Quote from Shaq-of-All-Trades

I see no problem with this law. So people want to have sex with animals; who does this bother?

Of course the brony okays horse fucking. Loljk.

I have no problem with bestiality being legal, as long as its regulated and it's not hurting anyone. It's weird, sure, but it's really none of my business.

Quote from walker90234

@Exilement: You know my comment about how his analogy made any animal sex rape was supposed to be a sort of reductio ad absurdum, right? It was kind of in support of what you're saying.

@Gzento: Sexual intercourse is something hardwired into biology Gzento; every creature is driven to reproduce by their genes, and as such they all know what sex is on an instinctive level. Now, you might say that because animals only understand instinctively and don't understand mentally, it counts as molestation.

Lets do a thought experiment to demonstrate; two pregnant women are stranded on a desert Island. One has a boy, the other a girl. The boy and girl are raised by their mothers, but before they get taught about the birds and bees, their mothers simultaneously kick the bucket (Don't ask me how, maybe they were in a three legged race or something...). The boy and girl grow to adulthood without their parents. Because of instinct, it is entirely possible that these two would then at some point have sex; does this automatically become rape just because they know about sex on an instinctive rather than a mental level? That would be absurd.

EDIT:
I was typing this during Exilement's post, so some of the stuff he says already addresses the question.

We as human beings have risen above instinct and have something called a conscience, and reason, animals do what they do to survive, but unlike animals, we are capable of living, as in enjoying life. because of our own societal and technological advancements, we don't have to worry about absurd survival examples like the one you presented above. the reason why animals aren't raping eachother is because they HAVE to do it instinctually to survive, while we, as humans are capable of having sex for pleasure seeking, and emotional reasons. I should have read yours, and Exilement's posts more closely, and I apologize for being so ignorant

EDIT: @Leokill I couldn't give any less of a fuck if it is legalized or not, I'm just expressing why I think its wrong

Quote from GZento

Thats the reason why it's wrong. They can't comprehend it, and people take advantage of that.

there's nothing to "take advantage" of. screwing a girl who's drunk and doesn't know what's happening, and who is going to wake up in the morning and feel violated is "taking advantage" of something. an animal just truly wouldn't give a fuck.

Quote from GZento

We as human beings have risen above instinct and have something called a conscience, and reason, animals do what they do to survive, but unlike animals, we are capable of living, as in enjoying life. because of our own societal and technological advancements, we don't have to worry about absurd survival examples like the one you presented above. the reason why animals aren't raping eachother is because they HAVE to do it instinctually to survive, while we, as humans are capable of having sex for pleasure seeking, and emotional reasons. I should have read yours, and Exilement's posts more closely, and I apologize for being so ignorant

EDIT: @Leokill I couldn't give any less of a fuck if it is legalized or not, I'm just expressing why I think its wrong

this is a debate on "whether or not sex with animals should be legal", not a thread about "post your opinions on whether sex with animals is wrong or not". sure, your opinions may be relevant if you're trying to make a point... but I really can't see what point you're trying to make.

even if we throw away the idea that animals can rape each other (which in fact they can and do... have you heard what dolphins do to each other?), you haven't given any valid reason why a human having sex with an animal is any different.

I'd like to point out that a lot of people here just keep on and on about humans 'fucking the animals'. Have you ever considered 'intercourse with animals' can also mean the animals 'fucking the humans'?
In fact, there are many references on the Internet about girls fucked by dogs. You people should look it up.
You know what, I'm gonna save you the trouble of Googling it. Here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia
I think it summarizes everything up.

Quote from Hatchet Haro

I'd like to point out that a lot of people here just keep on and on about humans 'fucking the animals'. Have you ever considered 'intercourse with animals' can also mean the animals 'fucking the humans'?
In fact, there are many references on the Internet about girls fucked by dogs. You people should look it up.
You know what, I'm gonna save you the trouble of Googling it. Here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia
I think it summarizes everything up.

same shit different positions, shouldn't really be relevant.

Quote from Scarecrow

there's nothing to "take advantage" of. screwing a girl who's drunk and doesn't know what's happening, and who is going to wake up in the morning and feel violated is "taking advantage" of something. an animal just truly wouldn't give a fuck.

this is a debate on "whether or not sex with animals should be legal", not a thread about "post your opinions on whether sex with animals is wrong or not". sure, your opinions may be relevant if you're trying to make a point... but I really can't see what point you're trying to make.

even if we throw away the idea that animals can rape each other (which in fact they can and do... have you heard what dolphins do to each other?), you haven't given any valid reason why a human having sex with an animal is any different.

We aren't dolphins. Dolphins can't make laws, and don't have as high of a comprehension of reason. Why discuss its legality when people will break the law anyways? It would be more important to discuss reasons behind it being "wrong". In a previous post I also said something like, why would you have sex with something that won't have any recollection or emotional attachment to the experience. You could just get a flesh light if you want to do something like that. despite animals lacking the capacity to remember events, they can get scared, uncomfortable, and they can most definitely feel pain, regardless of whether or not they remember it afterwards.

The point being that having sex with an animal is wrong. Pretty simple scare crow.

Quote from GZento

We aren't dolphins. Dolphins can't make laws, and don't have as high of a comprehension of reason. Why discuss its legality when people will break the law anyways? It would be more important to discuss reasons behind it being "wrong".

We are discussing whether zoophilia should be seen as a crime, thus why it should/should not be legal. And through answering "why" it might be considered wrong or acceptable, we can then determine whether we think it should be legal/illegal. I don't see why the discussion should be separated.

Quote from GZento

In a previous post I also said something like, why would you have sex with something that won't have any recollection or emotional attachment to the experience. You could just get a flesh light if you want to do something like that. despite animals lacking the capacity to remember events, they can get scared, uncomfortable, and they can most definitely feel pain, regardless of whether or not they remember it afterwards.

The point being that having sex with an animal is wrong. Pretty simple scare crow.

You are basing your argument on the assumption that every single time a person has sex with an animal, there will definitely be pain, fear and discomfort. However, what makes you so certain that this is always the case? What if the animal actually feels pleasure? Your reasoning is biased and addresses only one side of the issue. That's like saying that humans shouldn't have sex because it has the potential to turn into rape. Maybe it is not as simple.

Saying that something is completely wrong, means that there is absolutely no good to it. You should reword your statement, "The point being that having sex with an animal is wrong."

Quote from GZento

Why discuss its legality when people will break the law anyways? It would be more important to discuss reasons behind it being "wrong".

Why discuss right and wrong when people are just going to act immorally anyway? The law is of much more practical consequence.

Should something be banned just because it's immoral? We don't legislate against lying except in court. Laws exist to stop people getting hurt. If you use protection, no one gets hurt by animal sex and so we shouldn't ban it.

Quote from GZento

We as human beings have risen above instinct and have something called a conscience, and reason, animals do what they do to survive, but unlike animals, we are capable of living, as in enjoying life. because of our own societal and technological advancements, we don't have to worry about absurd survival examples like the one you presented above. the reason why animals aren't raping eachother is because they HAVE to do it instinctually to survive, while we, as humans are capable of having sex for pleasure seeking, and emotional reasons. I should have read yours, and Exilement's posts more closely, and I apologize for being so ignorant

EDIT: @Leokill I couldn't give any less of a fuck if it is legalized or not, I'm just expressing why I think its wrong

Sorry, I would just like to address this point; my example was an illustration of your argument. It showed why your argument failed.

You cannot then dismiss it simply because we are in a state of technological advancement in which it would not occur; given that this is a debate regarding morality, it doesn't matter whether or not the illustration CAN occur or not. With the ethics being discussed change depending on the example? No. My argument still stands.

As for your counter that humans are of greater sentience, that again doesn't work; lets take another example.

Lets imagine that in the previous example, the girl was deaf. But the boy knew how to speak. Before the boy's mother died, the boy was taught what sex was. But because he has no way of communicating with the girl (this is a hypothetical example, just imagine they cannot communicate) or teaching her; so he knows what sex is on a mental level, and she knows on an instinctive.

According to your reasoning, no matter what happened any sort of sexual contact between these two would be considered sexual molestation. That's completely illogical. Ergo, your argument is flawed.

As for the fact that animals may feel pain; this is an issue perfectly addressed by J.S. Mill in On Liberty, perhaps the founding book on freedom. He argues that just because an act CAN cause harm, that doesn't mean it should be illegal; something should only be illegal if in every instance in which is occurs, it causes harm.

Take the sale of alcohol; just because SOMETIMES, alcohol can lead to traffic accidents, does that mean we should ban alcohol? NO! because there are plenty of sensible drinker, and we shouldn't remove their liberty to drink because of the actions of a few irresponsible.

Same applies to bestiality; just because some animals are harmed by it, that doesn't make illegalising the practice okay; illeglise the instances of harm, but not the practice itself. Hatchet Haro raises an excellent point about the fact that the animal within bestiality, if they are male, often takes an active role; this sorta ruins your consent issue, as even if an animal cannot speak, if it is actively fucking someone, you cannot possibly argue that it DOESN'T want to have sex with them.

Quote from walker90234

Sorry, I would just like to address this point; my example was an illustration of your argument. It showed why your argument failed.

You cannot then dismiss it simply because we are in a state of technological advancement in which it would not occur; given that this is a debate regarding morality, it doesn't matter whether or not the illustration CAN occur or not. With the ethics being discussed change depending on the example? No. My argument still stands.

As for your counter that humans are of greater sentience, that again doesn't work; lets take another example.

Lets imagine that in the previous example, the girl was deaf. But the boy knew how to speak. Before the boy's mother died, the boy was taught what sex was. But because he has no way of communicating with the girl (this is a hypothetical example, just imagine they cannot communicate) or teaching her; so he knows what sex is on a mental level, and she knows on an instinctive.

According to your reasoning, no matter what happened any sort of sexual contact between these two would be considered sexual molestation. That's completely illogical. Ergo, your argument is flawed.

As for the fact that animals may feel pain; this is an issue perfectly addressed by J.S. Mill in On Liberty, perhaps the founding book on freedom. He argues that just because an act CAN cause harm, that doesn't mean it should be illegal; something should only be illegal if in every instance in which is occurs, it causes harm.

Take the sale of alcohol; just because SOMETIMES, alcohol can lead to traffic accidents, does that mean we should ban alcohol? NO! because there are plenty of sensible drinker, and we shouldn't remove their liberty to drink because of the actions of a few irresponsible.

Same applies to bestiality; just because some animals are harmed by it, that doesn't make illegalising the practice okay; illeglise the instances of harm, but not the practice itself. Hatchet Haro raises an excellent point about the fact that the animal within bestiality, if they are male, often takes an active role; this sorta ruins your consent issue, as even if an animal cannot speak, if it is actively fucking someone, you cannot possibly argue that it DOESN'T want to have sex with them.

Try to make it simple, I can't understand a single word out of it.
If you want to argue, just shoot the bullet straight to the point.

Quote from walker90234

Sorry, I would just like to address this point; my example was an illustration of your argument. It showed why your argument failed.

You cannot then dismiss it simply because we are in a state of technological advancement in which it would not occur; given that this is a debate regarding morality, it doesn't matter whether or not the illustration CAN occur or not. With the ethics being discussed change depending on the example? No. My argument still stands.

There's sign language, and the girl can pull away from him if she really doesn't want to, i don't know, since she's in your made up, impossible, hypothetical world. Car accidents and violence from alcoholism usually happen because of altered judgement because, well, alcohol. You aren't exactly willing to potentially kill yourself or your friends when your sober...at least most of the time. Anyways, if youre horny enough to have sex with an animal while knowing you could potentially hurt the animal or yourself I'd say you have some mental problems to sort out. As triss has mentioned, youve thoroughly digressed from the original arguement so much that your made up hypothetical world holds no direct relativity to your original stance. The only thing you've shown me is that you get so upset about me denying the validity of your made up world you took the time to quote me and reform the situation again.....epic win walker.

Quote from Envoy

Saying that something is completely wrong, means that there is absolutely no good to it. You should reword your statement, "The point being that having sex with an animal is wrong."

I guess "*can get scared, uncomfortable, and they *can most definitely feel pain" means they always will. Emphasis on the can. as in, possibility. We can discuss semantics further if you want. maybe in a literary terms thread, i don't know, I don't know how a situation involving consensual sex can "turn into rape" but sure, I guess your arguement holds validity there. I don't see why i can't seperate it.

@ Zed so then I guess that ends this thread in the moral and legal span of things right? People break laws because they don't see whats wrong with what they are doing, they just know its supposedly wrong. If you try discuss the actual reasoning as to why it is wrong, rather than forcing people to mindlessly follow a law, people may be able to change their own mindset. Saying what "if" the animal feels pleasure can be easily countered with what "if" it doesn't? If you don't specifically know, then why risk something bad happening.

I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another, but the farming and processing of animals is done out of a necessity for survival. Fucking a cow doesn't help keep you alive in any way. It's more justifiable to kill an animal for food than to fuck it for fun; I think the people comparing the two are forgetting this.

Quote from Jeff

I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another, but the farming and processing of animals is done out of a necessity for survival. Fucking a cow doesn't help keep you alive in any way. It's more justifiable to kill an animal for food than to fuck it for fun; I think the people comparing the two are forgetting this.

Thanks for shifting the argument, it was getting hard for me to keep up with everyone else hating me for my posts here. I agree with you on the fact that it s more justifiable seeing as food is a necessity, but at the same time there are alternative methods of gaining protein other than consuming other animals. As such, there are more sanitary and less subjective methods of fulfilling urges. I think your argument could be based mostly around how laws usually cover topics of necessity, as in, down loading music, or artwork online with out paying for it is illegal because the producers of it need income, or how murder is illegal because people need to live.

My point isn't based around law and what it defines, because laws vary based on country. My point is based around basic instincts for survival. There is a reason we naturally consume animals, just as other animals consume other animals. It doesn't make sense to focus on alternatives for consumption because it's much cheaper and easier to farm animals which also yield a better more rounded product. There are no moral qualms about it because that's nature, the only people that have a problem with it are bleeding hearts from 1st world countries who personify animals. There's absolutely no need for sex with an animal. I'm not saying it's bad and shouldn't happen, I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense to say, "We eat animals, why shouldn't we fuck them too?" because the two aren't related.