I have phrased the Secular barometer of morality in the following way:
- 1.) Is there consent between participants,
2.) Is it healthy(A huge secular value), and
3.) does it, or can it, cause physical harm to the participants involved.
If I am wrong, please reframe it correctly, not for you the individual, but for the collective secular whole. Given that definition, now consider the possible scenario with the above secular premise:
- What if you could scientifically minimize every possible risk with having sex with an animal, prove that it was enjoying it too, and that there were no harm to either groups, would beastiality be moral then? And if not, why exactly? What is your secular reasoning? It's unnatural? WHo cares? What in nature hasn't broken a few rules... What if the animal's brain waves registers pleasure mid-act and develops a liking to the process?
There are many ways to make it safe, both parties consent to it, and neither are hurt psychologically or physically. We'll use the example of a Dog since it likes to mount every possible object it can, but any domesticated animal can also work.
Would beastiality then be okay? I am asking this because in a world with the bible in retreat, what is the secular reasoning, for or against it, over the morality of the act? And by what barometer of morality would you promote or condemn the behavior with? I'm also tired of one-line brush-offs and lazy answers that don't fully answer the question. So this question has political ramifications. What is our case against it? What is our case against a person marrying an animal, or making love to an animal? From both Theists and Atheists alike.
