Why Should Bestiality Be Against The Law?

[InformedIgnorance]

Cultural attitude and general social disgust aside, it is the inability to establish whether or not the animal is aware of what is going to happen (which is probably much easier to tell if the animal exhibits signs of arousal prior to the event) or consents to that act (which is much more difficult to determine, unless the animal is the dominant in the sexual union and outside that sexual union does not have the threat of punishment by the partner for failure to comply and does not rely on the partner at all for food etc... which is MUCH more difficult, perhaps impossible)

Our inability to established informed consent is the most reliable objective reason for any reservations on the morality of bestiality.

 

[Skwim]

Our inability to established informed consent is the most reliable objective reason for any reservations on the morality of bestiality.

Something very, very few consider when using animals to do other forms of our bidding.

 

[riley2112]

Well, if you're that adamant about ******* a goat then go right ahead.

lmao,, That was great.:biglaugh:

 

[nnmartin]

This raised the question I pose in the title, Why should bestiality be against the law?

seriously - does this question even need to be asked?

Perhaps it's banned due to it being morally depraved reprehensible behaviour.

Can you really think of one reason why it shouldn't be against the law?

 

[nnmartin]

Our inability to established informed consent is the most reliable objective reason for any reservations on the morality of bestiality.

What have objective reasons got to do with it?

Who gives a fiddle what the animal thinks - it's the actions of the human in this case that is the issue.

I doubt an animal is intelligent enough to know what is going on and surely lacks the analytical skills for post-coital reflection. I also doubt the average horse or dog really cares anyway but that is completely beside the point.

 

[Skwim]

seriously - does this question even need to be asked?

Yes.

Perhaps it's banned due to it being morally depraved reprehensible behaviour.

One man's meat is another man's poison.

Can you really think of one reason why it shouldn't be against the law?

Laws based solely on personal preferences are seldom fair laws. And, the onus of proof lies with those attempting to curtail a behavior. It's up to them to show why a specific behavior should be outlawed; not the other way around, and mere taste or distaste doesn't cut it.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Something very, very few consider when using animals to do other forms of our bidding.

True, so why do we eat them, use their labour etc? In those cases we chosen to affirm that they can be used in those ways where it is beneficial to us or does not harm the animal... is there a difference with bestiality in this case? Well it certainly harms the animal less than eating them, it also would cause less mental trauma than some animal jobs.

What have objective reasons got to do with it?

Why because subjective reasons change from one person to another and therefore objective reasons can be a more sound basis for establishing a law.

Who gives a fiddle what the animal thinks - it's the actions of the human in this case that is the issue.

I doubt an animal is intelligent enough to know what is going on and surely lacks the analytical skills for post-coital reflection. I also doubt the average horse or dog really cares anyway but that is completely beside the point.

If the issue is not that the animal has been in some way (mentally or physically) victimised then it is a victimless act, in which case why should it be illegal? Because you find it offensive? Well boo hoo. How about providing a real reason - such as some stakeholder of the act being victimised in some way.

 

[cablescavenger]

The following article was brought to my attention by a post made by Father Heathen.

"The Enumclaw horse sex case

The Enumclaw horse sex case was a 2005 incident in which Kenneth Pinyan[1] (June 22, 1960 – July 2, 2005), an American Boeing engineer residing in Gig Harbor,[2] died from receiving anal sex with a stallion at a farm in an unincorporated area in King County, Washington, near the city of Enumclaw. He had videotaped previous sex acts with the horses and distributed them informally under the name Mr. Hands.

During a July 2005 sex act, videotaped by a friend, he suffered a perforated colon and later died of his injuries. The story was reported in The Seattle Times and was one of that paper's most read stories of 2005.[3] It was informally referred to as the "Enumclaw horse sex case".[4]

Pinyan's death rapidly prompted the passing of a bill in Washington prohibiting both sex with animals and the videotaping of the same. Under current Washington law, bestiality is now a Class C felony punishable by up to five years in prison."
source
​

This raised the question I pose in the title, Why should bestiality be against the law?

In many countries, such as, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, and Japan, bestiality (zoophilia) is legal. In all but three of the United States it's illegal. Montana, North Carolina, and Kansas are the exceptions.

I guess sending your child to horse riding lessons might raise a few eyebrows.

 

[nnmartin]

Quite clearly legalising such abhorrently depraved behaviour is bad for society.

It's the slippery slope of degradation. If you are allowed to have sex with an animal then what next?

 

[nnmartin]

If the issue is not that the animal has been in some way (mentally or physically) victimised then it is a victimless act, in which case why should it be illegal?

The animal is not the concern here.

The human is a victim of his own perversion and needs to be protected from himself, and society in turn needs to be protected from him and his kind.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Okay... in that case, I believe YOU are the victim of your own perverse thought processes and therefore need to be protected from yourself... you will now be lobotomised.

*blinks*

Is that the sort of society you want? Because that is one 'slippery slope of degradation' you have planned for the freedoms of individuals in society ,

 

[nnmartin]

Thinking is not the same as doing.

Banning bestiality is a restriction on an extremely small minority for the greater good of society.

Nothing wrong with that - if we could all do just as we pleased there would be anarchy and thus no real freedom for anyone (apart from those with the biggest 'sticks').

Can you think of a reason why legalising bestiality would be an improvement or benefit to society?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Yes, I have no problem with you thinking that way... I have a problem with you using law to ENFORCE your way of thinking.

There is NO 'greater good' for society you might consider it a good thing for the animals involved and perhaps even for the people involved (though that is a rather egocentric and morally condescending way of examining the situation through the perspective of your own moralistic lens) - the social system you have proposed is for the group with the biggest stick to be able to dictate what is legal according to their own morality.

Do I think that making it legal it is beneficial? No. But making it ILLEGAL is likewise not beneficial - in fact it is detrimental IF (and really, this is the only case where it is detrimental) it is based on the premise that you are doing it to make individuals 'better' people. Do I think bestiality is wrong? I would lean towards yes, but not because of the people involved, but rather because animals may be victimised by the act.

 

[nnmartin]

do you seriously think that a dog, horse or pig really gives two hoots if a human has sex with it?

I very much doubt it somehow.

Consent laws do not apply to animals in this way.

Re: the legal issue - it's not a question of enforcing my way of thinking but just commonsense. I'm sure if there were a referendum on this topic there would be an absolute majority vote on keeping the ban on bestiality in place.

Banning this act is not about making people better but is there to stop those so inclined from acting out their desires. Why should any modern civilised nation want to legalise this kind of behaviour?

What kind of a message would that send out?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Oh I agree on both points - however that does not make it right.

edit: in response to your edit - why stop them from acting out their desires if according to you the animal is not victimised?

 

[Skwim]

Quite clearly legalising such abhorrently depraved behaviour is bad for society.

Then please indulge me by answering how? How is it bad for society, and why? And it would help to see the evidence for your answer.

It's the slippery slope of degradation. If you are allowed to have sex with an animal then what next?

How about a medium fillet mignon and a nice chianti?

Banning bestiality is a restriction on an extremely small minority for the greater good of society.

And how would banning bestiality accomplish this greater good?

Can you think of a reason why legalising bestiality would be an improvement or benefit to society?

In my opinion it would go along way in affirming that we don't make laws based on personal likes and dislikes. Or weren't you aware that in the USA everyone has unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Beats a cigarette ... very classy

 

[nnmartin]

It is bad for society because wicked and depraved acts lead to yet more of the same, a downward spiral. It is the nature of the human psyche.

Do we really need to go to the lengths of legalising bestiality, collecting evidence over a long period of time and then realise that it was right to be banned in the first place? Often we don't need evidence - just commonsense foresight and a sensible base of ethics and morals.

But I'm sure there is evidence out there from history or other countries that could be used to show that banning is the most sensible option in this case.

 

[nnmartin]

Time for a biblical quote to reflect on:

Leviticus 20:15–16 (ESV)
15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I see.... so you are hoping to implement some sort of system of laws derived on presumably (from the avatar edit: and from the bible quote we can assume as much) Christian-based morality to codify the acceptable behaviours of individuals in society.

Next we can ban homosexuality. Sweet. << This is sarcasm for those who cannot detect it..... (I often get in trouble with people not noticing when I am using sarcasm)

Well I hope you have never said anything bad about Sharia law or any other religion's or culture's system of rules before, because that might seem a little hyprocritcal - and we can't have that now can we. If there are no victims then there is no objective reason for it to be illegal; there may be subjective reasons, but then if you do not like it, do not do it - but since if are no victims it should not be illegal. Keep your morality to yourself - if there are no victims it is no one else's business.

If on the other hand you say that the animals are victimised? Then you may have some basis from which to argue that it should be illegal (although then you have to make killing animals illegal x.x)