Bestiality

[Corvus]

Is bestiality wrong?

And should it be illegal?


I do not believe so on both questions.

[adherent]

Its some sick ****. Sodomy is illegal and i think bestiality should too. Its wrong according to the Bible in Leviticus or was it Deuteronomy?

[Corvus]

Its some sick ****. Sodomy is illegal and i think bestiality should too. Its wrong according to the Bible in Leviticus or was it Deuteronomy?

As far as I am aware, sodomy is only illegal in some backwater states of America. Most states allow it, but draw the line at homosexual marriage.

I am not concerned if homosexuality is wrong according to Bill. I would like to know why Bill, and you or God, considers it "wrong", and why it should be illegal.

[Gaunt]

I believe it is wrong and should be illegal. An animal does not have the ability to make rational decisions regarding right and wrong at the same level as a human being. It is also not capable of giving consent, based on the use of rational judgement.

Bestiality, in my opinion, is simply another form of animal abuse, and, as with any form of abuse, it should not be tolerated.

[Corvus]

I believe it is wrong and should be illegal. An animal does not have the ability to make rational decisions regarding right and wrong at the same level as a human being. It is also not capable of giving consent, based on the use of rational judgement.

Animals do not consent to become food either. There are very few restrictions in the meat industry and how they are kept. Animals rights are based roughly on some form of compassion for animals, which stop at the slaughterhouse. If animal-loving is done with compassion, then I see nothing wrong with it. Animals are property, after all.

Bestiality, in my opinion, is simply another form of animal abuse, and, as with any form of abuse, it should not be tolerated.

I have had the unfortunate experience of observing animal pornography. In almost all instances, the animal assumes the dominant role.

Is bestiality wrong? Only if it's done wrong.

[Gaunt]

If animal-loving is done with compassion, then I see nothing wrong with it

You have a point here. As much as I find it physically repulsive, I suppose there is no case for it in a legal sense, as long as neither party is a victim of abuse.

For myself, I do not believe sex should involve any parties unable to consent, and so I find it to be wrong in that sense. It may be legally ok, but I do not believe it is morally acceptable.

[ST88]

Animals do not consent to become food either. There are very few restrictions in the meat industry and how they are kept. Animals rights are based roughly on some form of compassion for animals, which stop at the slaughterhouse. If animal-loving is done with compassion, then I see nothing wrong with it. Animals are property, after all.

I have had the unfortunate experience of observing animal pornography. In almost all instances, the animal assumes the dominant role.

Is bestiality wrong? Only if it's done wrong.

If I follow your reasoning correctly, then i would have to assume that animals that have been made illegal to kill for food would also be exempt from bestiality. Here in California, it is illegal to engage in the trade of horses for food. Would this apply? It is also illegal to kill certain endangered animals, such as particular owls and whales (though, I must admit a certain uncertainty here regarding certain technical aspects of... nevermind ).

You could also argue that humans have tacit consent when it comes to animals being used for food, but do not have that consent for other purposes. In my opinion, it is wrong, for example, to torture a bull such as is done in Spanish bullfighting. Does this opinion have any merit?

[Corvus]

Animals do not consent to become food either. There are very few restrictions in the meat industry and how they are kept. Animals rights are based roughly on some form of compassion for animals, which stop at the slaughterhouse. If animal-loving is done with compassion, then I see nothing wrong with it. Animals are property, after all.

I have had the unfortunate experience of observing animal pornography. In almost all instances, the animal assumes the dominant role.

Is bestiality wrong? Only if it's done wrong.

If I follow your reasoning correctly, then i would have to assume that animals that have been made illegal to kill for food would also be exempt from bestiality. Here in California, it is illegal to engage in the trade of horses for food. Would this apply?

I think laws such as these place greater value on more anthropic animals. Dolphins are cute and intelligent, thus cannot be eaten. Horses are noble steeds, shy yet helpful companions, not like a cow, whose only purpose is to graze stupidly.

My reasoning was that murdering someone is often considered the greatest trespass against them, and if permission is granted to take a life and to own it, then permission should also be granted to do whatever thou wilt with it, though the latter permission in no way requires the granting of the former, as in the case of the horse. Even if you believe rape to be the worst crime, then allowances must be made for the difference between fragile human psyche, which can feel the most abject humiliation and shame, to the less fragile mind of a sheep, which will probably only feel some mild discomfort or stress - if that. And one must remember, with pack animals, often the leader of the pack is expected to assert their dominance. Also, one does not necessarily have to own something or someone in order to be sexual with it. Disregard for the time being my normal misanthropic view that all love is, or devolves to, ownership anyway.

I don't believe rape should be permitted for, at the very least, intelligent animals. But sex should be, since I see no reason it should be otherwise. Especially since it is still permitted for people to hunt animals, which causes them to suffer far more than even rape.

It is also illegal to kill certain endangered animals, such as particular owls and whales (though, I must admit a certain uncertainty here regarding certain technical aspects of... nevermind ).

You could also argue that humans have tacit consent when it comes to animals being used for food, but do not have that consent for other purposes. In my opinion, it is wrong, for example, to torture a bull such as is done in Spanish bullfighting. Does this opinion have any merit?

It would depend on why you have come to that conclusion. Certainly I can agree that torture of any kind of animal is distressing, but bestiality does not necessarily have to be painful for the animal.

[ST88]

I don't believe rape should be permitted for, at the very least, intelligent animals. But sex should be, since I see no reason it should be otherwise. Especially since it is still permitted for people to hunt animals, which causes them to suffer far more than even rape.

How can you make a distinction such as this when no other animals can speak or express complex emotions in a way that we would be able to understand them? Which ones are the "more" intelligent ones? Our measures of animal intelligence usually center around their ability to learn new behaviors: dogs are more intelligent than, say, manatees because they can do what we tell them to more often.

You could also argue that humans have tacit consent when it comes to animals being used for food, but do not have that consent for other purposes. In my opinion, it is wrong, for example, to torture a bull such as is done in Spanish bullfighting. Does this opinion have any merit?

It would depend on why you have come to that conclusion. Certainly I can agree that torture of any kind of animal is distressing, but bestiality does not necessarily have to be painful for the animal.

The reason I have for this belief -- and it is a belief, barring the bull's ability to talk -- is that the act is made up of different spears and swords stuck into the bull's body throughout the "fight".

And as far as pain goes, how would we know? We know, for example, that intercourse is de facto painful for cats because of strategically placed barbs. The violence of the act is necessary to stimulate ovulation in the female. Acts such as these are behaviors controlled by seasonal shifts in hormones and so the urge to procreate becomes stronger than the urge to not feel pain. But we don't really know the degree of pain endured by the animal because they can't communicate such information to us.

We also don't know the degree of what you might call "humiliation" endured. This is not an animal concept, but there is an animal analogue. Certain wild bird species will kill one of its chicks if a human handles it, presumably because of the strange smell. This happens with wolves also. The mother may reject the animal because of the human handling. Now, we don't really have any evidence that this happens among adults, but it is known that there are instances where individuals are forced out of the pack for various reasons, some of which remain a mystery. Can you guarantee that an afflicted sheep won't suffer some kind of "Klingon-like" ritual of banishment? This is a silly example. But if we should be able to do as we like with animals, what would you say to bear baiting or cock fights?

ed: clarity of second paragraph

[otseng]

Is bestiality wrong?

And should it be illegal?

There are some references in the Bible saying bestiality is wrong.

Lev 20:15-16 "And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."

In addition, we can also apply the Political Candidate Ethics Test&reg to determine if it's wrong.

What would happen if a political candidate for office was shown to have practiced bestiality? It would most likely end his political career.