(September 2, 2015 at 2:40 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 2, 2015 at 2:35 pm)Exian Wrote: Oh, is that a catholic thing? About the bulls, I mean. Is artificial insemination wrong for the animal kingdom as well, or is this just a personal belief?

The Church hasn't specifically, officially spoken on this issue. But I personally think it's immoral because I see it as disrespectful to the animals. They shouldn't be treated as objects like that.

That actually would be my answer too. For the same reason, I eat a minimum of meat. That's me though. Remember, atheists are not a group with a uniform moral code. That's why no capital, "A." I am a Secular Humanist and you would probably find that most people who self-identify as such would be uncomfortable with it for exactly the same reason you gave. An atheist who follows the teachings of Ayn Rand (I think they call themselves Objectivists) would probably take a more utilitarian viewpoint, seeing animals as objects to be exploited. That's an assumption on my part though so take it with a grain of salt.

Many people (followers of non-Abrahamic religions or not) have a reverence for the natural world and an inherent respect for non-human life. Whether they can justify it logically or not, they may be uncomfortable with the act of bestiality for exactly the reason you give - it just seems disrespectful of something we emotionally feel should be deserving of respect.

I think you see the defensive reaction you see here because it is a typical argument of a follower of an Abrahamic religion: Our religion says you shouldn't do this. You say it too but you cannot give me a logical reason why. You must be going on your emotion.

I'll plead guilty as charged. I don't like to hurt living things. It is emotional. I feel a kinship with other living things. I'm an insignificant spec in a cosmic vastness and subject to vast powers completely beyond my control. And so are lower animals. I feel an emphatic connection with them in their struggle and because of my greater power, a responsibility to help them if I can. I can't justify it logically right now but it's me.

(September 2, 2015 at 3:36 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(September 2, 2015 at 3:34 pm)Stimbo Wrote: In my opinion, beastiality is appalling, utterly depraved, an abomination against everything humanity has striven for.

The word is bestiality.

So you're totally against beastiality, but bestiality is just fine?

I think it's a lovely word.

(September 2, 2015 at 3:36 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I have an interesting question that has more to do with legality than morality - Since we own animals and animals are our property (Humans own every area in the world where animals live except for Antarctica), how to create a compelling case against bestiality when we use animals for much worse purposes?

This is a very good question.  I believe that, historically, anything that wasn't a human is property in the exact same sense as a stapler or paperweight (that is, you can do whatever the eff you want, basically).  A quick search reveals that Da Vinci might have been one of the first proponents of animal rights, although he didn't publicize his views.  Really, the animal rights movement (that is, any animal rights at all as distinct from inanimate property) didn't start until the 1900s.  Essentially, through laws and court cases (primarily over the last 50 years), we've created a sort of pseudo-"property with rights" class.  The general principles are that animals that are 1) more intelligent, 2) more rare, and 3) less historically used get more rights, but there's no real sorting algorithm.  It's an interesting area of law.

(September 2, 2015 at 3:14 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(September 2, 2015 at 1:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I am curious to know though, what is the secular argument for why beastiality acts should be illegal? I know you will all say that animals can't give consent, but if you're doing it in such a way that is not hurting them physically, mentally, or emotionally, and if they don't understand sex or what is going on, then why would we need their consent for it?

(1) With our current abilities, we largely cannot know the extent to which our actions affect an animal physically, emotionally or mentally.  In the absence of such knowledge, it's better, IMO, to err on the side of caution and not go around fucking them just because we want to.  It could be causing harm we don't know how to measure or detect.

(2) I'm in favor bodily autonomy.  We do violate animals' bodily autonomy on a fairly regular basis but by in large that violation is in the animal's best interest: vaccinations against diseases, visits to vets or by vets in general, dental or medical procedures to which animals cannot consent, etc.  Bestiality violates an animals bodily autonomy for no other reason that because the human wants to have an orgasm.  In that respect, to me, it's no different than rape which is a non-consenting act that violates the victim's body.

(3) It is, fundamentally, an issue of consent, even if you cause harm.  There are sexual acts that can and do result in physical harm to one or more parties participating, but if all parties are consenting participants then who am I to condemn their sexual proclivities?  You don't have the right to have sex with an adult human in a comma even though it won't injury them physically, emotionally or mentally, even though they won't have any memory of the event or what's going on, because they are not in a position to give consent.

Throwing in the caveat of "what if it causes no harm?" doesn't change whether or not consent should be sought and obtained.

Good argument.

Nice backpedaling, honey. I gotta give it to you, you're good at this. 
Enjoy your day.

Man licks goat pussy - no consent from goat = baaaaaaad

Man kills and eats goat - no consent from goat = good

(September 2, 2015 at 3:59 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Nice backpedaling, honey. I gotta give it to you, you're good at this. 
Enjoy your day.

If you were familiar with me and my posts, you'd see that it's very common for me to ask questions and then acknowledge people's good points when they answer me.
Enjoy yours too.

(September 2, 2015 at 3:59 pm)KUSA Wrote: Man licks goat pussy - no consent from goat = baaaaaaad

Man kills and eats goat - no consent from goat = good

yep

(September 2, 2015 at 4:02 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 2, 2015 at 3:59 pm)KUSA Wrote: Man licks goat pussy - no consent from goat = baaaaaaad

Man kills and eats goat - no consent from goat = good

yep

Are you a vegetarian, Cathy?

(September 2, 2015 at 3:59 pm)KUSA Wrote: Man licks goat pussy - no consent from goat = baaaaaaad

Man kills and eats goat - no consent from goat = good

You're comparing two different things with inherently different purposes.


Yep.