BEASTIALITY

[Homeless Nutter]

Why come here if you can get all your answers at home?[...]

Because raising "taboo" subjects (like bestiality, incest, or even defecation) doesn't usually go over well with conservative religious folks. They tend to have stick up their a**es about uncomfortable topics like that and they're very judgmental towards people, who break social norms by mentioning them.

Of course - breaking social norms can also be a thrill, especially to a person brought up in a controlling, repressive culture - like catholicism. I suspect CL considers non-believers more liberal than catholics, so less likely to become embarrassed and defensive when faced with uncomfortable questions.
And if we do - there are virtually no consequences, as there undoubtedly would be even on christian forums, let alone in "real life" contacts with most believers.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, I don't think you mean it like that...I think you are motivated by your religion to do good things. That's why you said it. And I'm here to suggest to you, you don't need religion to do anything good in this life.  Catholicism has been selling that lie for a very long time, though.

A see what you're saying.

Well to clarify, it's not that my faith is the reason why I do good things, it's that my faith can sometimes help explain why certain things are objectively immoral.

Morality is inherently subjective and relative.

[Catholic_Lady]

Why come here if you can get all your answers at home?[...]

Because raising "taboo" subjects (like bestiality, incest, or even defecation) doesn't usually go over well with conservative religious folks. They tend to have stick up their a**es about uncomfortable topics like that and they're  very judgmental towards people, who break social norms by mentioning them.

Of course - breaking social norms can also be a thrill, especially to a person brought up in a controlling, repressive culture - like catholicism. I suspect CL considers non-believers more liberal than catholics, so less likely to become embarrassed and defensive when faced with uncomfortable questions.
And if we do - there are virtually no consequences, as there undoubtedly would be even on christian forums, let alone in "real life" contacts with most believers.

Except it didn't go over very well here, did it? Lol. Some people here absolutely got defensive, uncomfortable, and hostile towards me.   

The reasons I think it's immoral are different from the reasons you guys think it's immoral. I was curious to know your reasons, and to further discuss them/try to understand them if they didn't make sense to me (like consent). That's why I asked. I thought it would be interesting to talk about.

[Divinity]

I always say: If I can't think of a reason it's wrong other than "god said so", then it's not really wrong.

In this case, animals can't give consent. Probably doesn't hurt them emotionally or physically, but it's still abuse. That'd be like saying you can rape a mentally handicapped person who doesn't have the capacity to understand.

[paulpablo]

Okay, first off an animal cannot give consent, and without the ability to consent the animal is freightened and scared with no ability to understand what is happening. It's hurts the animals and it leads to potential harm for humans as well. Now imagine a world where beastiality is okay. Imagine animals being cultivated for nothing more then to be fucked. You see what we do with factory farming now, so picture that only, fucking animals before you kill them. Imagine a world where you have to leave your husband because he fucked a horse.
Now here is what I find ironic. I'm here arguing against it using my reason and empathy, your reasoning is "its bad because gawd said so." So your using this to try to make religious morality look good when in fact if your Bible said every woman must fuck a goat you'd be telling how great it is and I would still be arguing its wrong.

This seems so illogical.  Not the first part, I mean the bit where you're saying "Imagine a world....."

It's pretty much implying that as soon as bestiality becomes legal, guys will be partying in the streets because they will finally be able to fuck that horse they've been thinking about and it's going to go into a industry involving mass production of cattle for fucking.

As for the for first part I agree with it completely but I eat meat, so maybe it is hypocritical of me to judge someone if they feel the intense sexual need to have sex with animals.

[Lemonvariable72]

Because raising "taboo" subjects (like bestiality, incest, or even defecation) doesn't usually go over well with conservative religious folks. They tend to have stick up their a**es about uncomfortable topics like that and they're  very judgmental towards people, who break social norms by mentioning them.

Of course - breaking social norms can also be a thrill, especially to a person brought up in a controlling, repressive culture - like catholicism. I suspect CL considers non-believers more liberal than catholics, so less likely to become embarrassed and defensive when faced with uncomfortable questions.
And if we do - there are virtually no consequences, as there undoubtedly would be even on christian forums, let alone in "real life" contacts with most believers.

Except it didn't go over very well here, did it? Lol. Some people here absolutely got defensive, uncomfortable, and hostile towards me.   

The reasons I think it's immoral are different from the reasons you guys think it's immoral. I was curious to know your reasons, and to further discuss them/try to understand them if they didn't make sense to me (like consent). That's why I asked. I thought it would be interesting to talk about.

Well look at what we get from the other resident theists here, and then look at the sort of rhetoric, you here in general about atheists from christian and rememeber some of us have to deal with that from our families.

[Catholic_Lady]

I always say: If I can't think of a reason it's wrong other than "god said so", then it's not really wrong.

In this case, animals can't give consent.  Probably doesn't hurt them emotionally or physically, but it's still abuse.  That'd be like saying you can rape a mentally handicapped person who doesn't have the capacity to understand.

I think there's a difference between animals and people though. For example, we don't euthanize mentally handicapped people when they are very ill and near death. 

There are other things we do to animals without their consent that we would never do to people. That's why I think the argument about consent isn't consistent unless you really do think it's wrong to do anything negative to an animal without their consent.

[Divinity]

I think there's a difference between animals and people though. For example, we don't euthanize mentally handicapped people when they are very ill and near death. 

There are other things we do to animals without their consent that we would never do to people. That's why I think the argument about consent isn't consistent unless you really do think it's wrong to do anything negative to an animal without their consent.

Of course I think it's wrong to do something negative to an animal without their consent.

For example, my daughter (who is an avid animal rights activist, and a vegetarian.) brought to my attention how Fois Gras is often made.  They forcefeed ducks, and it's pretty fucked up.  I'd hope others would agree.  People will make excuses for it, but they're mostly bullshit.

We put animals down when they're in bad health and can't recover in order to relieve their suffering.  Which is why I'm also for the legalization of Euthanasia for those who have no chance for recovery.

[Catholic_Lady]

I think there's a difference between animals and people though. For example, we don't euthanize mentally handicapped people when they are very ill and near death. 

There are other things we do to animals without their consent that we would never do to people. That's why I think the argument about consent isn't consistent unless you really do think it's wrong to do anything negative to an animal without their consent.

Of course I think it's wrong to do something negative to an animal without their consent.

For example, my daughter (who is an avid animal rights activist, and a vegetarian.) brought to my attention how Fois Gras is often made.  They forcefeed ducks, and it's pretty fucked up.  I'd hope others would agree.  People will make excuses for it, but they're mostly bullshit.

We put animals down when they're in bad health and can't recover in order to relieve their suffering.  Which is why I'm also for the legalization of Euthanasia for those who have no chance for recovery.

I agree with you about the thing with ducks. I agree about the mistreatment of farm animals and I always buy organic, humanely raised meats. 

But I don't think it's necessarily wrong to kill and eat animals without their consent. And I don't think it's wrong to euthanize a pet who is very ill without their consent, though I do think it would be wrong to do the same thing to a mentally handicapped person without their consent. 

Do you think it's wrong to kill/eat animals without their consent? Do you think it would be ok to euthanize a terminally ill mentally handicapped person?

If your answers are consistent, it'll help me understand your argument.

[Divinity]

Killing and eating animals is fine. That's not mistreatment. That's raising food.

You can euthanize a pet without their consent if they are in failing health, because you are effectively their legal guardian. If a doctor says that a mentally ill patient who cannot give consent is terminally ill, with no chance of recovery, and is suffering (much like a pet) then I think a legal guardian should have the right to give the doctor authorization to euthanize the patient to end their suffering.

Remember the case of Terri Schiavo? It was around the same time as John Paul II died and Michael Jackson had his trial. That was all that was in the news at the time. Michael Jackson, the pope, and Terri Schiavo. That's a case I think of when I think of this.

Now should there be a strict review of the third parties decision for euthanasia? Sure. But should someone have to suffer until they finally die if they have no chance for recovery? I don't think so.