NationStates Jolt Archive

what is wrong with people. Yes you do own your pets but they are different than physical property -you cannot do anything and everything you please. Okay, whoever is so stupid to believe that animals have sex other than to reproduce go get a reality check!! or rather heres your sign...(reference to bill engvall's stupid signs of a few years back). this is a clear cut case of animal cruelty no if ands or buts about it!! why is this subject so damned fascinating? Im sure there are plenty of hos out there go hire one!
It´s not as simple as that...probably many of the persons who practise bestiality/zoophilia feel they dont have a choice other than sex with animals...it probably happens the same with heterossexuals and homossexuals...you cant say to a homossexual,"Hey, that´s a sick behaviour you´re engaging in, hire a prostitute, for heaven´s sake!"

Dogs, dolphins, deer, horses, mokeys, and geat apes all masturebate. If not for sexual gratification then why?
Curiosly Desmond Morris, in his book "The naked Ape" contends that some behaviours one observes in people at some times (countinually fidgeting with their hands, scratching for scratching sake,etc) are simply ways that we use to deal with stressful situations...he contends that one can observe much of the same behaviours in chimps and gorilas...and i do believe that he offers the example of masturbation...

Another issues comes to mind...if we do make zoophilia a criminal offence, we´ll have to acess, case by case, if the offender was acting with free will or if he was under any kind of mental derangement...the same happens with people acused of rape, child abuse, etc...if we came to the conclusion that the offender was mentally insane, we would have to deal with him accordingly...that means, subjecting him to mental treatement, to try to "cure him" of his zoophilia...should we quimically castrate him as it already happens with some sex-offenders? Are we ready to consider zoophilia a criminal offence and not just an alternate lifestyle and act on it?

Pets are animals, they are not sentinent therefor it's not a question of consent. Consent isn't abstract. They can't refuse either, what does that prove?

And whoever says it harms the animal, where is your proof of that? When a dog is humping a pillow, it looks like he's enjoying it to me. What's the difference between a pillow or a woman? There are special people that masturbate horses to collect their sperm for breeding. What's the difference if they do it for their own pleasure, if they enjoy that sort of thing?

The state shouldn't interfere in the bedroom.

Pets are animals, they are not sentinent therefor it's not a question of consent. Consent isn't abstract. They can't refuse either, what does that prove?

And whoever says it harms the animal, where is your proof of that? When a dog is humping a pillow, it looks like he's enjoying it to me. What's the difference between a pillow or a woman? There are special people that masturbate horses to collect their sperm for breeding. What's the difference if they do it for their own pleasure, if they enjoy that sort of thing?

The state shouldn't interfere in the bedroom.

Animals can't refuse? Yes they can. Some of them can refuse so hard it kills you to death. If a dog humps a woman it's because the dog wants to. If you try and fuck a bitch and it bites you, I'd take that as refusal.

Wow, hard to believe a thread on bestiality lasted this long. I guess I may as well put in my two cents.

This isnt a consent issue or a decency issue for me. Its a health issue. One of the theories for the origins of AIDS is that it was contracted from monkeys. This is not unusual, it is the normal way that diseases spread. Many viruses have no effect on an animal but will kill a human. Human beings do not have the antibodies necessary to fight viruses that humanity has simply not encountered before. Every time someone has sex with an animal they are putting all of humanity at risk. It ceases to be a privacy in the bedroom issue the moment your cheap thrill is putting the human race at risk. What if sex with an animal releases a global pandemic? Was it worth it then? This is something that is simply too dangerous to allow. There are laws regarding what kind of flora and fauna can be imported for a similar reason, because some things pose a biological hazard and must be outlawed. Having sex with animals is one of them.

Wow, hard to believe a thread on bestiality lasted this long. I guess I may as well put in my two cents.

This isnt a consent issue or a decency issue for me. Its a health issue. One of the theories for the origins of AIDS is that it was contracted from monkeys. This is not unusual, it is the normal way that diseases spread. Many viruses have no effect on an animal but will kill a human. Human beings do not have the antibodies necessary to fight viruses that humanity has simply not encountered before. Every time someone has sex with an animal they are putting all of humanity at risk. It ceases to be a privacy in the bedroom issue the moment your cheap thrill is putting the human race at risk. What if sex with an animal releases a global pandemic? Was it worth it then? This is something that is simply too dangerous to allow. There are laws regarding what kind of flora and fauna can be imported for a similar reason, because some things pose a biological hazard and must be outlawed. Having sex with animals is one of them.
First of all, condoms would be a safe way to prevent any risk of diseases in sex where a man is playing the active role...
Next, if a man is just into zoophilia and not engages sex with other humans how will he spread any diseases among his species? Unless such man is promiscuos and goes around having sex with multiple animals, transmiting diseases among them and then the said animals transmit such diseases to other zoophiles, that in turn are promiscuous too...
But surely thats a issue where promiscuity plays the central role, not zoophilia, wouldnt you agree?

Every time someone has sex with an animal they are putting all of humanity at risk. ... This is something that is simply too dangerous to allow. There are laws regarding what kind of flora and fauna can be imported for a similar reason, because some things pose a biological hazard and must be outlawed. Having sex with animals is one of them.

Even accepting that aids may well have originated from monkey sex, what a lot of arse.

1) If the person who fucked a monkey and first got aids then only fucked monkeys for the rest of his/her life there would be no human aids epidemic. what spreads aids among people is people fucking people, not people fucking animals.

2) bird flu spread from birds to people without the aid of sexual congress. should there be a law against being near animals so that we don't get diseases from them?

3) what really is the chance of any given sexual act or group of sexual acts with an animal or animals giving rise to a new epidemic? is it higher than the risk of getting run over when you cross the road? should we outlaw cars?

Wow, hard to believe a thread on bestiality lasted this long. I guess I may as well put in my two cents.

This isnt a consent issue or a decency issue for me. Its a health issue. One of the theories for the origins of AIDS is that it was contracted from monkeys. This is not unusual, it is the normal way that diseases spread. Many viruses have no effect on an animal but will kill a human. Human beings do not have the antibodies necessary to fight viruses that humanity has simply not encountered before. Every time someone has sex with an animal they are putting all of humanity at risk. It ceases to be a privacy in the bedroom issue the moment your cheap thrill is putting the human race at risk. What if sex with an animal releases a global pandemic? Was it worth it then? This is something that is simply too dangerous to allow. There are laws regarding what kind of flora and fauna can be imported for a similar reason, because some things pose a biological hazard and must be outlawed. Having sex with animals is one of them.

Protected sex between humans should be compulsory then, yes? To curtail the rapid spread of HIV? Pregnancy can be achieved through artificial means now, so unprotected sex for that purpose is not necessary any longer.

Eating only partially-cooked meat should also be made illegal, yes? Who knows what nasties could be lurking in there. It's a risk to the whole of humanity!

Even accepting that aids may well have originated from monkey sex, what a lot of arse.

1) If the person who fucked a monkey and first got aids then only fucked monkeys for the rest of his/her life there would be no human aids epidemic. what spreads aids among people is people fucking people, not people fucking animals.


That is a very big assumption though. You would have to ban people who have sex with animals from having sex with humans, and that still wouldnt solve the problem because viruses have been known to mutate.


2) bird flu spread from birds to people without the aid of sexual congress. should there be a law against being near animals so that we don't get diseases from them?


No, because having sex with an animal is an unnecessary risk. This exposes you to a whole different branch of viruses that otherwise couldnt be transmitted to a human being. Being near animals is unavoidable and does not expose you to the same level of risk. In some cases where there are particular biological hazards even this is outlawed as it should (for example, you are not allowed to own certain animals as pets because of the diseases they are known to carry).


3) what really is the chance of any given sexual act or group of sexual acts with an animal or animals giving rise to a new epidemic? is it higher than the risk of getting run over when you cross the road? should we outlaw cars?

No one knows the chance. However, that is not how you analyze risk. Risk is analyzed based on a number of factors, not just how likely it is to happen. The chance of getting hit by a car is outweighed by the benefits of having cars and the fact that if you get hit by a car it is a very small number of people who are affected. Having sex with an animal, on the other hand, does not provide a considerable benefit to outweigh the risk, and the risk isnt that you and a small number of people will be hurt, the risk is that you will release a new disease upon mankind that could potentially kill millions of people.

Who are you to say that there are no benefits to fucking an animal?

Other than that, your argument is still a load of arse. As far as we know, there may have been one disease created in the way you describe. That's a pretty low risk.

Furthermore, the entire AIDS epidemic would be wiped out in a couple of generations if everyone lived in a christian manner, so perhaps we should outlaw unchristian sexual morality altogether.

That is a very big assumption though. You would have to ban people who have sex with animals from having sex with humans, and that still wouldnt solve the problem because viruses have been known to mutate.



No, because having sex with an animal is an unnecessary risk. This exposes you to a whole different branch of viruses that otherwise couldnt be transmitted to a human being. Being near animals is unavoidable and does not expose you to the same level of risk. In some cases where there are particular biological hazards even this is outlawed as it should (for example, you are not allowed to own certain animals as pets because of the diseases they are known to carry).



No one knows the chance. However, that is not how you analyze risk. Risk is analyzed based on a number of factors, not just how likely it is to happen. The chance of getting hit by a car is outweighed by the benefits of having cars and the fact that if you get hit by a car it is a very small number of people who are affected. Having sex with an animal, on the other hand, does not provide a considerable benefit to outweigh the risk, and the risk isnt that you and a small number of people will be hurt, the risk is that you will release a new disease upon mankind that could potentially kill millions of people.
You wouldnt have to ban humans that practice zoophilia from having sex with other humans because the former much probably will only engage in zoophile sex...but even if they do play on both courts, the use of condoms in sex with humans would avert any risk...it´s the same with how homossexual sex was regarded in the US in the 80´s...there was a general assumption that homossexuals were a risk group because it was assumed that AIDS only befell homossexuals..today its common knowledege that there are no risk groups, but risk behaviours, for instance engaging sex without protection, no matter your sexual orientation...male zoophiles, if they also enjoy sex with humans, will use condoms so as to eliminate any risk...zoophile females will demand their partners to use condoms...as you see, no differences from what one expects fromsensible people in everyday life...

Fencehopping is where a person sneeks onto someone else's property at night to, ahem, lay with their beasts.People actually do that? :eek:

Dogs, dolphins, deer, horses, mokeys, and geat apes all masturebate. If not for sexual gratification then why?
How the hell does a Deer masturbate??? :confused:

How the hell does a Deer masturbate??? :confused:

The same way many animals, including humans, sometimes masturbate. By rubbing themselves on something.

just a thought on the whole different species thing... my male dog humps my female cat....they both seem to enjoy it *shrugs* should it be illegal for them t odo this because they are different species?

just a thought...

Hell Yeah. Miscegenative household pets should be burnt at the stake. Then eaten at the steak.

The other day i was reading the column "Savage love" in the on-line service of "Village voice" and several readers had sent letters describing sexual encounters with their pets (mainly dogs). Do you think zoophilia is a matter strictly of the private sphere or should the State intervene and prohibit it? Why? Can men´s best friends become something more?

That is just messed up. People should not go "cross species" for any reason.

I'd be wary with reasoning along the lines of "crimes against nature" and such. Other sexual practices that are considered OK today held that label, and it could quickly be turned against you for the simple reason that e.g. anal sex was considered a "crime against nature" and it isn't anymore, so that won't be one soon... you get the idea.

Personally I think, as long as the animal isn't harmed, hell, what do I care what people do in their bedrooms? While I'd consider it painful to have a dog on top of me (I mean, did you ever look at ... ouch, man, I don't even want to imagine!), whatever floats your boat.

As someone pointed out, laws that cannot be enforced are pointless. And unlike child molesters, who you can rather easily catch because the kids change in their behaviour and observant people can pick up clues (like teachers and such), or if nothing else, they grow up and turn back on their offenders after they're no longre dependent on them, an animal has no such options.

Whether it's legal or not doesn't matter as long as you have no means to enforce it. And NO, the feds are NOT going to be allowed to install a cam in my bedroom just to make sure I don't mount Lassie! :)

If you do make zoophilia a criminal offence, then another issue comes up: as with other sex offenders, you´ll have to ascertain, on a case-by-case basis, if the zoophile acted out of his free will, or because he has a mental compulsion that interferes in his good judgement. If you do find the offender mentally deranged, what next: will you quimically castrate him? Will the Legislature pass a Bill similar to Megan´s Law forcing authorities to inform neighbours when a condemned zoophile moves into the neighbourhood? Three-strikes laws for zoophiles?

How the hell does a Deer masturbate??? :confused:


Either by rubbing their antlers on stuff (trees, the ground, bracken. . .) or by engaging in auto-fellatio. (No deer in headlight jokes, please)

Either by rubbing their antlers on stuff (trees, the ground, bracken. . .) or by engaging in auto-fellatio. (No deer in headlight jokes, please)
Oh, i wouldnt dare...deer...oh,what ever

Sue it for bestiality!

I'll sue it for humanity!

Either by rubbing their antlers on stuff (trees, the ground, bracken. . .) or by engaging in auto-fellatio. (No deer in headlight jokes, please)

Deer get off from rubbing their antlers? :confused:

Edit: A doe comes out of the wood and says "I'm never doing that for 5 bucks again!"

Wow, hard to believe a thread on bestiality lasted this long. I guess I may as well put in my two cents.

Perhaps because most people don't care about arguments that basically go "OMG it is teh evil!!elevnen!"? At least you have a point.

Deer get off from rubbing their antlers? :confused:

Edit: A doe comes out of the wood and says "I'm never doing that for 5 bucks again!"

HAHAhAHA! Though animals are usually worse then people about 'rape'. Dogs can hump people's legs and I seen them do it. They will even do it on their own children and everything.....*trying not to be graphic*

I'd say sense animals can practically rape you, do either one of two things, beat them silly and punish them like crazy, or join in and see if they want to do it again! HAHAHAhAH!

Kinda weird...but this somehow reminds me of the polygamy issue of nationstates. "reportsd of people marrying their cats" in particular.

I'm guessing all of you are vegetarians as well?

Animals don't consent to being killed and eaten, but we do it anyway for our benefit. We must set our priorities straight, our children and our race are more important than animals. Their consensus or non-consensus is unimportant.

And Fass, my original point is this, direct exchange of bodily fluids expecially blood leads to transmission of many various diseases. Having sex with an animal is a very easy way to have this sort of thing happening. It is therefore unhealthy to the individual and the race, therefore government should take action gainst.

100% correct. It has nothing to do with consent. And who here can argue that their dog isnt consenting to a good bonking session anyway? If it doesn't run away...it might be enjoying it! So, even if the animal could possibly consent, it doesn't give you a right to do it.

And we still allow dogs to breed with their own kind. Is this consensual? Should we only allow a dog to have sex with another dog if it obtains written permission first? Or is this only required where humans are involved? And why?

People's stupidity has been revealed in their completely illogical arguments in this thread. Consent? ROFL...

Also agree with the point about the health issues...that's the only thing that matters, not some poor dog's emotional well being. Give me a break...

You're all avoiding the real issue here.

Centaurs.

Think about it.

100% correct. It has nothing to do with consent. And who here can argue that their dog isnt consenting to a good bonking session anyway? If it doesn't run away...it might be enjoying it! So, even if the animal could possibly consent, it doesn't give you a right to do it.

And we still allow dogs to breed with their own kind. Is this consensual? Should we only allow a dog to have sex with another dog if it obtains written permission first? Or is this only required where humans are involved? And why?

People's stupidity has been revealed in their completely illogical arguments in this thread. Consent? ROFL...

Also agree with the point about the health issues...that's the only thing that matters, not some poor dog's emotional well being. Give me a break...

Agreed, the issue of consent is only a cover for people who think it's icky.

Animals can't consent, therefore it's rape.

Animals also aren't people so it isn't.

I think bestiality is completely disgusting, one of the most disgusting, nay, the most disgusting sexual act imaginable, I am completely against anyone doing it.

However, it should not be outlawed. Animals are property and people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their property so long as it doesn't damage the property of another person, or another person. There is no consent issue because there is only one person involved, it would be like saying people should be punished for using sex toys because the toys can't consent. Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to outlaw it, but I guess that idea is kind of lost on people in this age of rob-from-your-neighbor democracy.

However, it should not be outlawed. Animals are property and people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their property so long as it doesn't damage the property of another person, or another person.

Nice. So torturing your pet is perfectly OK, because it only hurts your own property, no person, and no-one's else's property? ;)

Nice. So torturing your pet is perfectly OK, because it only hurts your own property, no person, and no-one's else's property? ;)

No more illegal than rounding up a bunch of friends, arm them with shotguns, and going to Africa to reduce wildlife population apparently.

Nice. So torturing your pet is perfectly OK, because it only hurts your own property, no person, and no-one's else's property? ;)
Wll, i supose that one cant go that far, since animals do have rights...in Portugal, the owner of a pet is fined if he mistreats it...still, zoophilia doesn´t necessarily harm the animal, wouldnt you say?

Wll, i supose that one cant go that far, since animals do have rights...in Portugal, the owner of a pet is fined if he mistreats it...still, zoophilia doesn´t necessarily harm the animal, wouldnt you say?

Not automatically anyway.

Not automatically anyway.
And, if the pet owners who engage in zoophile practices with their pets dont view the latter just as sex toys, but as true partners in a nurturing romantic relation...should one not even admit the chance that zoophiles may indeed love their animal parteners in the same way two human beings do?...

And, if the pet owners who engage in zoophile practices with their pets dont view the latter just as sex toys, but as true partners in a nurturing romantic relation...should one not even admit the chance that zoophiles may indeed love their animal parteners in the same way two human beings do?...

I see no reason why this would not be the case.

I see no reason why this would not be the case.
And, seeing that zoophile relationships can be grounded in love rather than simple lust, should society be prepared to acknowledge legal rights to partners in such relationships, such as already happens with civil unions of same-sex couples in many american states?

Not automatically anyway. I would say it does. Look at it this way. A child cannot consent because it isn't emotionally/rationally mature enough. Now, which is more emotionally and rationally mature; a child or a dog?

And, seeing that zoophile relationships can be grounded in love rather than simple lust, should society be prepared to acknowledge legal rights to partners in such relationships, such as already happens with civil unions of same-sex couples in many american states?

Legal rights such as?

Legal rights such as?
For instance, the right to marry, to inherit, to use the partner´s surname...

I would say it does. Look at it this way. A child cannot consent because it isn't emotionally/rationally mature enough. Now, which is more emotionally and rationally mature; a child or a dog?

Are you saying a dog cannot consent? Care to prove it?

For instance, the right to marry, to inherit, to use the partner´s surname...

Animals have no posessions or surnames.

Are you saying a dog cannot consent? Care to prove it? As I said, a dog is certainly less mentally advanced than a child. Therefore, given that those are grounds for a child not being able to give consent, a dog certainly cannot.

Animals have no posessions or surnames.
Not currently, of course, but what i was asking is if the community should recognize such reights to animals that engage in zoophile relationships..

As I said, a dog is certainly less mentally advanced than a child. Therefore, given that those are grounds for a child not being able to give consent, a dog certainly cannot.

But a mature dog is more sexually mature than a child.

Not currently, of course, but what i was asking is if the community should recognize such reights to animals that engage in zoophile relationships..

Why would they?

But a mature dog is more sexually mature than a child. Certainly, it is sexually engineered for other dogs. It's no more engineered for humans than a child is.

Why would they?
Because we´ve already stablished that zoophile relationships can be love relationships...the same society acknowledged to same-sex relationships...couldn´t zoophiles claim legal recognition of their romantic entaglement with their pets?

Certainly, it is sexually engineered for other dogs. It's no more engineered for humans than a child is.

Prove it.

Because we´ve already stablished that zoophile relationships can be love relationships...the same society acknowledged to same-sex relationships...couldn´t zoophiles claim legal recognition of their romantic entaglement with their pets?

They don't need to.

They don't need to.
Why shouldnt zoophiles sooner or later feel the nedd to see their love ties with their pets acknowledged by the community?

Havent you seen a dog humping some ones leg?

I truly believe that people who enjoy zoophilia might claim their right to see their love affair with their pets recognized by the community and the law.

I think a lot of people are being a bit short sighted when they say that an animal can never consent. As somebody else here said, dogs often hump people's legs. Now if somebody 'presented themselves' to the animal and allowed themselves to be penetrated, that would be a criminal offence. This complicates things. The animal has clearly consented, so it raises a legal dilemma much like that of the sodomy laws - do you allow the government to interfere with people's private sex lives or do you let people commit consensual beastiality?

But I think it should banned anyway, it's a sick and deviant act.

I think a lot of people are being a bit short sighted when they say that an animal can never consent. As somebody else here said, dogs often hump people's legs. Now if somebody 'presented themselves' to the animal and allowed themselves to be penetrated, that would be a criminal offence. This complicates things. The animal has clearly consented, so it raises a legal dilemma much like that of the sodomy laws - do you allow the government to interfere with people's private sex lives or do you let people commit consensual beastiality?

But I think it should banned anyway, it's a sick and deviant act.
Well, but to legislate on grounds of public morals and decency can always lead to community-sanctioned abuse...i mean, hommosexuality was seen as a a sick and deviant act not long ago...

Well, but to legislate on grounds of public morals and decency can always lead to community-sanctioned abuse...i mean, hommosexuality was seen as a a sick and deviant act not long ago...
As was oral sex

Why shouldnt zoophiles sooner or later feel the nedd to see their love ties with their pets acknowledged by the community?

Whatever suits their fancy, I'm not here to discuss that.

But I think it should banned anyway, it's a sick and deviant act.

Why should I care what you think is sick and deviant?

Whatever suits their fancy, I'm not here to discuss that.
But you see, as soon the community allows zoophile behaviour and deems it acceptable, dont you think that zoophiles can with some legitimacy claim equal treatement under the law and demand their unions with animals to receive the same treatement as same-sex civil unions? Or should society never oblige this demand?

We have laws that cover the treatment of animals that have nothing to do with 'morality' laws. Such as, endangered species protection laws, and the protection of the Bald Eagle, for example. It's against federal law to shoot a Bald Eagle and eat it, but some of the people here think we should be able to stick our sex organs in them?

I think not.

I think this entire thread is overwhelming evidence that people should never again feel bad for endorsing candidates and voting for government policies that may restrict other people’s choice's of legal and acceptable behaviors. Because without those standards held by the community and enforced by the law, some people when left to their own resources, as proven by the advocates of sex with animal people in this thread, will not restrict themselves nor restrain themselves from any debasement whatsoever.

I don’t have to prove why you shouldn’t be allowed to stuff gerbils up your orifice and stick your penis in a pigeon, I just have to have a majority of the population agree with me that we don’t want you to do it in our country, or we’ll lock you up. It’s not a civil rights issue at all.

We have laws that cover the treatment of animals that have nothing to do with 'morality' laws. Such as, endangered species protection laws, and the protection of the Bald Eagle, for example. It's against federal law to shoot a Bald Eagle and eat it, but some of the people here think we should be able to stick our sex organs in them?

I think not.

I think this entire thread is overwhelming evidence that people should never again feel bad for endorsing candidates and voting for government policies that may restrict other people’s choice's of legal and acceptable behaviors. Because without those standards held by the community and enforced by the law, some people when left to their own resources, as proven by the advocates of sex with animal people in this thread, will not restrict themselves nor restrain themselves from any debasement whatsoever.

I don’t have to prove why you shouldn’t be allowed to stuff gerbils up your orifice and stick your penis in a pigeon, I just have to have a majority of the population agree with me that we don’t want you to do it in our country, or we’ll lock you up. It’s not a civil rights issue at all.

Well it still is a question of civil rights but you just are using bandwagon and not to mention emotional appeal fallacies as justification for not calling it such

(Calling it not a civil rights issue does not make it so … it may be a necessary decision to make I am not arguing that … but it still is a civil rights issue)

But you see, as soon the community allows zoophile behaviour and deems it acceptable, dont you think that zoophiles can with some legitimacy claim equal treatement under the law and demand their unions with animals to receive the same treatement as same-sex civil unions? Or should society never oblige this demand?

Not until animals can own property, earn money and enter legal contracts.
Come back to me when they do.

But you see, as soon the community allows zoophile behaviour and deems it acceptable, dont you think that zoophiles can with some legitimacy claim equal treatement under the law and demand their unions with animals to receive the same treatement as same-sex civil unions? Or should society never oblige this demand?
Wrong Marrige is a civil and legal contract

Animals do not have the ability to enter into any civil or legal contract

it worries me greatly that this is even being discussed

it worries me greatly that this is even being discussed

Boo-hoo.

Not until animals can own property, earn money and enter legal contracts.
Come back to me when they do.
Mental pacients can own property and enter legal contrats if represented by legal guardians.
So can children.
Why exclude animals?

We have laws that cover the treatment of animals that have nothing to do with 'morality' laws. Such as, endangered species protection laws, and the protection of the Bald Eagle, for example. It's against federal law to shoot a Bald Eagle and eat it, but some of the people here think we should be able to stick our sex organs in them?

I think not.

I think this entire thread is overwhelming evidence that people should never again feel bad for endorsing candidates and voting for government policies that may restrict other people’s choice's of legal and acceptable behaviors. Because without those standards held by the community and enforced by the law, some people when left to their own resources, as proven by the advocates of sex with animal people in this thread, will not restrict themselves nor restrain themselves from any debasement whatsoever.

I don’t have to prove why you shouldn’t be allowed to stuff gerbils up your orifice and stick your penis in a pigeon, I just have to have a majority of the population agree with me that we don’t want you to do it in our country, or we’ll lock you up. It’s not a civil rights issue at all.
That "advocates of sex with animals" sound rather benighted. You see, one can offer some points one thinks valid in support of any theory without actually endorsing the said theory.

it worries me greatly that this is even being discussed
Well, i could say that i´m rather worried when i see people singing praises to marxism-lenninism in many threads, but i dont...free speech makes free citizenry, thank you very much.