BEASTIALITY

[KUSA]

What if someone kills an animal, has sex with it, then eats it. There's no immorality then right?

[Catholic_Lady]

Referring to the opening post, I think it's a stretch to say "animals don't understand what's going on" when a human tries to have sex with them.

Humans don't have a monopoly on sex. Animals understand sex, they do have it too in case you didn't notice. In any case I'm pretty sure they're going to notice if they have a 6 inch object rammed into them, let's be real.

Why does everything have to be "a secular argument" as well? All secularism means is detaching religion from the state and removing religious privilege. Beastiality doesn't need "a secular argument", if you can't work out already why beastiality is an abuse of animal rights then you don't need to be let loose on the streets.

It doesn't necessarily have to be intercourse. There are other ways to be sexual with animals that doesn't hurt them or upset them in any way. Just saying.  

I just don't understand why it's considered abusive to have a dog lick peanut butter off your privates, or to fondle their privates, while at the same time not abusive to put them in cages/crates/stables or kill them for food. People say it's wrong because they can't give consent. But they can't give consent for any of these other things we do to them.

Obviously I think bestiality is immoral, but I wouldn't say "consent" is the reason as to why it is immoral, because it's not consistent unless you think all those other things are immoral too.

[KUSA]

For the record, I think beastiality is nasty and I wouldn't do it. I don't think it is immoral because really the immorality of it is a religious viewpoint.

I do think that harming animals in general is wrong. I may be a bit hypocritical because I do hunt and eat animals. It does bother me if I cause suffering to an animal so if I do hunt I dispatch the animal swiftly.

I think when it comes to animals we need to show them as much respect as we can and be mindful of any suffering that we may cause them.

[Regina]

I just don't understand why it's considered abusive to have a dog lick peanut butter off your privates, or to fondle their privates, while at the same time not abusive to put them in cages/crates/stables or kill them for food. People say it's wrong because they can't give consent. But they can't give consent for any of these other things we do to them.

People are saying stuff like this all the time.

I don't agree with keeping animals locked up in confined spaces, we can actually discuss how both beastiality and other forms of animal abuse are wrong. There's room for every discussion.

I do think (and this is why I can't with holier-than-thou vegetarians) that whatever we do, we're harming animals based just on the fact that we exist, even if we're not eating them. But I think there's a difference between survival (having to clear land that we can build homes on, and eating animals) and then just harming animals for fucked-up twisted "fun" (beastiality, hunting just for sport, etc).

[Catholic_Lady]

I just don't understand why it's considered abusive to have a dog lick peanut butter off your privates, or to fondle their privates, while at the same time not abusive to put them in cages/crates/stables or kill them for food. People say it's wrong because they can't give consent. But they can't give consent for any of these other things we do to them.

People are saying stuff like this all the time.

I don't agree with keeping animals locked up in confined spaces, we can actually discuss how both beastiality and other forms of animal abuse are wrong. There's room for every discussion.

I do think (and this is why I can't with holier-than-thou vegetarians) that whatever we do, we're harming animals based just on the fact that we exist, even if we're not eating them. But I think there's a difference between survival (having to clear land that we can build homes on, and eating animals) and then just harming animals for fucked-up twisted "fun" (beastiality, hunting just for sport, etc).

Yes, I agree.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Well thats simply because you can survive without an orgasm, and obtain the orgasm without bestially and on the other hand you need food to survive and humans are evolved for a diet that includes meat.

Perhaps back in the day this is true, but now a days, at least in 1st world countries, most of us have access to plenty of foods with protein. We no longer need animal meats to survive.

It sort of depends on what you mean by that. Technically a person can "survive" on a diet of processed crap for quite some time, maybe even as long or longer than a vegetarian. Everything is on a bell curve. There does seem to be some statistically significant evidence that people with vegetarian diets tend to live a little longer, but there's not necessarily any evidence that this trend is a direct result of vegetarianism; there could be some other causative factor, like the fact that vegetarians as a group are more health-conscious and tend to eat less junk food. If you look at our digestive systems, they're more like those of apes and monkeys than pretty much anything else, and those animals are generally somewhere on the omnivore spectrum of the food chain.

[Whateverist]

People are saying stuff like this all the time.

I don't agree with keeping animals locked up in confined spaces, we can actually discuss how both beastiality and other forms of animal abuse are wrong. There's room for every discussion.

I do think (and this is why I can't with holier-than-thou vegetarians) that whatever we do, we're harming animals based just on the fact that we exist, even if we're not eating them. But I think there's a difference between survival (having to clear land that we can build homes on, and eating animals) and then just harming animals for fucked-up twisted "fun" (beastiality, hunting just for sport, etc).

This is what does the most harm. We leave no bit of woodland or scrubland untouched. Every square inch must serve just our needs. This is how we are annihilating the rest of the animal kingdom. Eating them is a symptom of viewing the world as our play thing.

[*Deidre*]

No one should 'need' religion to motivate them to do what is right.

[The Valkyrie]

No one should 'need' religion to motivate them to do what is right.

Unfortunately, many will claim that only they do good because of their religious beliefs.

[Catholic_Lady]

No one should 'need' religion to motivate them to do what is right.

I agree 100% and have said as much multiple times throughout my time here on the forums. I hope my question didn't come across as me saying someone can't have morals unless they are Christian or something.