BEASTIALITY

[Catholic_Lady]

As a general rule, a law that forbids the least must forbid the worst, and a law that permits the worst must permit the least - This is not an absolute principle but an useful criminal law guide (and it works for all Law as well) that I learned in my first year of lawschool. So, a law that criminalizes, for example, possession of marijuana should also, by coherence criminalize more serious drugs, and vice versa.  

In law you are either an object or a subjects - The only subjects that exist are those who created Law itself - Humans and groups created by Humans/institutions/etc - So everything that is not a Human is an object by definition. Animal Rights' is an inaccurate terminology because animals can't legally have any rights since they're incapable of minimal rationality, but we can still expand legal protection for animals just like we do with trees and the environment, there's nothing stopping that and I'd advise it.

Now - We treat animals in a pretty shitty way, and I'm not even mentioning insects that we daily squash just because we feel frightened - We use animals for food, clothing, pleasure, etc - We keep pets as property without any kind of consent, we use them for contests, and so on - If the law allows me to keep animals for food and slaughter them it doesn't make sense to just outlaw bestiality even if I find it disgusting and immoral. It's also funny the argument about consent because animals don't consent to anything, including being owned by us - Arguably, there's scenarios where sexual contact may be started by the animal itself - Let's say my girlfriend's dog decides to lick her pussy, and she doesn't stop him - How do we classify this?

THANK YOU!!!

What you're saying is exactly why I think the consent argument makes no sense.