In Denmark, we have this unbelievable rule....

That you can have intercourse with an animal.....as long as the animal is not suffering from overload.

In my opinion....this is very wrong, and rather disgusting. I really think this rule should be taken down....and become forbidden instead.

I dont know how people do it, but i am sure about the animals suffering.....

What is your opinion on this? should this be forbidden?

I see no problem with this law. So people want to have sex with animals; who does this bother? Just because someone would rather have an animal for a lover means nothing really. They aren't actually affecting anyone else in a negative way, and I believe that a law should only be questioned if it negatively impacts a majority of the population. This seems to be quite similar to debates on gay marriage here in America, though naturally ours is more do to our country's strong ties to religion. Still, if someone wants to privately fuck an animal where you live, or a guy and guy/ girl and girl want to marry in America, then let's all just leave them to it and live out our own sexual identity.

Ok so first gay marriage, well that can be easily accepted. But having sex with an animal is going way too far. Besides being morally wrong on so many levels, it's completely unhygienic.

We're happy enough to kill animals for food or fun. Rape seems relatively tame. Hell, the animal may well enjoy it. I do agree that there are hygiene concerns; perhaps you should be required to warn all future partners that they're vulnerable to inter-species STD's. Or just use a condom.

I agree with Zed that if we're willing to brutally kill animals for the sake of food then beastiality seems relatively tame, but it's the idea of consent that I don't really like. I can't really decide. I mean, is it even possible for me to believe that we can kill animals for food without their consent, and yet also believe that we can't have sex with animals because we don't have their consent? Seems contradictory to me, and yet that's my gut reaction.

There are quite a few religions (I think) that actually has laws about animal sex. In Christianity, the Bible says that 'Whoever has intercourse with an animal shall be put to death.'
There's this moral issue with human intercourse with animals. You might say that since we already kill animals for food, raping them would be considered 'tame'. Problem is, there are animals we don't kill, such as domestic pets. Raping them will be going a bit too far.
But then again, humans are also a form of animal, so this is actually an 'interspecies intercourse'. You can find interspecies intercourse anywhere in the world. One such example is when a horse mates with a donkey, they produce an offspring that is half horse, half donkey, called 'mares'. You can find mares everywhere in the countryside (I think). The side-effects, however, is that mares are not able to mate and produce offspring of their own.
However, most people consider ourselves superior and completely different to 'animals', and therefore create the illusion that animals are unclean, unhygienic, wild etc. This makes them think that having sex with an animal is really wrong and disgusting.
It just depends on whether you consider humans as superior to animals, or just another mammal.

Humans are superior to other animals in terms of dominance. This is not debatable, humans are at the top of the food chain. As for the animal rape, I don't really care. As others have said, it's not any worse then anything else we already do to animals.

If the slaughter is professional then it should be carried out humanly and the animal should not suffer from it, comparing that to rape doesn't really work. It's like saying beating your kids is ok because the doctor can euthanize a patient.
You are also unable to get consent from animals since they are incapable of speech, similar to how a girl that has passed out drunk is unable to say no.

Sex with animals is pretty wrong in my opinion and I probably won't change my mind since I find it pretty repulsive regardless of how the animal feels.

I never think about it.
Anyway, this really hurt morale value, and it's really gross.
But since we're not the one who doing it, so I don't give a care if they're doing it.(I'm neutral)

Animals can't give consent, and that is morally reprehensible to take advantage of that. I would consider it animal abuse. I've been a vegetarian for a year and a half, so I guess I'm being a biased bitch, but thats my stance on it.

Quote from Cobalt

Humans are superior to other animals in terms of dominance. This is not debatable, humans are at the top of the food chain. As for the animal rape, I don't really care. As others have said, it's not any worse then anything else we already do to animals.

But with today's methods of killing animals, the animal doesn't really suffer. It's usually an immediate death. Raping animals, like I said is wrong, unhygienic, and the animal will probably suffer. I doubt it will enjoy it.

I find the action itself pretty odious, however would be against banning it, simply because I'm a liberalist and don't think we should illegalise things unless they cause harm.

And some would say it does cause harm, because it is rape. However the main argument in favour of this is that animals cannot consent, and therefore that animal sex is always rape. However this isn't the case.

An analogy was raised comparing bestiality to sex-with-drunk-passed-out-chicks, and that because neither can give verbal consent, neither can be said to have sex without it being rape.

However, I could raise a counter analogy; take a woman who has been in a car accident. She has lost the ability to speak, and her hands have been cut off, so she cannot write. By your logic, because she cannot communicate, anyone who has sex with her is effectively raping her. However there are other *ahem* methods of communication when it comes to sex, vocal and physical. The difference between the two analogies is that the drunk girl cannot give ANY consent whatsoever, because ALL methods of communication have been shut off, whereas the animal and the girl with no hands (odd how I haven't mentioned guys here) can give a form of consent, but not verbal. As such its possible for an animal to consent.

By your analogy, if an animal ever has sex with an animal, because they cannot vocalise their consent, it counts as rape.

All of these analogies are ridiculous since "rape" and "consent" are legal terms with specific definitions and criteria, and none of you are using them in any meaningful or useful context.

Okay, i might agree with you there; any chance you can elaborate on that though? What you've said more just points out we're wrong than points us in the right direction.