let into your home and had unprotected sex with your girlfriend for one week would you then feel the need to use a condom when it was your turn?

Yes, but not because it was an animal.

If my girlfriend had sex with an HIV infected man for one week, I would feel the need to wear a condom when it was my turn. If my girlfriend had sex with an animal that had no diseases, I would not feel the need to wear a condom.

The fact it was an animal is irrelevant.

I think blanket ban is fair because as with humans, condoms can break, slip off, not be used correctly or even at all.

Just the slightest chance of a devastating disease entering the human population is a good enough reason.

So something that can provide the "slightest chance of a devastating disease entering the human population" is a good enough reason to ban it?

So you are going to propose banning all sex between Humans?

I really can't see any good reason why bestiality should be legalised and the only argument in its favour seems to be the misguided opinion that morality has no value.

When did I ever make that argument? When did I say, "Morality is stupid, let's shag the pooch!"

 

[nnmartin]

so we now have some clear reasons for banning.

Objective: Disease and Lack of consent

Subjective: Morality.


Those 3 added together make a far stronger case for banning than do the vague analogies and claims for freedom from the legalisation side.

 

[Tiberius]

so we now have some clear reasons for banning.

Objective: Disease and Lack of consent

Disease is a useless argument. If we are to claim that it should be banned because the person could catch a disease, then we should ban all forms of sex that could spread disease. Besides, if you are doing it with a an animal that you have had as a pet all your life, then it's very unlikely that it is going to have any diseases.

And the animal can display consent easily.

Subjective: Morality.

And if you don't like it, you don't have to do it.

But don't think for a moment that you have the right to say something is wrong just because you don't like it.

Those 3 added together make a far stronger case for banning than do the vague analogies and claims for freedom from the legalisation side.

If that's the strongest case you've got, then there's not much left to debate. Your objective standards are nothing but double standards and plain falsehoods. Or subjective standard is no basis for a law.

 

[nnmartin]

You are overlooking the main fact of a species jump.

A form of AIDS could result from a new animal virus strain.

This could devestate the human population.

A clear reason for banning bestiality.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

You are overlooking the main fact of a species jump.

A form of AIDS could result from a new animal virus strain.

This could devestate the human population.

A clear reason for banning bestiality.

And the sky could turn to fire and your nose could fall off. Throwing out vague prophecies isn't a reason.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Objective: Disease and Lack of consent

Disease - you have yet to show that bestiality is more dangerous than eating animals, or patting them, or merely being in their vicinity (i.e. that sexual activities between an animal and human are in any way more likely to lead to disease than non sexual activities, such as merely breathing in an area with animal faeces or remains - which may have a high risk of diseases transmittable to humans, much higher than sexual activities); nor have you adequately differentiated human-animal sexual activities from other disease high risk activities such as human-human sexual activities.

Lack of consent - you are yet to adequately address this as a possible source of legitimacy for potential bans let alone whether or not there IS a lack of consent obtainable.

Subjective: Morality.

Of no value - ignored

 

[Tiberius]

You are overlooking the main fact of a species jump.

A form of AIDS could result from a new animal virus strain.

This could devestate the human population.

A clear reason for banning bestiality.

Oh yawn.

If most zoophiles went out and shagged wild animals, then MAYBE you;d have a point.

But since most of them are doing it with their pet dogs and other domesticated animals, I don't see that there's much of a risk of contracting some brand new mystery illness of death.

You are pandering fear, and not doing it very well.

 

[nnmartin]

And the sky could turn to fire and your nose could fall off. Throwing out vague prophecies isn't a reason.

It's not a prophecy at all.

There is much scientific evidence to suggest that HIV originally came from the primate form SIV.

 

[nnmartin]

If most zoophiles went out and shagged wild animals, then MAYBE you;d have a point.

But since most of them are doing it with their pet dogs and other domesticated animals, I don't see that there's much of a risk of contracting some brand new mystery illness of death.

That's almost the same as saying you can't catch HIV from a human that has a job in advertising and a nice set of teeth.

ie: you can't tell by looks or assumptions what someone's HIV status is - the same with animals.

There may not be much of a risk but just the fact that there is one is enough for a ban.

When HIV first came around how many people didn't worry too much about the risk - look what happened as a result!

 

[nnmartin]

Disease - you have yet to show that bestiality is more dangerous than eating animals, or patting them, or merely being in their vicinity

Most biologists will tell you that you cannot catch HIV from patting, eating or being near to an animal. Having sex though greatly increases that chance (yes, you may catch an animal strain of the virus)

So what is your point here?

nor have you adequately differentiated human-animal sexual activities from other disease high risk activities such as human-human sexual activities.

How can human to human sex give rise to a species jump of a virus?

It's impossible.

 

[Tiberius]

It's not a prophecy at all.

There is much scientific evidence to suggest that HIV originally came from the primate form SIV.

And was it caught from a domesticated pet or a wild animal?

That's almost the same as saying you can't catch HIV from a human that has a job in advertising and a nice set of teeth.

How can you be this blind?

There is a HUGE difference between an animal that has lived a wild life and an animal that has lived its entire life in one house since it was a few weeks old.

ie: you can't tell by looks or assumptions what someone's HIV status is - the same with animals.

You can be fairly sure that if a dog has lived in one house all it's life, with the same family, and any trips outside the property have been supervised (walks on the leash) that the animal is NOT going to be carrying some deadly disease.

And besides, you can get the animal checked to make sure. Likewise you can check to see if a person has any dangerous diseases. And a dog isn't likely to say, "Nah, baby, I'm clean!" in an attempt to get sex right now, is it?

There may not be much of a risk but just the fact that there is one is enough for a ban.

So you support the banning of sex between Humans because your potential partner could have AIDS or some other disease? That's exactly the same argument you are using to ban bestiality!

When HIV first came around how many people didn't worry too much about the risk - look what happened as a result!

Strengthening your case to ban sex between Humans!

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Most biologists will tell you that you cannot catch HIV from patting, eating or being near to an animal. Having sex though greatly increases that chance (yes, you may catch an animal strain of the virus)

So what is your point here?

I did not say HIV, I said disease (in general); and according to your theory on SIV, it IS possible to get HIV from patting an infected animal by the same token as it is possible to get HIV from touching an infected person - if the skin is compromised and therefore there is fluid exchange for example. But on the point of disease in general, other behaviours, including eating their flesh, are far more dangerous than sex.

My point is that you are using flawed reasoning in that you are emphasising particular premises that serve to reinforce your position while (perhaps subconsciously) discounting those that do not.

How can human to human sex give rise to a species jump of a virus?

It's impossible.

And yet you did not use that for differentiation - and moreover it is a rather artificial mechanism of differentiation as it explicitly identifies species as being the basis of differentiation, for an of itself - not by effect, such as: "the capacity for creation of a novel disease which may endanger humans" which would be a more sound basis.

 

[Tiberius]

Most biologists will tell you that you cannot catch HIV from patting, eating or being near to an animal. Having sex though greatly increases that chance (yes, you may catch an animal strain of the virus)

So what is your point here?

There are plenty of diseases that you can catch from animals through close contact/petting etc that are also contractable from sex. All the examples I have seen you post are in this category.

So I issue a challenge to you, Martin!

Please show me a dangerous disease that a person can contract from having sex with their well-looked after pet that COULD NOT be contracted in any other way.

So no wild animals, no strays - a well looked after pet.

 

[nnmartin]

moving the goalposts now are we?

 

[nnmartin]

There is a HUGE difference between an animal that has lived a wild life and an animal that has lived its entire life in one house since it was a few weeks old.

so are you suggesting that we only ban wild animal bestiality then?

ie: it's ok to have sex with your pet if it's lived with you all it's life but not if it hasn't.

That really is absurd and quite funny for a change, he he:clap