(September 3, 2015 at 3:17 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:Lemonvariable72 Wrote: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 equally (or more) an argument against raising them for food. Really, animals can't give any kind of meaningful consent to anything we do to them or for them, which makes it an argument against having pets as well.
Agenda, what would your argument be for why it's immoral to do anything sexual with animals, as long as they are not harmed?
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
