Is Bestiality Wrong?

Is bestiality morally wrong?If so why?If it could be demonstrated that there was some sort of genetic predisposition to beastiality would that make it any more wrong or right?*Are we prone to making irrational decisions as to what is moral and what is not based on personal disgust??
If so should these decisions based on personal disgust hold any sway when attempting to legislate behaviour.Given the other ways in which we regularly abuse animals do morally relatavistic arguments about consent hold much water?My own view is that the naturalness or otherwise of an activity is irrelevant as to it's morality.
As a moral relatavist broad notions of consent and harm would be my normal barometer for determining the morality of any activity. Sexual or otherwise.
However I find it hard to reconcile this idea of immorally abusing non-consenting animals with the other (worse?) ways in which we regularly cause animals to suffer without ever considering either consent or morality.
It would therefore seem that my instinctive answer that beastiality should be considered morally wrong is based more on feelings of personal disgust than anything else.What do others of a non-absolutist moral disposition think?Obviously beastiality has been raised regularly as an issue in quite contentious circumstances elsewhere. My intention is definitely not to make unjustified comparisons of any sort but to consider the issue of beastality and morality in it's own right.*I make no claim that any such genetic explanation does exist. This is purely a 'what if' scenario. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes that is my conclusion.So rationally I have no reason to believe bestiality to be wrong. I think that I do accept it already. Whether the animal suffers or not. In the same way that I accept the depraved conditions in which we keep livestock.
If the animal enjoys itself in the process all the better My conclusion is that I do accept it. I can find nothing reationally more immoral about it than I can eating meat. On that basis I have no right to tell anyone else what to do regards this matter.However I do find it disgusting. So do many others.How much should that disgust dictate how far it is 'displayed' in society?Should bestial porn be as freely available as other sorts of porn?
Should prime time TV be allowed to show human/beast affection of a non-graphic but obviously sexual variety as perfectly acceptable.Is there a line?
If so where is it?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Basically I agree BUT do we really have the courage of our rational convictions???How much should that disgust dictate how far it is 'displayed' or expressed in society?Should bestial porn be as freely available as other sorts of porn?
Should prime time TV be allowed to show human/beast affection of a non-graphic but obviously sexual variety as perfectly acceptable?
Should a pair of self confessed bestial orgyists be allowed to adopt children?
Would you feel comfortable answering the question of your children as to why the nice man next door seems sooooo fond of his sheep?Rationally I agree with what you say. Feeling wise it still seems more 'wrong' somehow.Is there a line?
If so where is it?
Is it the same line we would apply to the freedom of expression for other human sexual practices?
If not why not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Can you prove that 'normal sex' would not ever cause a disease to be threatening to the human population, or be a threat to anyone?I am not sure what your point is?What does disease have to do with immorality?

Hell No!!!I admire your consistency and on any rational and practical level completely agree.Disgust must not be a measure of what is right and wrong and thus be used to dicatate what is acceptable in society. No question.The reason I asked the original question is because I am finding it hard to reconcile my feelings on the subject with my logical conclusions.That difficulty remains. Man, that is a real pisser. I hate it when that happens.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Ok. But does that mean morality is (or should be) a majority decision?
If enough people believe that something is right does that make it morally acceptable?
Sureley there is (or should be) some rational basis for what is considered moral and what is not?In the UK capaital punishment (for example) is illegal and considered by many to be morally wrong (myself included).
BUT it may be considered to be morally right by many more than consider it morally wrong.
Should the law be changed on that basis or is there a rationale to morality that supersedes notions of 'majority rule'??
Lets not change topic to capital punishment this is just an example of majority vs morality.

We do lots of things to animals without their consent.I appreciate that your vegetarianism and general animal rights awareness makes you less of a hypocrite than most (including myself) in this respect.But still we do take the eggs of hens without their consent. We do force animals into lives of domesticity and hard labour work without asking their opinion first. We do effectively imprison animals in farms and zoos and homes to the point where they are institutionalised and can no longer survive in natural environments.We treat animals in ways that we would never ever treat humans.
Even the most animal rights aware of us indisputably do this.If consent is the only issue as regards morality then is keeping a pet rabbit, hamster or goat (against it's will) just as immoral as sexual intercourse with a sheep?I fully support the consent argument as regards inter-human sexual preferences.
BUT I think there are major problems applying this consent based approach consistently when discussing the morality of bestiality as compared to the other ways in which we treat animals.I don't know what the answers are. I ask the questions because I do not know the answers not because I have a point to prove.

Do you personally think bestiality is immoral? On what is your answer based?A majority decision is after all just a collection of personal views..
Surely the personal view regards the morality of a given activity should be a rational decision rather than one based on disgust or other such subjective criteria?

I used to be into sado-masochism, necrophilia and bestiality.I gave it up because I was flogging a dead horse.

Feelings undoubtably are given a role in practice. I am not sure most people think about 'why'. That is why if asked we end up trying to rationalise things which are not rational.As to whether they should have a role or not - I don't know.That is what this thread is exploring at root.What do you think in answer to your own questions?

Did I accidentally leave my webcam on again?

If it makes it safer and therefore more acceptable a law could be passed allowing only protected sex with animals. Maybe even 'bestial brothels' with only clean livestock.Does that help?

Not necessarily.I'm not sure that answers along the lines of 'bestiality is wrong because the bible says so' are going to be particularly helpful but discussion on the difficulties of rationalising morality against feelings of disgust etc. are welcome.Just lets avoid any unjustified comparisons to consenting humans. No need for that debate all over again.I have no doubt that watching a bunch of moral relatavists wrestle with the question of bestiality is quite a laugh from your absolutist position Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I accept what you say regards health etc.But where do you stand on it morally? As long as we keep the mutts in their rightful place and condoms are used can I take it you have no actual moral objection?

How rational is rational?If my little son turned out to be gay I really do not think I would have a significant personal difficulty with it.If my little (hypothetical, as only the one sprog so far) daughter turned out to have a major thing for goats and horses I would be absolutely fucking ashamed, shocked and devastated.If our decisions should be ultimately rational would my reaction be....wrong?How would you react in the same situation and how would you reconcile any differences with your rational side and your emotional side?