Why Should Bestiality Be Against The Law?

[Skwim]

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.

"Wicked" and "depraved" are value judgments that merit no more consideration than if I thought the Christian Holy Communion, where people eat the body of a person and drink his blood---the Catholics believing it is actual flesh and blood---was wicked and depraved. This kind of reasoning, based on a personal "ugh" reaction, is mindless.

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.

Well, if it is right that it be banned how about giving us a good reason--other than you simply don't like it. Show us this supposed "sensible base of ethics and morals" of yours that should supersede the sensible base of ethics and morals of others.' Why should yours become the basis for the law of the land and not mine?

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.

Sorry, but your sureness doesn't mean squat. Gotta do better than that. Much better.

 

[Tiberius]

because it abuses and exploits an animal that is incapable of consent.

Until we can actually understand whether an animal can give consent or not towards this, this continues to be controversial and, at least to me, harmful to the animal who is being exploited for sexual desire.

I believe it should be legalised... as soon as we can communicate with animals and get their consent. Otherwise, please no.

It means exactly what it says.
I disagree that animals cannot give consent.
Ever seen a dog humping a persons leg?

So as presented "animals are incapable of giving consent"is demonstratively wrong.

Animals cannot give legal consent.

All these arguments are based on the idea that an animal can't give consent.

However, put a naked woman on all fours and see if she can force a German Shepherd to mount her if the dog doesn't want to. I can guarantee she can't. If the animal doesn't want to, then it can indicate that. And if the animal DOES want to, it can indicate that too. The woman can show she wants it by stripping naked and getting on all fours in a position where she is available. To animal can show that it wants it by accepting the woman's invitation.

Of course, forcing an animal is nothing more than rape, and is just as bad.

For me, we have to ask "what purpose does bestiality serve for society?" Honestly, it serves no manifest or latent functions at all; besides perhaps giving some guy or girl an orgasm, which is not so much an end in itself. Since there are no positive arguments in favour of it, and a whole list of potentially valid arguments against it, we should maintain its status as illegal.

One could make the same argument to show that I should not be allowed to have sex with my girlfriend while using a condom.

It should be noted that in dog "society" humping is a sign of dominance. Its a dogs way of saying to another dog "I'm superior to you. Deal with it". Even female dogs will hump "lesser" dogs. If your dog is humping your leg, he or she thinks it is superior to you.

I'd say bestiality is in the same category as pedophilia. Animals are not beings capable of understanding human morality or consenting to sex any more than children are. Since an alligator isn't held responsible for "murdering" a human with malice aforethought, I don't think it should be considered capable of consenting to sex.

By that logic, dog breeders are allowing and encouraging rape.

 

[Drolefille]

All these arguments are based on the idea that an animal can't give consent.

However, put a naked woman on all fours and see if she can force a German Shepherd to mount her if the dog doesn't want to. I can guarantee she can't. If the animal doesn't want to, then it can indicate that. And if the animal DOES want to, it can indicate that too. The woman can show she wants it by stripping naked and getting on all fours in a position where she is available. To animal can show that it wants it by accepting the woman's invitation.

Of course, forcing an animal is nothing more than rape, and is just as bad.



One could make the same argument to show that I should not be allowed to have sex with my girlfriend while using a condom.



By that logic, dog breeders are allowing and encouraging rape.

Animals still cannot consent to sex with a human, that's our legal standard for sex and for many of us our moral standard.

And animals cannot rape each other as neither are capable of consent.
So dog breeders are irrelevant unless they're also having sex with the dogs themselves.

 

[nnmartin]

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

Well, if it is right that it be banned how about giving us a good reason--other than you simply don't like it. Show us this supposed "sensible base of ethics and morals" of yours that should supersede the sensible base of ethics and morals of others.' Why should yours become the basis for the law of the land and not mine?

Ever thought about the disease factor?

Who knows what kind of STD's can be transmitted from animals.

Why should most of society be put at risk by the actions of a handful of perverts?

 

[nnmartin]

"Wicked" and "depraved" are value judgments that merit no more consideration than if I thought the Christian Holy Communion, where people eat the body of a person and drink his blood---the Catholics believing it is actual flesh and blood---was wicked and depraved. This kind of reasoning, based on a personal "ugh" reaction, is mindless.

So do you think it relatively normal to have sex with an animal then?

Are you trying to strengthen your case for leagalising bestiality by comparing it to taking Holy Communion or is that just a joke?

They are obviously two completely different things.

Why bother with an analogy at all.

Show us this supposed "sensible base of ethics and morals" of yours that should supersede the sensible base of ethics and morals of others.'

This isn't the purpose of the current debate.

One has to question whether you have some hidden agenda here or not.

What is it?

 

[nnmartin]

Originally Posted by Darkness
For me, we have to ask "what purpose does bestiality serve for society?" Honestly, it serves no manifest or latent functions at all; besides perhaps giving some guy or girl an orgasm, which is not so much an end in itself. Since there are no positive arguments in favour of it, and a whole list of potentially valid arguments against it, we should maintain its status as illegal.

One could make the same argument to show that I should not be allowed to have sex with my girlfriend while using a condom.

No, you could only make that argument if your girlfriend were a dog, pig, or horse. I imagine she is not - in which case your statement is irrelevant.

Linkage and analogies do not further the case for legalising bestiality - they only side-track it.

If you do not practise bestiality yourself then why are you so in favour of legalising it?

Are you worried somehow that it is an infringement of your civil rights?

Those in favour of legalisation ought to come up with some reasons as to why the law should be changed.

 

[nnmartin]

Leviticus 18:23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.

You needn't be a Christian to see the commonsense in this passage. Animals are animals so the consent issue is totally irrelevant.

Humans are not designed to have sex with animals - those that do so are no more than animals themselves.

Even 2000 years ago when societies were far more barbaric that today's, people could see the logic in this kind of behaviour.

Why legalise it now - is that what you call progression?

 

[Skwim]

Ever thought about the disease factor?

No I havent. What is it?

Who knows what kind of STD's can be transmitted from animals.

Why should most of society be put at risk by the actions of a handful of perverts?

First you have to show it's a risk, and one substantial enough curb the behavior. Lacking that, and like everything else, we don't prohibit an activity until t can be shown worthy of prohibition. So, whatcha got?

So do you think it relatively normal to have sex with an animal then?

No, but then neither are para-sailing and juggling normal activities.

Are you trying to strengthen your case for leagalising bestiality by comparing it to taking Holy Communion or is that just a joke?

Actually, I was trying to get you to see that your desire to outlaw bestiality because you find it repulsive is no different than someone being repulsed by the idea of eating the flesh and blood of a person, and for that reason thinks Holy Communion should be outlawed. Remember the "One man's meat . . . ." thing I gave you?

They are obviously two completely different things.

Yes they are.

Why bother with an analogy at all.

Reason given above.↑ For your enlightenment.

This isn't the purpose of the current debate.

Then why did you bring the point up? You asserted that

"Often we don't need evidence - just commonsense foresight and a sensible base of ethics and morals."
​

And obviously this "commonsense foresight and a sensible base of ethics and morals," would be in keeping with your commonsense foresight and a sensible base of ethics and morals, and not mine. Correct? So my question: Why yours instead of mine? Care to answer, or are you going to duck the question again?

One has to question whether you have some hidden agenda here or not.

If one has to then so be it.

What is it?

Ah ha! A rhetorical question at that. How clever. Well, in as much as you like answering your own questions, I'll let you do the same again.

 

[Songbird]

I have no idea why, but I looked up arguments for and against bestiality. Man, I must be bored.

So far what I've found is while there is no one outstanding reason to outlaw it apart from a fairly universal repulsion, there are several factors that add up:

Animal cruelty risks
Human injury risks
Disease risks, including allergic reactions to animal semen
Psychological bases for zoophilia are often considered bizarre or unhealty - anthropomorphism of animals, inability of animals to consent, etc.

Again, the biggest reason is a sense of universal repulsion, expressed in both religious and secular societies - in sentiments about sexuality and the Divine, human dignity, social or mental competency as a basic requirement in a sexual partner, and the related horror of mixing human sexuality with animals that are seen as property and sources of food and clothing.

 

[nnmartin]

First you have to show it's a risk, and one substantial enough curb the behavior. Lacking that, and like everything else, we don't prohibit an activity until t can be shown worthy of prohibition. So, whatcha got?

for a start bestiality is already banned in most places so you would need to show a reason for the law to be changed.

Ever heard of AIDS - that came from animals - ever wondered how?

No, but then neither are para-sailing and juggling normal activities.

They are not the same as having sex with animals though, a key difference.

Actually, I was trying to get you to see that your desire to outlaw bestiality because you find it repulsive is no different than someone being repulsed by the idea of eating the flesh and blood of a person, and for that reason thinks Holy Communion should be outlawed. Remember the "One man's meat . . . ." thing I gave you?

No one eats the flesh of a person in this case , it is wine and bread if you must know.

And obviously this "commonsense foresight and a sensible base of ethics and morals," would be in keeping with your commonsense foresight and a sensible base of ethics and morals, and not mine

Most peoples' commonsense and foresight.

Majority rule in this case.

I am sure there are people out there who think that all sorts of crimes should be legalised just to fit in with their way of thinking , but they have to convince the powers that be that this would benefit society or be just in some way.

Therefore, it is very hard to make a case for bestiality.

 

[Skwim]

for a start bestiality is already banned in most places so you would need to show a reason for the law to be changed.

Not really, because the issue here is not "why should a country withdraw its laws against bestiality" but rather, as I stated in the OP title: "Why should bestiality be against the law?" That's the issue. However, in response to your need for a reason to show why anti-bestiality laws should be changed you would have to spell out the reasons for each place's ban so I could address them individuality, which, because it's not the issue, I wouldn't do anyway. Let's stay focused.

They are not the same as having sex with animals though, a key difference.

Well, the only reason you presented was that bestiality wasn't common. I'm not about to start second guessing as to where you next want to move the goal posts.

No one eats the flesh of a person in this case , it is wine and bread if you must know.

Entirely beyond the point; however, ever here of transubstantiation?

Most peoples' commonsense and foresight.

As if you know what most peoples' commonsense and foresight is. Give me a break here.

Majority rule in this case.

And who appointed you Grand Wizard of the House and Senate?

I am sure there are people out there who think that all sorts of crimes should be legalised just to fit in with their way of thinking , but they have to convince the powers that be that this would benefit society or be just in some way.

So what? As I pointed out before, this isn't the issue.

Therefore, is very hard to make a case for bestiality.

If only your opinion carried some weight.

 

[riley2112]

Not really, because the issue here is not "why should a country withdraw its laws against bestiality" but rather, as I stated in the OP title: "Why should bestiality be against the law?" That's the issue. However, in response to your need for a reason to show why anti-bestiality laws should be changed you would have to spell out the reasons for each place's ban so I could address them individuality, which, because it's not the issue, I wouldn't do anyway. Let's stay focused.

Well, the only reason you presented was that bestiality wasn't common. I'm not about to start second guessing as to where you next want to move the goal posts.

Entirely beyond the point; however, ever here of transubstantiation?

As if you know what most peoples' commonsense and foresight is. Give me a break here.

And who appointed you Grand Wizard of the House and Senate?

So what? As I pointed out before, this isn't the issue.

If only your opinion carried some weight.

I have been watching this for awhile with great amusement. Even if it was not against the law I doubt that there would be anymore people , well, using their animals , than there is now. I also doubt that anyone has any knowledge of how many people are in to this sort of thing. Because , who would want to admit it . I mean, come on people.lol :beach:

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Lol riley, too true. It is also for that reason that no one would challenge such a law even if it was illegal or uncalled for or whatnot. Imagine how THAT would play out on the media.

 

[McBell]

All these arguments are based on the idea that an animal can't give consent.

Close.
In the USA, animals cannot give LEGAL consent.

However, put a naked woman on all fours and see if she can force a German Shepherd to mount her if the dog doesn't want to. I can guarantee she can't. If the animal doesn't want to, then it can indicate that. And if the animal DOES want to, it can indicate that too. The woman can show she wants it by stripping naked and getting on all fours in a position where she is available. To animal can show that it wants it by accepting the woman's invitation.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with LEGAL consent.
Which , if you actually read ALL of my post you quoted.....

One could make the same argument to show that I should not be allowed to have sex with my girlfriend while using a condom.

I would love to hear your proposed argument.

By that logic, dog breeders are allowing and encouraging rape.

Animals can give consent.
What they cannot do, at least in the USA, is give LEGAL consent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Considering many animals are far more intelligent and aware of their being than what most realize, and the fact that many different animals have sex for pleasure, and that we too are only animals, I tend to think that many animals, especially dogs, are very aware of what they are doing. And since even other animals tend to fight back to say no, I also tend to think the animal is giving consent.
Other than avoiding what can be a very painful and potentially lethal situation for some animals, especially smaller ones, I can't think of any reason it should be illegal.

 

[Reverend Rick]

What they cannot do, at least in the USA, is give LEGAL consent.

I don't know about all that, but beastiality is legal in 18 states according to what I read here.

Overview of Zoophilia and Bestiality Laws

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have been watching this for awhile with great amusement. Even if it was not against the law I doubt that there would be anymore people , well, using their animals , than there is now. I also doubt that anyone has any knowledge of how many people are in to this sort of thing. Because , who would want to admit it . I mean, come on people.lol :beach:

I'm certain there are many of the "super" deviant acts, such as sex with an animal or sibling, happen far more frequently than we'll ever know about. Not enough to be a significant portion of the population, but still enough of a percentage to be noticeable.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It certainly isn't the sort of thing you can obtain reliable statistics about XD

 

[McBell]

I don't know about all that, but beastiality is legal in 18 states according to what I read here.

Overview of Zoophilia and Bestiality Laws

Hey! Thanks for the link.

I was unawares of this...

 

[Reverend Rick]

Hey! Thanks for the link.

I was unawares of this...

Here is another one. It would seem a man was arrested in Ohio and had to be released when police realised there was no law on the books.

Man arrested, allegedly had sex with 3 dogs, 1 horse, no BEASTIALITY law - Chicago animal welfare | Examiner.com