NationStates Jolt Archive

Following up the recent thread on the ban on beastiality in Washington, a thought struck me. It seems hypocritical to me that many people who vehemently defend the right to have homosexual sex typically have little to say about sex between species. Having said that, I am not a homosexual nor do I practice or wish to practice beastiality. I would just like to know how those who defend homosexual intercourse feel on this subject.

That's because there isn't much to say.
Homosexual sex can be consensual. Bestiality can't.

How is this hypocritical?

That's because there isn't much to say.
Homosexual sex can be consensual. Bestiality can't.
You win.

You win.
A cookie?

Following up the recent thread on the ban on beastiality in Washington, a thought struck me. It seems hypocritical to me that many people who vehemently defend the right to have homosexual sex typically have little to say about sex between species. Having said that, I am not a homosexual nor do I practice or wish to practice beastiality. I would just like to know how those who defend homosexual intercourse feel on this subject.

Glitziness nailed it.

Beastiality is non-consensual.

Homosexuals, and those who "defend the right to have homosexual sex", are as likely to oppose non-consensual sex as heterosexuals... thus, they oppose beastiality... (and paedophilia).

Is he serious?

That's because there isn't much to say.
Homosexual sex can be consensual. Bestiality can't.


BooYah!

A cookie?
This thread.

That's because there isn't much to say.
Homosexual sex can be consensual. Bestiality can't.
Fair enough.

This thread.
Aw, but you can't eat a thread...

Saying that, it is a rather amazing sight on NS to see an OP concede a point based on the first post in their thread.

Aw, but you can't eat a thread...

Saying that, it is a rather amazing sight on NS to see an OP concede a point based on the first post in their thread.
See, you don't only win the thread, a cookie (from me), but also the mind of the OP. (Add PM's heart to this and one wonders how you'll be able to drag all of this home, now)

homosexuality is corrupt says the bible and i think it should be illegal i mean marrage is meant for a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. eve was created for adam so they could carry on the human race imagen if God put 2 of the same sex nothing would have happened

homosexuality is corrupt says the bible and i think it should be illegal i mean marrage is meant for a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. eve was created for adam so they could carry on the human race imagen if God put 2 of the same sex nothing would have happened

the bible says a lot of things but the United States is not under the Bibles jurisdiction and neither are non-Christians.

I think it truely is sad that people like you are forced to live in such a corrupt and immoral society with no place to go - where you can be free of such cares. If only there were an island we could send you all to where you could live in peace. SOmehwere wher eyou didn't need to force your beliefs by chaning existing laws. Somewhere where no other religions or lack there-of existed.

Ah, if only...

Ahhh ... there's one in every crowd.

homosexuality is corrupt says the bible

What, exactly, does that have to do with legislation?

and i think it should be illegal

I think preaching in public should be illegal, but we don't always get what we want, now do we?

if God put 2 of the same sex nothing would have happened

If God didn't like homosexuals, why did he make them so fabulous?

That's because there isn't much to say.
Homosexual sex can be consensual. Bestiality can't.then sex with a dildo or a vacuum cleaner cant be consentual either. if we needed animals to consent, why dont we need the consent of cows/horses to breed them (not even talking about uncontual slaughter)?

then what about a male animal mounting a woman, in that case it would be totally conclusive that the animal consents.

imagen if God put 2 of the same sex nothing would have happened

Oh, ye of little faith. Surely, you know that "with God, ALL things are possible"?

then sex with a dildo or a vacuum cleaner cant be consentual either.

They are inanimate objects.

then sex with a dildo or a vacuum cleaner cant be consentual either..

I pity you if you are asking this question seriously as it doesn't take much thought as to why one wouldn't need consent from an inanimate object.


if we needed animals to consent, why dont we need the consent of cows/horses to breed them (not even talking about uncontual slaughter)?

How do you know cows and horses dont give each other consent? I would imagine that when animals breed naturally that it is thru consent or else they wouldnt be able to breed.


then what about a male animal mounting a woman, in that case it would be totally conclusive that the animal consents.

I dont think there should be laws against that.

then sex with a dildo or a vacuum cleaner cant be consentual either. if we needed animals to consent, why dont we need the consent of cows/horses to breed them (not even talking about uncontual slaughter)?

then what about a male animal mounting a woman, in that case it would be totally conclusive that the animal consents.

Inanimate objects are unlikely to be 'hurt', either physically or psychologically.

On the subject of slaughtering animals... there is an effort to make that process humane, most of the time... but, regardless... for millenia we have NEEDED to eat animals.

I can't easily envision a situation where I might NEED to have sex with an animal...

I pity you if you are asking this question seriously as it doesn't take much thought as to why one wouldn't need consent from an inanimate object.

Won't somebody pleeease think of the dildos?!

I dont think there should be laws against that.

What about using farm animals that instinctively suck on things to deliver oral sex?

It doesn't seem consensual to me, but at least as far as we know, it isn't exactly hurting the animal.

What about using farm animals that instinctively suck on things to deliver oral sex?

It doesn't seem consensual to me, but at least as far as we know, it isn't exactly hurting the animal.

True, I wouldnt do it but I dont see a reason for laws against that either.

How do you know cows and horses dont give each other consent? I would imagine that when animals breed naturally that it is thru consent or else they wouldnt be able to breed.no, you see, when farm animals are bred, the female is usually tied up or put into a box, so it cant move. often it isnt even a natural act, but they are injected with a syringe with sperm. you could say they are being raped.On the subject of slaughtering animals... there is an effort to make that process humane, most of the time... but, regardless... for millenia we have NEEDED to eat animals.

I can't easily envision a situation where I might NEED to have sex with an animal...but we dont need to eat animals anymore, we can live from plants alone, this would also be better for our health (vegetarians live longer) and it would be better for the environment.

homosexuality is corrupt says the bible and i think it should be illegal i mean marrage is meant for a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. eve was created for adam so they could carry on the human race imagen if God put 2 of the same sex nothing would have happened

And instead He created one big incestuous family, where brother mated with sister.

no, you see, when farm animals are bred, the female is usually tied up or put into a box, so it cant move. often it isnt even a natural act, but they are injected with a syringe with sperm. you could say they are being raped.but we dont need to eat animals anymore, we can live from plants alone, this would also be better for our health (vegetarians live longer) and it would be better for the environment.


Well you got me there because I am a vegetarian and I dont see a need to force breed animals and do think they shoudl be able to live naturally and not suffer mass sslaughter. But at the same time I am not about to force that opinion on others so I wouldnt call for laws against omnivery.

eve was created for adam so they could carry on the human race

No. God (assuming He exists and the Bible is true) is a sappy romantic. Eve was created because human beings shouldn't be alone, according to the Bible.

I think that applies to gays just as much as it does to straights.

homosexuality is corrupt says the bible and i think it should be illegal i mean marrage is meant for a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. eve was created for adam so they could carry on the human race imagen if God put 2 of the same sex nothing would have happened


I would make the effort to engage in an argument with you, but the fact that you are not bothering to obey the rules of grammar or punctuation indicates to me that you are stupid and, therefore, not worth arguing with. :mp5:

And instead He created one big incestuous family, where brother mated with sister.
Well, seeing as Eve was made from a part of Adam...did they not sleep with themselves?

How do you know cows and horses dont give each other consent? I would imagine that when animals breed naturally that it is thru consent or else they wouldnt be able to breed.



Not necessarily. In some species males rape females, but in most animal species mating depends upon the consent of the female.

but we dont need to eat animals anymore, we can live from plants alone, this would also be better for our health (vegetarians live longer) and it would be better for the environment.

Propoganda and statistics.

Many people switch to vegetarianism as part of a 'healthy eating' kick. They do it at the same time they start avoiding sugars and fats, and start taking more exercise. It is hardly surprising, then that the statistics for vegetarians are skewed.

The problem is, too many people assume vegetarianism is the CAUSE of healthy living... rather than one of the components of an already healthy life.

I need to eat animals. Just show that cow the oven, let it squeal in terror, then poor a blue-cheese sauce on it. If nothing has to die, bleeding, it doesn't count as food. And, vegetables are what food EATS.

Not necessarily. In some species males rape females, but in most animal species mating depends upon the consent of the female.


I did not know that. Which species would that be?

Well, seeing as Eve was made from a part of Adam...did they not sleep with themselves?

They did. And then their offspring did it with eachother. Possibly Adam and Eve themselves jumped in too from time to time.

I did not know that. Which species would that be?

Ducks are an example of an often raping species.

They did. And then their offspring did it with eachother. Possibly Adam and Eve themselves jumped in too from time to time.

Wow, that's HOT ewwwwwwwwwwwwww

Ducks are an example of an often raping species.

Interesting.

Nature abhors symmetry. Not all humans are bothered by rape, in fact, some fantasize about it, males and females.

Some animals mate only by rape. Some animals kill the males immediately after doing the deed (black widow, for instance). There's a type of aquatic animal that is both sexes. They swim around one another trying to stab the other with their penis-like appendage. They both try to get the other pregnant.

Some things don't even use partners.

Some beastiality is forced, some isn't. Blanketing an entire act/species/idea with one prohibitive law is like stereotyping. The more legislatures try to ennumerate things, the more exceptions people will come up with, and so on. Honestly though, there aren't a whole lot of people (outside of PETA, heh) who care one way or another whether or not an animal consents to something. Pets are an example. What used to be a mutually beneficial relationship between say, human and dog, has evolved into a master/toy relationship, and now domestic dogs wouldn't be able to survive worth a crap without a care taker. Without knowing it, humans have made many species of dogs into dependents, endeared to the species. They no longer have a choice at all.

So the consent argument is a really strange one. Hard to judge.

Let's not speak on Adam and Eve anymore. Eve wasn't the first woman anyway. Adam was a whiny bitch about Lillith not obeying him cuz they were equal, so God said, "okay, damn, if I make you a toy will you shut the hell up!? Jesus!" and thus... Eve. That story conveniently tucked away to keep with the whole male domination thing, but alas...

This is a thread about beastiality(Never thought I'd say that....) legislation! Let's leave the bible out.

Ducks are an example of an often raping species.funny that you mention ducks, i recently read thisDucks behave pretty badly, it seems. It is not so much that up to one in 10 of mallard couples are homosexual - no one would raise an eyebrow in the liberal Netherlands - but they regularly indulge in "attempted rape flights" when they pursue other ducks with a view to forcible mating. "Rape is a normal reproductive strategy in mallards," explains Mr Moeliker.

As he recounts in his seminal paper, The first case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard anas platyrhynchos, he was in his office in the Natuurmuseum Rotterdam, when he was alerted by a bang to the fact a bird had crashed into the glass facade of the building. "I went downstairs immediately to see if the window was damaged, and saw a drake mallard (anas platyrhynchos) lying motionless on its belly in the sand, two metres outside the facade. The unfortunate duck apparently had hit the building in full flight at a height of about three metres from the ground. Next to the obviously dead duck, another male mallard (in full adult plumage without any visible traces of moult) was present. He forcibly picked into the back, the base of the bill and mostly into the back of the head of the dead mallard for about two minutes, then mounted the corpse and started to copulate, with great force, almost continuously picking the side of the head.

"Rather startled, I watched this scene from close quarters behind the window until 19.10 hours during which time (75 minutes) I made some photographs and the mallard almost continuously copulated his dead congener. He dismounted only twice, stayed near the dead duck and picked the neck and the side of the head before mounting again. The first break (at 18.29 hours) lasted three minutes and the second break (at 18.45 hours) lasted less than a minute. At 19.12 hours, I disturbed this cruel scene. The necrophilic mallard only reluctantly left his 'mate': when I had approached him to about five metres, he did not fly away but simply walked off a few metres, weakly uttering a series of two-note 'raeb-raeb' calls (the 'conversation-call' of Lorentz 1953). I secured the dead duck and left the museum at 19.25 hours. The mallard was still present at the site, calling 'raeb-raeb' and apparently looking for his victim (who, by then, was in the freezer)."

Mr Moeliker suggests the pair were engaged in a rape flight attempt. "When one died the other one just went for it and didn't get any negative feedback - well, didn't get any feedback," he said.http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1432991,00.html

funny that you mention ducks, i recently read thishttp://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1432991,00.html


COOL! I was wondering when necrophilia was going to get into the thread! Ducks are so much cooler than I thought...

Inter-animal issues (animal-on-animal rape, forced breeding, animals eating other animals, etc) are for the most part, unlegislatable. Animals are not as intelligent as humans (not even the most intelligent of them - the dolphins, the monkeys, etc), not as intelligent -by far-. Therefore, they don't have to be treated like humans. If their owner (note the word "Owner" in there, meaning the person "owns" them, as in, can do whatever they want with them in the privacy of their own home, be it slaughter, petting, sex, or whatever) wants to do something with the animal, then he/she have every legislated right to do so.

It is -their- property. Once she pays the 400 dollars for the dog and the shots and all the other crap that comes along with it, she's allowed to have the dog do whatever it wants to her, and vice versa.

That is, unless the people she bought it from (be it a store or farm or whatever) made her sign a contract of inaction, with her signing it meaning she won't do something "inappropriate" with said animal. Of course, specifics would be worked out between the two people - breaking of such a contract would entail her having to pay a fine, an amount of which could be set in legislation or in the contract itself, and the return of the animal to the owner. To find out if such a breach is taking place, they could agree to have weekly tests on the animal which would somehow tell if it had sexual intercourse with the person. I'm not much of a scientist, I couldn't tell you if that's possible, but I'm sure they'd work out something.

Inter-animal issues (animal-on-animal rape, forced breeding, animals eating other animals, etc) are for the most part, unlegislatable. Animals are not as intelligent as humans (not even the most intelligent of them - the dolphins, the monkeys, etc), not as intelligent -by far-. Therefore, they don't have to be treated like humans. If their owner (note the word "Owner" in there, meaning the person "owns" them, as in, can do whatever they want with them in the privacy of their own home, be it slaughter, petting, sex, or whatever) wants to do something with the animal, then he/she have every legislated right to do so.

It is -their- property. Once she pays the 400 dollars for the dog and the shots and all the other crap that comes along with it, she's allowed to have the dog do whatever it wants to her, and vice versa.

That is, unless the people she bought it from (be it a store or farm or whatever) made her sign a contract of inaction, with her signing it meaning she won't do something "inappropriate" with said animal. Of course, specifics would be worked out between the two people - breaking of such a contract would entail her having to pay a fine, an amount of which could be set in legislation or in the contract itself, and the return of the animal to the owner. To find out if such a breach is taking place, they could agree to have weekly tests on the animal which would somehow tell if it had sexual intercourse with the person. I'm not much of a scientist, I couldn't tell you if that's possible, but I'm sure they'd work out something.


Living things are protected in ways that property isn't. No cruel treatment is allowed to any living pet.

And yes, many tests can provide conclusive evidence of sexual activity. Vaginal bruising, trace evidence, ovulation, all sorts of good science-y stuff.

1) homosexuality is corrupt says the bible and i think it should be illegal i mean marrage is meant for a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. eve was created for adam so they could carry on the human race imagen if God put 2 of the same sex nothing would have happened

And think of how much better off the world would've been if God had just made two women or two men. No humans, no destruction of the enviornment, no pollution, no man made extinction, no global warming.

2) While it may be true that vegetarians live longer than non-vegetarians, there are probably more hidden variables that you don't think about with that statistic. It is quite possible that people that are richer are more likely to be vegetarians, and so they probably also have access to better healthcare as well as healthier food overall. It's really hard to be a vegetarian when you're poor, so...

3) While it's very interesting, last I checked the Lilith story had very little in the Bible backing it up--just the choice of some ambiguous pronouns.

4) There's little to compare between homosexuality and bestiality because of concent, but that's already been covered.

It's impossible for us to force our moral codes on animals, if ducks want to screw dead ducks there's not much we can do about that. However, that doesn't give humans the rights to screw dead ducks. That's like saying that since non-vegetarian humans eat animals, we should shoot them and eat them too. The "if you can dish it out, you can take it" argument doesn't work when you take it that far :-P.

COOL! I was wondering when necrophilia was going to get into the thread! Ducks are so much cooler than I thought...yeah, mighty ducks! i just hope they practice safer necrophilic sex, especially now with the bird flu, i dont want to catch anything, when i munch one at the chinese restaurant next week.

Following up the recent thread on the ban on beastiality in Washington, a thought struck me. It seems hypocritical to me that many people who vehemently defend the right to have homosexual sex typically have little to say about sex between species. Having said that, I am not a homosexual nor do I practice or wish to practice beastiality. I would just like to know how those who defend homosexual intercourse feel on this subject.
If a non-human animal species is discovered to have the ability to give human adult consent, then I will have no problem with consenting unions (sexual or otherwise) between humans and members of that species.

And, just so we're all very clear about it, only the most ignorant of ignorant gits still try to compare homosexuality and beastiality. Go do lunch with Rick "Man On Dog" Santorum, and let the grown ups get on with their lives.

Aw, but you can't eat a thread...

Saying that, it is a rather amazing sight on NS to see an OP concede a point based on the first post in their thread.
i'm impressed :fluffle:
(but then i'm always impressed with you :P)
as to the topic... i suppose i could play devil's advocate by arguing intra-species conception and impregnation is impossible (hence the whole 'species' thing) and thus why make bestiality illegal if there can be no freakazoid repurcussions? of course that assumes that consentuality is not required if having sex with 'lower' forms of life.

[/devil's advocate] (disclaimer: i have no interest in bestiality myself and have rarely (or even not) thought about this issue before... hence weighing up potential hypothetical arguements in my head)

Following up the recent thread on the ban on beastiality in Washington, a thought struck me. It seems hypocritical to me that many people who vehemently defend the right to have homosexual sex typically have little to say about sex between species. Having said that, I am not a homosexual nor do I practice or wish to practice beastiality. I would just like to know how those who defend homosexual intercourse feel on this subject.

I always keep confusing heterosexual sex and bestiality. I mean, a man having sex with a consenting woman is so similar to someone having sex with an animal.

i'm impressed :fluffle:
(but then i'm always impressed with you :P)
as to the topic... i suppose i could play devil's advocate by arguing intra-species conception and impregnation is impossible (hence the whole 'species' thing) and thus why make bestiality illegal if there can be no freakazoid repurcussions? of course that assumes that consentuality is not required if having sex with 'lower' forms of life.

[/devil's advocate] (disclaimer: i have no interest in bestiality myself and have rarely (or even not) thought about this issue before... hence weighing up potential hypothetical arguements in my head)
:P :fluffle:

I'd say consent is required to justify that, even with lower forms of life.
Though my main point with consent was purely making the main distinction between homosexuality and bestiality. They aren't comparable.

Also, on the whole eating animals/bestiality thing, I'm gonna say they aren't comparable either, in terms of morality.

Raping for sexual gratification with a twisted pleasure from the act
and
(preferably humane) killing for food that's done with no pleasure in the act of killing.

I always keep confusing heterosexual sex and bestiality. I mean, a man having sex with a consenting woman is so similar to someone having sex with an animal.
Well, according to most of the homophobic traditionalists in America, women are essentially just domesticated animals. Women are subhumans, who do not have the same civil or human rights as men. Women are owned by men, and men may choose to use their female pets in whatever way they see fit. Essentially, traditionalist heterosexual sex IS beastiality. So I don't know why the 'phobes are the ones bitching about beastiality, given that it's a system they have been enjoying for centuries.

imagen if God put 2 of the same sex nothing would have happened

Just one thing to say. Adam and Eve had two sons. What do you think happened next ;)

Well, according to most of the homophobic traditionalists in America, women are essentially just domesticated animals. Women are subhumans, who do not have the same civil or human rights as men. Women are owned by men, and men may choose to use their female pets in whatever way they see fit. Essentially, traditionalist heterosexual sex IS beastiality. So I don't know why the 'phobes are the ones bitching about beastiality, given that it's a system they have been enjoying for centuries.

Your ideas intrigue me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Just one thing to say. Adam and Eve had two sons. What do you think happened next ;)
A few rounds of scrabble, a nice little chat, rape a few sheep, build a yurt, and a nap.

Bashing the bible in so few pages? The God-hate here is getting appreciably refined!

Clap. Clap. Clap.

That aside, if there WAS (and there probably is) a way to discern if bestiality was consensual, then assuming we take the no-absolutes stance on it, there's no reason to outlaw it. Animals often "Present" and can "Present" to humans (ew...) not to mention we're entirely forgetting the male animal to the female human scenario, so often used in various screwed up websites where junkies are forced to "present" for horses and dogs... urk. ("Go on, Jan - just think of a nice place far away, and we'll give you your heroin.")

Flat out gross as this subject is, if you're taking moral objections out of the question... this isn't immoral.

Also, if we're taking moral objections out.. why is rape immoral?

why is rape immoral?

Ethics are far more important than morality.

That aside, if there WAS (and there probably is) a way to discern if bestiality was consensual,
Until there is definitive proof that an animal can consent to this, I'm gonna stand by it being nonconsensual.

Flat out gross as this subject is, if you're taking moral objections out of the question... this isn't immoral.

Also, if we're taking moral objections out.. why is rape immoral?
This makes absolutly no sense whatsoever.

If you take something immoral and take out the moral objections (the things that make it immoral) of course it isn't immoral. But you can't just take out moral objections and then try and judge something's morality.

I am alarmed that you couldn't discern the obvious question behind the post I just made.

If moral objections are taken off the table, why is rape -bad-?

Any Nietzche fans in the audience?

I am alarmed that you couldn't discern the obvious question behind the post I just made.

If moral objections are taken off the table, why is rape -bad-?

Any Nietzche fans in the audience?

Rape would still be bad, without moral considerations, because it is an unwelcome interference in the personal property/processes of another.

From a purely PRAGMATIC point of view, rape is 'undesirable' in a 'civilised' society.

Until there is definitive proof that an animal can consent to this, I'm gonna stand by it being nonconsensual.


And, even if we could 'detect' animal consent... it would STILL not (automatically) be the 'equivalent' of adult (human) consent.

So then rape would merely be undesirable because the rape victim's service to greater society would be disrupted.

Personal property and processes? Why have them? If someone's strong enough to take your gear and processes, it's theirs.

Re: consent...

I refer to my unaddressed point. What if it is the animal that is making the move? If the human is the passive coital participant?

So then rape would merely be undesirable because the rape victim's service to greater society would be disrupted.


That is not what I said.

I said that, pragmatically, it would be 'bad' because it is an unwelcome interference. 'Service' may be a factor, but it is not the determining factor.


Personal property and processes? Why have them? If someone's strong enough to take your gear and processes, it's theirs.

You advocate an unreal situation. If you wish to talk about one human, in isolation, then all well and good, but the issue of rape would be a nonsense.

If, on the other hand, you are talking about mulitple humans, in the civilised societal structures we favour, then you have to allow for the fact that simple pragmatism means there have to be organised forms of interaction to allow that 'civilised society' to function. Thus... theft, and rape, are disallowed by pragmatic reasoning, IN a 'civilised society'.

Re: consent...

I refer to my unaddressed point. What if it is the animal that is making the move? If the human is the passive coital participant?

What is the question, here?

So once again, to rephrase, it's bad because it complicates civilization unneccesarilly.

Fair enough. Run with that. Good luck.

The question is, should bestality be LEGAL where consent is discernable?

So once again, to rephrase, it's bad because it complicates civilization unneccesarilly.

Fair enough. Run with that. Good luck.

The question is, should bestality be LEGAL where consent is discernable?

how would one discern whether or not consent is shown by the animal?

if a dog licks its chops, does that mean he/she (or it... hehe) wants to get it on with you?

hehe

Oh, come on, you Deiphobic lot. You can say it. It's okay. It doesn't make you less of a man or less of a woman.

Say it with me.

Dog rogering is just plain wrong.

It's okay. It's the first step to healing. Observe the battle inside you.

Intrinsic Theism: If it's just plain wrong, then there's just plain something.
Humanism: No! I can't! I won't! Dog rogering is great! There's nothing wrong with it! You're stupid.
Intrinsic Theism: You're stupid!
Humanism: You're stupid!
Intrinsic Theism: Your mom's stupid!
Humanism: Your points are worthless!
Intrinsic Theism: Why?
Humanism: They just are!
Intrinsic Theism: They just are?
Humanism: No, I mean! No! NOO! Aaaaagh, my entire illogical mentality in ruins! I'm meeeelting! What a world! What a world!

Dog rogering is just plain wrong.

And, even if we could 'detect' animal consent... it would STILL not (automatically) be the 'equivalent' of adult (human) consent.
Very true.

I refer to my unaddressed point. What if it is the animal that is making the move? If the human is the passive coital participant?
Similar to what GnI said, an animal can't "make a move" in the same way as a human. It can't comprehend sex in the same way and make the same decisions. We don't let small children consent to sex because they don't have the ability to make such decisions - there's no possible way animals can.

So once again, to rephrase, it's bad because it complicates civilization unneccesarilly.

Fair enough. Run with that. Good luck.

The question is, should bestality be LEGAL where consent is discernable?

Sure. IF the law recognises 'animal' consent as EQUAL to 'informed, mature (human) consent'.

I don't see that as likely, however.

Oh, come on, you Deiphobic lot. You can say it. It's okay. It doesn't make you less of a man or less of a woman.

Say it with me.

Dog rogering is just plain wrong.

It's okay. It's the first step to healing. Observe the battle inside you.

Intrinsic Theism: If it's just plain wrong, then there's just plain something.
Humanism: No! I can't! I won't! Dog rogering is great! There's nothing wrong with it! You're stupid.
Intrinsic Theism: You're stupid!
Humanism: You're stupid!
Intrinsic Theism: Your mom's stupid!
Humanism: Your points are worthless!
Intrinsic Theism: Why?
Humanism: They just are!
Intrinsic Theism: They just are?
Humanism: No, I mean! No! NOO! Aaaaagh, my entire illogical mentality in ruins! I'm meeeelting! What a world! What a world!

Dog rogering is just plain wrong.

Okay... I can't work out if this is some form of over-complicated trolling... or if you have just gone from being 'barely understandable', to 'not understandable'.

I no longer have any idea what the point is you are trying to make...

Oh, come on, you Deiphobic lot. You can say it. It's okay. It doesn't make you less of a man or less of a woman.

Say it with me.

Dog rogering is just plain wrong.
-snip-

When was anyone saying it's right?

When was anyone saying it's right?

I'm not sure what Eli Sheol is saying... if I read it right, he/she seems to be explaining that he/she is conflicted about the issue...

Oh, come on, you Deiphobic lot. You can say it. It's okay. It doesn't make you less of a man or less of a woman.

Say it with me.

Dog rogering is just plain wrong.

It's okay. It's the first step to healing. Observe the battle inside you.

Intrinsic Theism: If it's just plain wrong, then there's just plain something.
Humanism: No! I can't! I won't! Dog rogering is great! There's nothing wrong with it! You're stupid.
Intrinsic Theism: You're stupid!
Humanism: You're stupid!
Intrinsic Theism: Your mom's stupid!
Humanism: Your points are worthless!
Intrinsic Theism: Why?
Humanism: They just are!
Intrinsic Theism: They just are?
Humanism: No, I mean! No! NOO! Aaaaagh, my entire illogical mentality in ruins! I'm meeeelting! What a world! What a world!

Dog rogering is just plain wrong.

Dog rogering is just plain wrong.

Okay... I can't work out if this is some form of over-complicated trolling... or if you have just gone from being 'barely understandable', to 'not understandable'.

I no longer have any idea what the point is you are trying to make...
Can't help you here.

I'm not sure what Eli Sheol is saying... if I read it right, he/she seems to be explaining that he/she is conflicted about the issue...
Okay, as far as I can see, he's saying that it's inherently wrong, with no moral reasoning and either you admit that it's just plain wrong or you're saying that it's actually okay... Or something like that.

I am just curious why the homosexual/bisexual community is being asked to answer this question. I wonder at the assumption that this community somehow has more information or knowledge about this issue than does the heterosexual community. Is it because you think that they are smarter? Or are you just lumping "all them perversions" in one big bundle and figuring "they" must know more about it than "us good normal folk"?

Sorry, I know that may sound snide, but it really looks like we are ignoring unconscious prejudice not to mention it.

I am just curious why the homosexual/bisexual community is being asked to answer this question.
Because both bestiality and homophobia are frowned upon by religion, and that must make them practically the same thing!
A much better connection could be drawn between necrophilia and masturbation, but that seems to be to icky for most people to think about for extended periods of time.

then sex with a dildo or a vacuum cleaner cant be consentual either.

Of course it can't. Of course, inanimate objects don't need to give consent...

then what about a male animal mounting a woman, in that case it would be totally conclusive that the animal consents.

Actually, you can't be "totally conclusive" of any such thing. There is the issue of something being mentally able to consent. If a man has sex with a 6 year old girl who says it is ok, is that consentual? The answer is no, because she is not yet able to provide said consent. Now, how many animals have the mental capabilities of a 6-year old human, much less an adult human?

That's because there isn't much to say.
Homosexual sex can be consensual. Bestiality can't.

what s/he said

I am just curious why the homosexual/bisexual community is being asked to answer this question. I wonder at the assumption that this community somehow has more information or knowledge about this issue than does the heterosexual community. Is it because you think that they are smarter? Or are you just lumping "all them perversions" in one big bundle and figuring "they" must know more about it than "us good normal folk"?

Sorry, I know that may sound snide, but it really looks like we are ignoring unconscious prejudice not to mention it.

yes, i wondered at that. was quite shocked when i read the post to be honest.

Well, according to most of the homophobic traditionalists in America, women are essentially just domesticated animals. Women are subhumans, who do not have the same civil or human rights as men. Women are owned by men, and men may choose to use their female pets in whatever way they see fit. Essentially, traditionalist heterosexual sex IS beastiality. So I don't know why the 'phobes are the ones bitching about beastiality, given that it's a system they have been enjoying for centuries.

I like your reasoning. quality argument :D

Is he serious?

Just smile and nod Peech, smile and nod.

Heh, :D *nod*.

Actually, you can't be "totally conclusive" of any such thing. There is the issue of something being mentally able to consent. If a man has sex with a 6 year old girl who says it is ok, is that consentual? The answer is no, because she is not yet able to provide said consent. Now, how many animals have the mental capabilities of a 6-year old human, much less an adult human?
But in the example with the girl, the adult is being the aggressor. If the dog decides to leap up and go at it, it has made the desicion (as opposed to a child being forced, coerced, bribed, etc).
Further, an animal doesn't have the psychological issues that make sexing a kid wrong, and so long as it doesn't feel pain the act will not damage it in any way.

shit, i just came here to get raped my self.:D

Re: consent...

I refer to my unaddressed point. What if it is the animal that is making the move? If the human is the passive coital participant?

What if a 9 year old tries to seduce a 30-year old, with the 30-year old just lying there and going with it. Should that be legal?

I am just curious why the homosexual/bisexual community is being asked to answer this question.
Apart from Fiddle's superior answer, this snippet form the OP
I would just like to know how those who defend homosexual intercourse feel on this subject.
might help you. The OP seems to follow the logic that homo-/bisexual people make up the lone group of those defending homosexual conduct.

Re: consent...

I refer to my unaddressed point. What if it is the animal that is making the move? If the human is the passive coital participant?

If a 12 year old gives their explicit consent, and makes the move, is an adult a passive coital participant?

But in the example with the girl, the adult is being the aggressor.

Not necessarily. The girl could very well be the "aggressor". Does that mean it is ok for the adult to go along with it?

If the dog decides to leap up and go at it, it has made the desicion (as opposed to a child being forced, coerced, bribed, etc).

Has it? Is a dog even capable of decision making as we would see it?

Further, an animal doesn't have the psychological issues that make sexing a kid wrong, and so long as it doesn't feel pain the act will not damage it in any way.

How do you know what issues an animal may or may not have? How do you know if it is feeling pain? And are psychological issues really what makes "sexing a kid wrong", or might it be the fact that a child simply cannot consent. I, as an adult, could consent to sex that later caused me psychological issues - but I would have actually consented to it.

What if a 9 year old tries to seduce a 30-year old, with the 30-year old just lying there and going with it. Should that be legal?
An excuse is often an inaccurate sequence of events given after the fact to exonerate someone who has done something wrong. It generally takes the form (in cases where there is a clear "victim") of accusing the other person of having "asked for it." Just because little girls are "asking for it" doesn't mean that a 9 year old has ever (without prompting) seduced a man and engaged in a sexual act. Just doesn't happen.
To further the point, 9 year olds aren't sexually active with each other (not to the extent that your describing), as they haven't reached puberty yet. Dogs are going at it full stop within a year.
And there is the still remaining psychological aspect, the reason that paedophilia is wrong, which doesn't exist for animals.

Not necessarily. The girl could very well be the "aggressor". Does that mean it is ok for the adult to go along with it?
Only in porno and on the witness stand.
Has it? Is a dog even capable of decision making as we would see it?
It just did, and now look what I have on my leg.
How do you know what issues an animal may or may not have? How do you know if it is feeling pain?
The fact that it keeps going? When I do something, and it hurts, I stop. If I am wandering through a room, and see something shiny. I might try to pick it up, assuming that I wanted it, however if I then discover that they object is hot and that touching it is painful, I will drop it.
It is only natural to assume that an animal (which is even less likely to consider the long haul) will also quit doing something that causes pain.
And are psychological issues really what makes "sexing a kid wrong", or might it be the fact that a child simply cannot consent. I, as an adult, could consent to sex that later caused me psychological issues - but I would have actually consented to it.
Yes, psychological issues really are what makes "sexing a kid wrong." Children are forced through all kinds of hoops, from dress codes to dietary restrictions, and this is allowed because no harm comes to them.

Has it? Is a dog even capable of decision making as we would see it?
Exactly. Plus the fact that unless we can actually get the dog to communicate its exact feelings (unlikely) and unless the dog will remember whether or not it gave consent (also unlikely) and unless the dog will do so truthfully it cannot be proven that the dog did in fact give consent... And it is semi-impossible that this will ever happen. End of argument.

But in the example with the girl, the adult is being the aggressor. If the dog decides to leap up and go at it, it has made the desicion (as opposed to a child being forced, coerced, bribed, etc).
Further, an animal doesn't have the psychological issues that make sexing a kid wrong, and so long as it doesn't feel pain the act will not damage it in any way.

I see the flaw in your argument. You seem to assume some connection between the actions an animal might take, and some kind of recognisable 'decision' process.

We have no way to evaluate the ability a dog has to 'make' what we would consider a 'decision'.

If the dog leaps up and goes at it... that is biology, not evidence of a decision made.

An excuse is often an inaccurate sequence of events given after the fact to exonerate someone who has done something wrong. It generally takes the form (in cases where there is a clear "victim") of accusing the other person of having "asked for it." Just because little girls are "asking for it" doesn't mean that a 9 year old has ever (without prompting) seduced a man and engaged in a sexual act. Just doesn't happen.

A previously abused 9-year old may very well do it.

To further the point, 9 year olds aren't sexually active with each other (not to the extent that your describing),

Some are. In some places, it definitely isn't unheard of for a 9-year old to show up pregnant with her boyfriend's child - and he is usually no more than 2 or 3 years older.

as they haven't reached puberty yet.

I've known more than one girl who started menstruating at that age. Sounds like they had reached puberty to me.

Dogs are going at it full stop within a year.

Irrelevant.

And there is the still remaining psychological aspect, the reason that paedophilia is wrong, which doesn't exist for animals.

Maybe that is the only reason you think pedophilia is wrong. We can just leave out the issue of consent altogether....


Only in porno and on the witness stand.

Ah, the naivete.


It just did, and now look what I have on my leg.

And that proves it is capable of thinking about it? Wow! That must mean my dog really gives a lot of thought to it every time we come home a little late and find a mess on the floor...

The fact that it keeps going? When I do something, and it hurts, I stop.

That's nice. Of course, it ignores the fact that copulation is painful for many animals - naturally - and they don't stop doing it.

That's nice. Of course, it ignores the fact that copulation is painful for many animals - naturally- and they don't stop doing it.

Cats, for example. By H N Fiddlebottoms VIII's logic, they must not exist...

I am not sure there is even a point to answering this original question but here goes anyway:

Your question smacks of right wing religious rhetoric, and is very similar to that used by the former chief justice of the supreme court who gave the minority argument when the sodomy laws were struck down.

You also have to be a fundi because you take every word in the bible as absolute word for word fact. I have an absolute belief in God, I have a deep distrust of so called "Christians" who take that bit of the bible that suit them and forget the rest. Totally unChristlike.

If people were to accept that God made us homosexuals for a reason and loves us then what would be left to argue about, and how could we all be portrayed as such paedophile bestiality loving society destroying creatures?

i believe with all my heart that God created me a lesbian and for a purpose. i did not choose to be gay any more than you chose to be heterosexual. If you look at other species in nature there is always evidence of homosexual members. There are two male penguins at a US zoo that are inseparable and have always exhibited all the signs of nesting and coupling. So if it is a choice, i guess penguins possess the ability to one day wake up and say weeeeeeeeeee I'm gay! And if you apply this same logic, with counseling they can change.

i also find the whole intelligent design vs. Darwinism debate insulting to both Darwin and God. Darwin's theories have a huge amount of easily accessible supporting evidence to back them up. i have not seen similar back up for I.D. i find I.D. insulting to God because it states that the Universe is so complex it must have been created by God rather than as Darwin documented. If God is as all powerful as i truly believe He is, why is it so hard to believe that He did not create us and have us evolve as Darwin documented? Of course this means us egotistical human beings have to accept that we did in fact evolve from primates. It also creates a huge stumbling block for those who take every word of the bible as absolute historical fact instead of viewing it as human written parables and interpretational accounts of God's work and word for us.

I am a lesbian in a loving committed monogamous relationship of over 6 years. I have never had sex with multiple partners or animals.. Homophobia, particularly religious homophobia has to demonize the human beings who happen to be homosexual because otherwise we would be seen simply as one person loving another. Just as in a heterosexual relationship, it's not about the sex, our whole lives do not revolve around gittin it done.. sex is part of it but not the be all and end all.. the love between two people is what it is fundamentally about.. nothing more nothing less.

I hope I have managed to give an open response from one homosexual's point of view to this question, although I still doubt the person who posted it will even think about it, let alone change their mind.

Oh well, I may not agree with your opinion but i will fight to the death for your right to express it.

I see the flaw in your argument. You seem to assume some connection between the actions an animal might take, and some kind of recognisable 'decision' process.
If the dog is incapable of making a decision anyway, then it is little more than a machine made of flesh and bone. If so, why does its consent matter anymore than the consent of a dildo?

Maybe that is the only reason you think pedophilia is wrong. We can just leave out the issue of consent altogether....
Why not? As a child, your clothing is determined by your parents, your room can be searched at any time, and all the other niceties and rights that adults are afforded are nonexistent.

However, you are ignoring a rather blatant fact: an animal isn't equal to a child.
Were I raising 10-year olds to be slaughtered and have their bodies sold on the open market, I would be locked away. Were I to start castrating males at a young age to insure that they didn't cause problems when they matured, I would be locked away. Were I to kill a child simply because they bit me, I would be locked away. Were I to force a child to live in a pen, I would be locked away. Were I to leave a 6-month old alone in my house, and then proceed to punish it for not staying quiet while I was gone, I would be locked away. Were I to force a child to wander outside naked with me, and defecate in the grass, I would be locked away. And yet, I am legally able to do all this with animals.

If the dog is incapable of making a decision anyway, then it is little more than a machine made of flesh and bone. If so, why does its consent matter anymore than the consent of a dildo?

Because a dildo is not a living thing.

And, I didn't say a dog cannot make a decision, I said we cannot assume they have "some kind of recognisable 'decision' process". They may make decisions, but it may not be like US making decisions.

A dog mounts a human female and tries to thrust its penis into her vagina/rectum. That's consent.

A human male reveals his penis and the dog begins licking it. That's also consent.

If the animal takes a dominant and/or assertive stance while the human does not, that's perfectly fine by me. If the human takes a dominant and/or assertive stance and the animal does not resist, that's also fine. I wouldn't engage in such activities, but it should be legal.

If moral objections are taken off the table, why is rape -bad-?

Moral objections are not taken off the table. Rape involves the violation of another human being's right to control their life and body. An animal, according to the prevailing standard that we can kill and eat them, lacks such rights.

Any Nietzche fans in the audience?

Yes, here's one. It's not relevant to any serious degree, however.

Why not? As a child, your clothing is determined by your parents, your room can be searched at any time, and all the other niceties and rights that adults are afforded are nonexistent.

And with reason. A child is unable to make most of these decisions for himself. I never said a child has all the rights of an adult - of course they don't - they have the rights that go along with their basic maturity level.

However, that does not mean the parents can do *anything* to them. The parents are charged with doing what is in the child's best interest. Thus, the parent will make decisions regarding clothing (ie. it's cold outside - wear a freaking coat), food (no, you can't have candy for dinner), medicine (I don't care how bad it tastes, you are sick and you need it), etc. These are necessities.

But there is a vast difference between the difference to have sex with a child (an unnecessary event) or even to do something like piercing an infant's ears (something I am very much opposed to). These are not necessary to the child's best interest, and may (especially in the former case) be entirely outside of it. Thus, no one has the right to make that decision for the child, and the child is unable to make it herself.

Interestingly enough, as a pet owner, I am charged with doing what is in the best interest of my dog. I choose what food to give him, how much, and when. He doesn't understand why I won't let him have any of my onion soup, but that decision is in his best interest. He doesn't understand that he needs his yearly rabies shot or his monthly flea treatment, so I make those decisions for him. However, I would not decide to cut off his tail or clip his ears or have sex with him - completely unnecessary actions that may cause a great deal of pain and risk and that, much like all the other decisions I make for him, he wouldn't understand.

However, you are ignoring a rather blatant fact: an animal isn't equal to a child.

I never said it was.

A dog mounts a human female and tries to thrust its penis into her vagina/rectum. That's consent.

If a 12-year old boy tries to "mount" an adult woman, is he showing consent?

A human male reveals his penis and the dog begins licking it. That's also consent.

If a guy pulls out his penis and a 12-year old begins licking it, is that consent?

Interestingly enough, as a pet owner, I am charged with doing what is in the best interest of my dog. I choose what food to give him, how much, and when. He doesn't understand why I won't let him have any of my onion soup, but that decision is in his best interest. He doesn't understand that he needs his yearly rabies shot or his monthly flea treatment, so I make those decisions for him. However, I would not decide to cut off his tail or clip his ears or have sex with him - completely unnecessary actions that may cause a great deal of pain and risk and that, much like all the other decisions I make for him, he wouldn't understand.
Domestication was entirely unnesseccary, and harmful as it forced animals to rely on people to survive. Yet, it happened and is still supported for the convenience people.
Beyond that, farm animals are treated brutally, and hardly anyone seems to care.
I never said it was.
Then why use the false comparison? What does it matter that paedophilia is wrong if children > animals, then the rights granted shouldn't be the same.

A dog mounts a human female and tries to thrust its penis into her vagina/rectum. That's consent.

A human male reveals his penis and the dog begins licking it. That's also consent.

If the animal takes a dominant and/or assertive stance while the human does not, that's perfectly fine by me. If the human takes a dominant and/or assertive stance and the animal does not resist, that's also fine. I wouldn't engage in such activities, but it should be legal.

Dominant or assertive behaviour is irrelevent.

If the entity (Child, Animal, or impaired Adult) is incapable of making mature, informed decisions... there can be no legal 'consent'.

Domestication was entirely unnesseccary, and harmful as it forced animals to rely on people to survive. Yet, it happened and is still supported for the convenience people.

What should we do? Kill them all?

Beyond that, farm animals are treated brutally, and hardly anyone seems to care.

Not all are, and I do care about those that are.

Then why use the false comparison?

Because it wasn't a false comparison. We were talking about the ability to consent. If a child cannot consent, neither can an animal. In this case, the comparison was perfectly reasonable, as children have the same or greater ability to reason and consent than most animals.

If a 12-year old boy tries to "mount" an adult woman, is he showing consent?

Interesting question.

I see two issues here:

1. Does the woman's status as an adult and the boy's status as a twelve-year-old create a system of power where the boy cannot be said to be truly consenting? That is, does the inequality inherent in the relationship invalidate the consent as a mere rubber stamp on what is essentially rape?

2. Does the twelve-year-old, considering his incapability to make mature decisions, have the right to control his own sex life?

The current stance of age of consent laws (though less so in enforcement) is that whatever the circumstances of (1), the answer to (2) is an unequivocal "no," which does indeed play into the point you are making. If we don't trust twelve-year-olds to make choices regarding their sex lives, why should we be trusting farm animals?

Of course, the fact remains that we do recognize the basic rights of children to life and liberty, while we (most of us at least) are perfectly content to live in a society where animals are routinely deprived of both.

What should we do? Kill them all?
End the cycle by preventing this generation from reproducing, if we're going to go about preserving them from harm.
Not all are, and I do care about those that are.
One of a rare breed then, and since the majority don't mind (as it happens anyway) I fail to see why that same majority can justify rules against sex with animals.
Because it wasn't a false comparison. We were talking about the ability to consent. If a child cannot consent, neither can an animal. In this case, the comparison was perfectly reasonable, as children have the same or greater ability to reason and consent than most animals.
Yes, but as I just demonstrated, the law doesn't care about animal consent in any other case. Why should sex be a special case when you no other issue is ever debated?
Did the dog ever ask to be your dog? Was its mother consulted before her child was torn away from her? Was she ever given a chance to protest the issue?
What if your dog started biting people. Would it be given a fair trial, with a jury of its peers and a chance to face the accused? Would there be an issue of reasonable doubt raised?

End the cycle by preventing this generation from reproducing, if we're going to go about preserving them from harm.

My dog can't reproduce. =)

Yes, but as I just demonstrated, the law doesn't care about animal consent in any other case. Why should sex be a special case when you no other issue is ever debated?

Other issues are debated - when the action being taken is unnecessary. A case in point would be tail-docking and ear-clipping, both illegal in some countries precisely because they are unnecessary physical actions taken with no reason other than, "I wanted to."

Why don't we debate about whether or not a young child can make medical decisions for himself, but we do debate about whether or not that child can make sexual decisions for himself? Why do you think I am opposed to piercing an infant's ears, but I am not opposed to vaccinating an infant?

*snip a bunch of hyperbole*
Would there be an issue of reasonable doubt raised?

Damn right there would be. Unless the biting was completely unprovoked or someone died, there would be no question of anyone taking my dog away.

My dog can't reproduce. =)
Goody for you, neither could mine when he was alive. I'll bet that neither of us have ever had sex with our dogs either.
I'm talking about the wider issue of forced domestication, which has been detrimental to the animals, but done anyway because it was a benefit to humans.
Why don't we debate about whether or not a young child can make medical decisions for himself, but we do debate about whether or not that child can make sexual decisions for himself? Why do you think I am opposed to piercing an infant's ears, but I am not opposed to vaccinating an infant?
Because, as we have already determined, dogs =/= children. They don't receive similar treatment under the law, they don't have the same rights, and so the two are disconected issues. Just because certain Western cultures feel the need to engage in sickening decadence by glorifying their pets to heights that their poor never reach, the law still sees the difference.
Damn right there would be. Unless the biting was completely unprovoked or someone died, there would be no question of anyone taking my dog away.
And what about the reproductive rights of your dog's mother? You still haven't addressed how she consented to having her pup removed from her and dropped somewhere else.
The animal is the property of its owner, and the owner can pick his/her pleasure with it. Since you've decided that your dog shouldn't be a sexual object, it isn't, but you shouldn't legislate your personal preferences just because it makes you feel better.

you "oh, the animal does not consent" types are so full of it. you are completely ignoring the fact, that animals are 'raped' by humans every day on an industrial scale.
cows, pigs and horses are impregnated routinely by artificial insemination without giving consent.
where two animals are mated naturally the female is given no opportunity to run away or fight back by putting the animals in small rooms, where the female cannot run away or tying the female to a pole, even tying together a mares legs so it cannot kick the stallion and making it completely defenseless.
there are cattle breeding racks, that keep the animal immobilized, while it is being tupped.
artificial pheromones are used on hogs and other animals are injected with hormones for increased fertility.
under human supervision breeding also isnt limited to intraspecies sex, we do force interspeciesbreeding to get hybrids like mules.

if you are claiming we need the animals to consent to sex, then you also need to demand laws, that would crush any meaningfull modern agriculture with dairy and meat industry.

That's because there isn't much to say.
Homosexual sex can be consensual. Bestiality can't.
Ahem, not quite true as was posted in a thread by someone about half a year ago.

http://www.sexwork.com/family/dolphins1.html

http://www.zoophile.net/dolphin.php

Besides which, how do you know it's not consensual? Seriously, if an animal doesn't want to consent to an act, it'll let you know.

Ahem, not quite true as was posted in a thread by someone about half a year ago.

http://www.sexwork.com/family/dolphins1.html

http://www.zoophile.net/dolphin.php

Besides which, how do you know it's not consensual? Seriously, if an animal doesn't want to consent to an act, it'll let you know.

Mentally diminished people can seem to consent but if a doctor had sex with them in their care facility, they would end up in jail and should. If a being has the mental capacity to legally consent we allow it to give it and if it is not we treat it as if it does not consent. It's the reason for laws against pedophelia, sex with the infirm, sex with the mentally diminished, beastiality, etc.

you "oh, the animal does not consent" types are so full of it. you are completely ignoring the fact, that animals are 'raped' by humans every day on an industrial scale.
cows, pigs and horses are impregnated routinely by artificial insemination without giving consent.
where two animals are mated naturally the female is given no opportunity to run away or fight back by putting the animals in small rooms, where the female cannot run away or tying the female to a pole, even tying together a mares legs so it cannot kick the stallion and making it completely defenseless.
there are cattle breeding racks, that keep the animal immobilized, while it is being tupped.
artificial pheromones are used on hogs and other animals are injected with hormones for increased fertility.
under human supervision breeding also isnt limited to intraspecies sex, we do force interspeciesbreeding to get hybrids like mules.

if you are claiming we need the animals to consent to sex, then you also need to demand laws, that would crush any meaningfull modern agriculture with dairy and meat industry.

All irrelevent, I'm afraid. The issue here is not about horses with donkeys... it is about what should be legal for humans to do, sexually, based on 'consent'.

Ahem, not quite true as was posted in a thread by someone about half a year ago.

http://www.sexwork.com/family/dolphins1.html

http://www.zoophile.net/dolphin.php

Besides which, how do you know it's not consensual? Seriously, if an animal doesn't want to consent to an act, it'll let you know.

Animal consent cannot be assumed to be equivalent to adult (human) consent. Thus, the 'appearance' of acquiescence, on the part of the animal, is irrelevent.

It just amuses me to no end when people forget that humans are also animals.

It just amuses me to no end when people forget that humans are also animals.
You best hold your chuckles, in that case.

I don't think anybody around here has forgotten that. It's simply a case of terminology; "animal" is coloqueally used to refer to non-human animal life. Nobody around here thinks that humans are not a form of animal life...we know they are. However, we also make a distinction between humans and non-human life, because we know that humans possess particular capabilities that (to the best of our knowledge) non-human animals do not.

Non-human animals also have abilities that we humans lack, but in the case of this discussion there is a particular set of abilities that are relevant. Those abilities happen to be cognitive features that humans have and non-human animals lack.

Hope that clears it up for you.

homosexuality is corrupt says the bible and i think it should be illegal i mean marrage is meant for a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. eve was created for adam so they could carry on the human race imagen if God put 2 of the same sex nothing would have happened
Again someone pulls religion into the government. GRR!!! No one has the right to tell me who and who not to sleep with(Of the adult consenting human variety)!!! Quit forcing your near sided religious beliefs onto other people!

Because, as we have already determined, dogs =/= children.

No, dogs are dogs. And, much like with children (albeit to a different extent), those given custody of dogs are not given full and total control over their lives.

Why can't you beat a dog with a lead pipe?

And what about the reproductive rights of your dog's mother? You still haven't addressed how she consented to having her pup removed from her and dropped somewhere else.

That's because it was a hyperbole and you know it. I have never suggested that dogs = humans with all the rights of humans, now have I?

The animal is the property of its owner, and the owner can pick his/her pleasure with it. Since you've decided that your dog shouldn't be a sexual object, it isn't, but you shouldn't legislate your personal preferences just because it makes you feel better.

Why can't I cover my dog with gasoline and set it on fire if I so choose?


if you are claiming we need the animals to consent to sex, then you also need to demand laws, that would crush any meaningfull modern agriculture with dairy and meat industry.

We aren't talking about sex between creatures of the same species here, nor are we talking about breeding. We are talking about humans have sex with animals. Thus, everything you brought up was irrelevant.

Now, if you want to pass a law that says it is illegal for a man to tie a mare's legs together so that he can mount her, that sounds about right.

No, dogs are dogs. And, much like with children (albeit to a different extent), those given custody of dogs are not given full and total control over their lives.
Quit trying to reinforce your argument with that argument. It doesn't work, as there is no factual basis to support it.
Why should dogs be granted a better lot than millions of farm animals?
Why can't you beat a dog with a lead pipe?
Animals are regularly tortured for the purpose of creating food, puppy mills are run in horrible tortorous conditions, pigs are castrated without the benefit of anethesia, but no sex. That would be dirty and mean.
That's because it was a hyperbole and you know it. I have never suggested that dogs = humans with all the rights of humans, now have I?
Yes, but you also haven't provided any rational basis for the animals rights. You simply say "that is wrong" and "that is right", and when challenged you either resort to hyperbole or accuse another of it.
And you still have yet to explain how my question qualifies as exaggeration. Since we are assuming that the dog can't consent to sex, then it also can't consent to surrendering its young.
Why can't I cover my dog with gasoline and set it on fire if I so choose?
Exaggeration to an extreme extent. And I redirect you to my statement in response to the pipe.
The West has developed an obsession with dogs, and yet allows farm animals to be tortured. Both are domesticated and rely on humans to survive, so, once again, there is no reason to restrict what you can do to one and what you can do to the other.
Further, sex can't be worse than forced insemination and butchering them, so why is sex prohibited while the other actions are allowed?
Your Puritanism is showing, Dempublicents1, and it isn't very pretty.
We aren't talking about sex between creatures of the same species here, nor are we talking about breeding. We are talking about humans have sex with animals. Thus, everything you brought up was irrelevant.
So shoving a turkey baster between someone's legs isn't rape now? When did this happen?

I'm not used to seeing Mr Fiddlebottoms carry on seriously in debates with a minimum of sarcasm and tomfoolery. Have I finally logged into.... The Twilight Zone?

That's because there isn't much to say.
Homosexual sex can be consensual. Bestiality can't.
What are you talking about..when a sheep gives you that special look how can it get more consensual..then they moan during telling you how baaaaad they want it.

It just amuses me to no end when people forget that humans are also animals.
It amuses me to no end when people use non-informative predicates as if they mean anything.
The term animal isn't exclusionary against any form of multicellular mobile organism. Ants are animals, humans are animals, dogs are animals, chickens are animals, mosquitoes are animals. As such, saying that "humans are also animals" is a without merit.
However, were I to accept your statement as meaning anything, it still has no value in the conversation. In matters of law, there is a clearly defined line between an animal and a person.
A person can be accused of a crime and imprisoned, an animal cannot. An animal can be bought and sold, a person cannot. An animal isn't granted the rights of citizenship, a person is.

I'm not used to seeing Mr Fiddlebottoms carry on seriously in debates with a minimum of sarcasm and tomfoolery. Have I finally logged into.... The Twilight Zone?
It is rather surreal a conversation without me mouthing off in it.
Besides, it is a grim day in deed when a fringe sexual deviant can't reach across the gulf and support the cause of a different group of fringe sexual deviants.

Your comparing gay people to people who have sex with animals!!!!!!!!!!

Ok....as humans, why do we automaticly wanna fuck everything around us? There's people who fuck other people...which is normal...but what in the human brain says.."go fuck that sunflower"? People fuck other animals, inatiment objects and even plants, EVEN PLANTS? Human beigns are hardly civilized if we're primitave enough to shove our penises into a venis fly trap.
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: