Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 1:58 pm
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.
"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
Posts: 13122
Threads: 130
Joined: October 18, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:01 pm
Now you're on a slippery slope to looking ridiculous.
Really, you want to go there?
Posts: 2421
Threads: 30
Joined: July 16, 2015
Reputation:
50
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:01 pm
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:12 pm
(September 2, 2015 at 2:01 pm)abaris Wrote: Now you're on a slippery slope to looking ridiculous.
Really, you want to go there?
Not sure why you think I look ridiculous. This is an honest question. Obviously it's gross and repulsive and completely unnatural to the majority of people (except those who actually have an attraction towards animals), but really, what is the objective, secular reason why this should not be legal so long as the animal is not being harmed physically, mentally, or emotionally?
"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
Posts: 5492
Threads: 53
Joined: September 4, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:16 pm
I think it's just animal cruelty. /serious part of thread
In your example of licking peanut butter of a vag, I don't think a person should be punished for that, but I also don't think they should be telling people. Haha But also, what was the motive? Laziness or getting your rocks off on a dog? Does that make a difference?
I wonder what you think about ranchers jerking off horses and bulls and then artificially inseminating the females by hand? I think it's a pretty gross job, but I wouldn't say it's bestiality. Not saying you do think it is, but...I mean they're jerking off bulls; in the peanut butter example, you're feeding a dog peanut butter for all it knows.
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:
"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."
For context, this is the previous verse:
"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
Posts: 2985
Threads: 29
Joined: October 26, 2014
Reputation:
31
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:21 pm
Some people do make a distinction between person-initiated bestiality and animal-initiated bestiality. Like, if you start copulating with a dog, that's not cool, but if you lie down naked and the dog comes over and starts copulating with you, that's ok.
Not necessarily my opinion, but jus' sayin'.
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:24 pm
(September 2, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Exian Wrote: I think it's just animal cruelty. /serious part of thread
In your example of licking peanut butter of a vag, I don't think a person should be punished for that, but I also don't think they should be telling people. Haha But also, what was the motive? Laziness or getting your rocks off on a dog? Does that make a difference?
I wonder what you think about ranchers jerking off horses and bulls and then artificially inseminating the females by hand? I think it's a pretty gross job, but I wouldn't say it's bestiality. Not saying you do think it is, but...I mean they're jerking off bulls; in the peanut butter example, you're feeding a dog peanut butter for all it knows.
1. But why/how is it animal cruelty if the animals are not being harmed?
2. A person who is attracted to animals might get off on doing that.
3. (and yes, I do think it's immoral to do that to bulls.)
"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
Posts: 3837
Threads: 197
Joined: August 28, 2013
Reputation:
38
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:34 pm
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.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Posts: 5492
Threads: 53
Joined: September 4, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:35 pm
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?
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:
"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."
For context, this is the previous verse:
"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
Posts: 3837
Threads: 197
Joined: August 28, 2013
Reputation:
38
RE: BEASTIALITY
September 2, 2015 at 2:38 pm
(September 2, 2015 at 2:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (September 2, 2015 at 2:01 pm)abaris Wrote: Now you're on a slippery slope to looking ridiculous.
Really, you want to go there?
Not sure why you think I look ridiculous. This is an honest question. Obviously it's gross and repulsive and completely unnatural to the majority of people (except those who actually have an attraction towards animals), but really, what is the objective, secular reason why this should not be legal so long as the animal is not being harmed physically, mentally, or emotionally?
What is the objective, secular reason for not doing it to babies that are no smarter then animals?
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
|
![[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-d-3rfdI7nG0%2FTerwtFyFXoI%2FAAAAAAAACak%2F7kFSmHeVrng%2Fs320%2FBumper%2BSticker%2B-%2BAsheville%2B-%2BPraise%2BDog3.JPG)
