• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Should people be allowed to have sex with animals?

The reason humans and animals shouldn't have sex, isn't exactly why they should not marry though.

Yes, the common ground is consent. Beyond that though, marriage is much more complex. 12yr olds can consent, siblings can consent.

And i don't think i've ever said i support abortion. I just said i support the right to chose. I think people should take far more responsibility. But that's me. :\
It's kinda hard to stand up for choice though, and criticize those who Republicans or christians highlight as their "prime" examples of immorality.
 
Last edited:
If the animal asks you to fuck it, then it's ok in my book.

It's still fucking disgusting though, and if you think animals are asking you to have sex with them, you're probably insane.
 
Originally posted by SoHiAllTheTime
Because for the same reasons humans shouldnt be allowed to marry animals, humans shouldnt be allowed to have sex with animals. Yet, they are allowed. And it is all over the net, for the public to see and view. So, if one is happening, the other could very well happen as well.


but it could very well not happen too so it's no proof at all.

i agree you can extrapolate and suggest what's might happen with varying degrees of likelihood but you can't say you're proved it.

anyway, it was a minor aside. it just didn't make sense to me and still doesn't :)

alasdair
 
You are right, it doesnt prove it. :) but what i said is that it "proves that marriage to an animal possible in the future unless we make laws to make it illegal now. Right?"

Maybe i wasnt as detailed in my statement as i should have been. I was only saying it is proof for the possibility. :)
 
>>^But we dont know what marriage will be reduced to in the future! I mean with all the divorces and getting married just for fun then divorcing the next day that we have now, 50 yrs from now marriage may be seen as a joke to most people. Thats why it needs to be kept how it has been from the beginning. Civil unions are another story. "Marriage" should never be anything other than man and woman>>

Why not simply abolish the legal institution of marriage, leaving in place only the spiritual and socio-cultural institutions, and leaving us free to define them as we see fit?

Does the state instill meaning in your concept of marriage?

as for the issue of zoophilia, I'd agree most with protovack...although the obtaining consent thing can be a rather thorny issue.

heh...maybe one could ask a Bonobo who has learned sign-language on a date. :)

ebola
 
^You know, thats a good point...what if in the future they are able t ohave technology to allow members of the ape familly to speak with us. Then what?
 
Most animals accept maybe dolphins, do not even have sex for pleasure. It's part of a cycle or instinct.

Having sex with an ape that doesn't associate pleasure with sex doesn't really make much sense to me. And even if the ape could talk to you, it would have no concept of fucking you for fun, so it wouldn't ask you to.

Now if we could communicate with dolphins, this would change the analogy a bit, (as they do have sex for fun). BUT I'm sure that if dolphins could communicate with humans, they would have just as much conflict with letting each other fuck humans as humans have with letting each other fuck dolphins. Ya know?...
 
Originally posted by SoHiAllTheTime
You are right, it doesnt prove it. :) but what i said is that it "proves that marriage to an animal possible in the future unless we make laws to make it illegal now. Right?"

Maybe i wasnt as detailed in my statement as i should have been. I was only saying it is proof for the possibility. :)


well, anything is possible... so the fact you exist and other men exist is proof that it's possible you will be married to a gay man in the future?

:)

alasdair
 
I'm sort of mystified at someone's desire going in that direction really. I mean humans are of no interest? Sure there can be some sort of taboo associated with it. But how can someone justify it?

I could possibly go the distance and MAYBE allow for it being a pagan rite or something. A very violent pagan rite. But then what would be the worth of it? Spirituality doesn't really make sense, doesn't follow logic / rationality.
Are there cultural practices, and cultures really, that do this?
Does satanism, the occult have any practices that involve this? I mean it would follow that it is "sinful" so to engage in it is to satisfy that social deviance.
I mean then I could it not being about pleasure but about something else.
You're not satisfying your own Id but some external entity. Which is even weirder but who am I to judge.


Questions:

Is love for an animal, and thoughts about the animal loving you, merely a transference of love by the owner? Are animals capable of love?

No other species has sex with another dif. species? Is this correct? I mean dogs are generally dumb...and that raccoon and dog picture is hilarous but seriously...

Is it a control issue?

Can it boil down to a psychological issue? A sort of *snap* in the brain or some socio psychological deviance where a person no longer considers
human sexuality to be of any worth (although multiple people can engage in beastiality or even prob. zoosex and human sex). Where sex with humans becomes boring and the need/desire to have sex with animals is what satisfies that desire. It goes beyond a simple "kinky" factor. I would say its on par with pedophilia in terms of malfesance.


I personally don't see having a conscious to be any special allowance for having sex/control over whatever you see fit.

I think its a definite deviant behavior. Legal or no?
I dont think thats the point.
 
http://www.zoophilia.net/confession.php

That's a link to a sort opinion piece by a zoophile (?).

I think at its root it boils down to some sort of secret network of people that follow a code. Its seems it would function as a sort of cult. Animal worship probably in some instances. Or there could be. The reverse is also true I'll admit.
Oh there's a strange logic to that person's support of zoolove.


[url]http://www.zoophilia.net/whatislike.php[/URL]

Oh I find it very interesting that they both find it very easy to debase other forms of
desire. I dont doubt that their love for animals is genuine.
What signals the crossover from "oh I love my animals" ....to....something more?

I'll flat out question it. Are these people intelligent? Numerous typos throughtout. Bad Logic. Sort of infantile view on life/death. ??? I mean I suppose I'm sort of attacking these people based out on my own fear. But seriously what makes someone go..."I'm going to go jack off this cat just to see if they orgasm." ???
 
Last edited:
SoHiAllTheTime said:
Ok, now lets get down to the nitty gritty...I claim that gay marriages are a slippery slope to POSIBLE eventual human/animal marriages. Most everyone says that is not possible because everyone knows that it is wrong to marry an animal without its consent, sicne an animal cant consent to marriage it could never be legal. Well, same goes for sex with an animal!!!

If an animal cant consent to sex, then it SHOULD be illegal, right? According to liberal logic, this statement is true. Just the fact that we have people having sex with animals and that it is as common as it is today, it is by no means a stretch to see liberals years from now defending the rights of a human to marry an animal, based off of some sort of love relationship that person has with the given animal.

Of course i think it is immoral, and should be illegal, but liberals cry out that i cant force my views on others based of my moral viewpoint, and when it has nothing to do with me. I mean afterall, who am i to force others to do something just because i think it is wrong???

You see my point here? Suddenly, because YOU think that this is immoral or wrong it is ok to make it illegal, but because you are ok with something else it is not ok for someone else to force their views on you based off of what they think is wrong. Conservatives believe (and have plenty of proof) that abortion is murder, so we are trying to force that view on other people - rightfully. How is this any different?

The fact that humans are having sex with animals as we speak, proves that a marriage to an animal IS possible in the future, unless it was made illegal. Right?

My point has been made, and i have proved the slippery slope of animal/human marriages.

I think a few of you knew where i was going with this...I am pleased that most of you think it is wrong and in this case find yourself thinking as a conservative thinks. Maybe this helps you understand our point of view on other subjects in the future. :)

But remember, todays liberals are tomorrows conservatives.

But back on topic, why isnt it illegal??? And why arent liberals or conservatives SCREAMING for it to be made illegal and have these websites shutdown?
Click to expand...

SHATT, the rationale for prohibiting bestiality/interspecies marriage has been well-outlined on the gay marriage threads. The same basis for prohibiting interspecies marriage also applies to bestiality...that of the issue of mutual consent.

We criminalize sexual behavior without consent between HUMANS...is there any reason to think that just because an animal does not possess the capacity to consent, society would adopt an "Okay, anything goes with animals since they don't have the capacity to consent" stance?

The point is that the requirement of mutual consent transcends ALL subissues of the legality and morality of sexual behavior...it doesn't matter what species we're talking about. If society were to say all of a sudden, "Okay, we don't have a problem with the consent issue with animals, so bestiality is fine", doesn't that eviscerate the sexual assault laws protecting humans currently on the books as well?

You see, that's an extremely good example of where the "slippery slope" concern IS valid, when the activity in question threatens to eviscerate an already well-established foundational principle of society. If bestiality were no longer considered malum prohibitum, then one could easily make the argument in a HUMAN sexual assault case that "Look, mutual consent is NOT a bedrock foundation of sexual behavior, because we don't deem it necessary in having sex with animals"...whereas with gay marriage, which is really the topic on your mind, allowing same-sex marriage does NOT threaten the bedrock foundational principle of mutual consent between the parties entering the marital contract.

Most US states presently have laws on the books prohibiting bestiality. Yeah, yeah, that doesn't mean bestiality does not occur, but since when did laws ever stop ANYTHING from simply occurring? That's no basis for saying "Okay, we have this law against bestiality and it still occurs, so heck, just do away with the law." Do speeding laws stop people from speeding? Do laws prohibiting theft stop thefts from occurring? If you're that worked up about those bestiality websites, the question you SHOULD be asking is why the law enforcement authorities are not working harder to prosecute them with laws currently on the books.

With respect to your "yeah, but it's possible in the future" fear-based argument, well, ANYTHING is POSSIBLE. It's POSSIBLE that in the future we may be taken over by blob-shaped aliens who force us to have sex with animals for their entertainment pleasure. Is it probable? NO. Is it worth worrying about? NO.

It's POSSIBLE that that God you believe in will decide tomorrow that he's had enough and come down and begin all those plaques and krap...why aren't you more worried about that than bestiality, since bestiality's not even close to being on the table for any consideration, whereas God can simply decide at any moment that he's had enough? And before you answer that you're saved and all and have nothing to worry about, don't you still have to suffer through all the same krap everybody else does, sinner and saint alike, before you get swept up in that joyous rapture? Why isn't that possibility causing you to lock up with fright much moreso than the possibility of interspecies marriages being legalized at some point in the distant future?

There's no reason to believe that human beings will take leave of their ability to think rationally in the future, and every reason to believe that rational human beings will view any future expansion of societal mores regarding bestiality with the same rational perspective as now. The "but it's possible in the future" argument is really just another fear-based attempt to resist greater human enlightenment.

By definition a possibility is possible. No rational person would argue that interspecies marriage isn't POSSIBLE, since humans, animals and the concept of marriage all exist, but that really says nothing. So you haven't really proven anything...you've just stated a tautology.
 
Last edited:
DigitalDuality said:
^
About the Origins of Aids and rumors surrounding it.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/aids.asp
Click to expand...

To determine the genesis of a new virus you would study the codon sequence and then compare that data to other viri. Gallo said the HTLV III (HIV I or AIDS virus) was distally (distantly) related to a disease of sheep called visna because it was only half in common and the other half (codon sequence) in common with bovine leukemia virus.

By this logic I am distantly related to my mother and father because I only share half of their genetic structure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top