Is Bestiality Wrong?

Such is the price to live in a society that promotes liberty, life, and pursuit of happiness.I'm sure you can go to another country elsewhere in the world where you are allowed to rape Bob's freedom. Don't be surprised if they also allow other people to rape your freedom as well.Pure and simple, ana. If you want life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, you should mind your own business. People like Stile and me will do our best to make sure you won't have a right to rape someone else's freedom of their private lives. If you hate people's private lives so much, go to Iran or a myriad of other countries where people are still allowed to do honor killings and such.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

There are tradeoffs when you want to live in a country that promotes life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. One of those tradeoffs is that you can't violate other people's private lives. Your wanting to stop bob from having sex with his dog is the same as the anti-sodomy laws. Your stubbornness is unjust, and people like me and stile are here to remind you that your christian sense of morals are unjust.Since empathy isn't a big thing in christianity, let me put it another way. Suppose you decide to have a kid and have sex with your husband to beget this kid. But a man, who has a different view of sex, walks by and wants to stop you from having sex to procreate. He reasons that there are plenty of children in this world are orphans and that it is "really wrong" for you to be both catholic and want to produce your own children instead of adopting a child, especially since your husband was adopted himself. How would you react? You would invariably ask yourself "should this man have any right to interfere with my procreative life?"Look, if you're going to be stubborn about this, fine. Just don't try to rationalize your way through this. Just be stubborn and we won't bother you. We will stop you from robbing someone else's freedom in his private life. Yes, if we want to keep this society a place that promotes life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, than people like myself must prevent you from interfering with other people's private lives.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

A note for those who are waiting for my response to your posts. I've written some responses but then deleted them. I just can't write anything that is not a repeat or simple logical extensions of what I've already said before. Like a reverend telling his flock to look in the bible for answers, I must ask you to look back to my previous posts for answers. They're all there. Stile has also been very good at reading my mind and projecting my thoughts into his posts. I have decided not to sue Stile for plagarizing my ideas.As for the issue of consent. Everyone seems to get along with life just fine without ever considering the concept of animal consent. You've eaten chicken without ever considering whether the chicken consented to being butchered and supermarketed. You've chained down your dogs without ever considering whether the dog consented to be chained down or not.But when it comes to someone else you've never even heard of having sex with his dog, all of the sudden animal consent is the most important part of your moral argument. Are you sure it's not the bigotry in you that's doing the talking?One should live one's life consistent with one's principles and human reason. For those that think consent is now THE issue, I ask you to think about this again the next time you eat dinner. Are you being consistent with your moral stance or are you just using it as an excuse for your bigotry?

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I'm not accusing anyone of hypocrisy at all. I'm just questioning this animal consent thing that so many people suddenly became so gungho about. Like I said before, people have never considered whether the chicken they're eating now consented to being slaughtered and supermarketed. Why on earth is animal consent suddenly THE ISSUE?But to avoid appearance of accusation of hypocrisy, let me ask this question. Are the people that are so gungho about animal consent in this issue willing to ask animal for consent in other issues, like being slaughtered for human consumption or being enslaved? What Jack said. Can someone else with a higher IQ than mine explain what Omni meant by this comparison? Gee, I didn't mean to use it as a refutation of anyone's argument. I simply question their motivation behind being so gungho about animal consent all of a sudden. They've claimed to be rational about this. Well, explain to me how it is rational to all of the sudden making animal consent THE ISSUE after all these years of never once considered to ask for the animal to consent being slaughtered or chained or caged or sold or be ridden on etc...If people really believe that consent is THE ISSUE, are they willing to accept the moral implications that come with this argument, or are we cherry picking moral arguments here?

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Well, I think most of us do subconsciously want it illegal. When I started participating in this particular argument, I knew it was an uphill battle for me simply because it always is so damn hard to argue for something that (1) the majority is disgusted with, (2) I, myself, is digusted with, (3) is part of mainstream social taboo, and (4) is so easy for one to be against.In real life, people have labeled me a loon for simply believe that I should mind my own business when it comes to someone else having sex with his dog. The usually response I've heard goes something like "he ought to be shot". In the case of marriage, in particular, I think it's only a matter of time before society has redefined the word enough to exclude consent.For now, in regard to marriage I'm sticking with "2 consenting adults". Personally, I don't have any problem with polygamy or polyandry. If those people want more than 1 husband or wife, why not? If a man wants to marry his dog, well... I think it's a bit of a stretch, but since this issue hasn't come up yet, I haven't put much thought into it. So, I'm undecided with human-animal marriage.For those that wants to point out hypocrisy, note that I said UNDECIDED, not AGAINST. I simply haven't thought about it much. Well, part of the argument against animal cruelty (that I have heard) is that the mentality it takes to torture animal reinforces the lack of, or underdeveloped, conscience in a person. I once read a study that a very high percentage of psychopathic serial killers, something like 80% or so, started out torturing little animal they could catch. Personally, I know some parents that never said anything when they see their kids torture little animal and I don't know why they continue to allow the kids to do those things without worrying what kinds of people they'll turn out to be...But anyway, sorry for the ramble.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

You're right, I have no argument if you want to put it that way.My question remains. Are people who are so gungho about animal consent when it comes to bestiality willing to take this argument to its logical conclusion about other acts against animal? Are these vegans going around telling people to stop eating meat?You will notice that I have been saying from the beginning that people can hate bestiality all they want. They can consider it as wrong as they want. It's trying to stop other people from doing it that I'm arguing against.So, again, if you don't think vegans have any right to try to prevent the rest of us from eating meat, what on Earth makes you think they have any right to stop the rest of us from having sex with animal? When I pointed out the inconsistency, I suspected that someone would inevitably point this out.So, are you willing to admit that it is not logically consistent to use consent as an argument against bestiality? Because if yes, I am willing to leave it at "I agree to disagree".I can't really argue against arguments that are inconsistent when compared with each other. Personally, I try to make myself as consistent as I can. But I guess different people have different standards.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Omni, how many times do we have to repeat that you don't have to accept anything?You don't have to accept anything.You don't have to accept anything.Sure, I absolutely abhore the acts of torturing animal. It doesn't mean I have any right to stop people from doing them.There are ways you can protest ill treatments of animal. Stop eating meat is one way. Not buy any product those people make is another. You can even rally protests and try to get as many people to stop eating meat as you can.You don't have to accept anything. There are forms that we all have to sign before we take out a morgage. Those forms pretty much represent consent. [/qs] If the soldier doesn't need consent to shoot enemy soldiers, why can't he bugger them once they are prisoners?[/qs] Um... geneva convention? Last I checked, there are certain rules soldiers have to follow. These rules are there to make things a little less hellish for those involved. By signing up, or drafted, to be in the army, you've pretty much agreed to follow these rules.I don't see a valid comparison here. Of course not. Consent is purely a human invention. What's your point? And I've said this before, too. Bestiality isn't a moral issue. It's neither wrong nor right. And here are the reasons: go back to my previous messages.Emotional? Excuse me?It is a question of consistency or inconsistency. What's the point of debate if consistency isn't important?

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!