(September 4, 2015 at 8:28 am)Losty Wrote: "if you're doing it in such a way that is not hurting them physically, mentally, or emotionally"

How can you ever know whether or not you're hurting an animal mentally or emotionally? We kill animals in the most humane way possible (well we try, I don't think our laws are strict enough from what I have seen of chicken farms) because it is necessary to kill then for food. We justify it because it is a normal and necessary part of nature that animals will be killed for other animals to eat for survival.

It is never necessary for animals to have sex outside of their species. It's certainly never necessary for humans to have sex with animals.

Are you personally willing to provide a viable alternative?

(September 2, 2015 at 1:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Lol, ok. So I know how this looks. 

Let me first say that I'm definitely against it. And that I am NOT  equating this to gay marriage or anything like that. This is a completely independent issue.   

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? We don't need their consent to do anything else to them as long as we're not hurting them. So why should sex acts be any different if sex can be purely a physical thing and nothing more, as I'm assuming most of you believe? Let's say someone puts peanut butter or something on their own private parts, for example. Why should that be illegal if the animal is just licking peanut butter and isn't being hurt in any way?    

Along with the fact that it's just completely ew, my core reason for thinking it's immoral go together with my religious beliefs regarding sexual morality, so I'd like to hear the reasons from someone who is not motivated by religious beliefs.    

Throughout this thread, I will be playing devil's advocate, and I'm sure it'll get gross and taboo. But make no mistake, I do not support these acts in any way shape or form.

Bolded by me above.

Had to stop right there. How the fuck would anyone know?

I am expecting that has been discussed, I am just answering the OP, when I have time I will come back and read the thread.

As for the 'if it doesn't harm them physically or emotionally' part, try the same argument substituting a 2yo for the animal. 'After all, we do a lot of things without their consent'

(September 3, 2015 at 3:55 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(September 2, 2015 at 3:10 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Theists sure do have kinky suspicions.  Kind of like the ones who are pretty sure they'd be raping and murdering if not for the love of Christ.

Care to name names?

I won't name them here since they post on another forum, but I remember while active at Reasonable Faith forum, there were at least two popular Christian posters there who explicitly said if it weren't for God they would've likely raped and murdered.

(September 4, 2015 at 11:44 am)Irrational Wrote:

(September 3, 2015 at 3:55 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Care to name names?

I won't name them here since they post on another forum, but I remember while active at Reasonable Faith forum, there were at least two popular Christian posters there who explicitly said if it weren't for God they would've likely raped and murdered.

You can find it here, buried by the sands of time... Of course, they weren't True Christians™.

(September 4, 2015 at 11:44 am)Irrational Wrote:

(September 3, 2015 at 3:55 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Care to name names?

I won't name them here since they post on another forum, but I remember while active at Reasonable Faith forum, there were at least two popular Christian posters there who explicitly said if it weren't for God they would've likely raped and murdered.

Yeah, but that honestly probably isn't true. I've noticed lots of Christians say things like, "Oh, I was one of those fuck-everything drugged-out reprobates blowing muskrats for their pellets and beating pregnant girls with bamboo rods before I found Jesus!" and I'm usually like, "No...no you fucking weren't, church kid."


They say these things even if they've been going to Sunday School and being good little children most of their lives because they're taught that before they convert, they're horrible people, regardless of how good they were before. I think this abuse is what leads them to claim they used to be these horrible people even though most of them have probably never even been out past curfew or smoked a cigarette.

The next person to post in this thread engages in the most vile forms of beastiality know to man.

Chance would be a fine thing.

(September 4, 2015 at 11:44 am)Irrational Wrote:

(September 3, 2015 at 3:55 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Care to name names?

I won't name them here since they post on another forum, but I remember while active at Reasonable Faith forum, there were at least two popular Christian posters there who explicitly said if it weren't for God they would've likely raped and murdered.

Eric Hovind went on record as saying that, or something on those lines. How he justifies it with what his dad did remains undisclosed.

(September 3, 2015 at 1:57 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I think there's a little bit of the Catholic response in our revulsion at the thought of bestiality. There's plain sex, and the further we get away from plain sex between a man and a woman, the more uncomfortable we feel. Sex that is a bit unusual is 'kinky', ie. not straight. It hasn't been that long since gay sex was considered abnormal, and sex with animals just takes strangeness one step further. There is a sense in which anything beyond just plain sex makes us nervous.

You make a good point. The more a sexual practice differs from the norm of heterosexual vaginal intercourse the more disgust the average person feels toward it.
My question is directed to those people who believe that morality is based, in part, on the instinctual empathy people have toward each other. Why is the feeling of disgust any less of a guide for human behavior that is right and proper? What reason justifies privileging one survival instinct over another?

** duplicate deleted **