Is Bestiality Wrong?

There's nothing wrong with beastiality.We slaughter animal for food. We put them in cages and sometimes let them rot in there. We breed animal to feed other animal. We ground up animal to feed them back to their own kind. We use animal to guard our properties. We mutilate them and prevent them from bearing children. We do all of these things and more without ever considering if they would consent or not.So, clearly, we don't give them any right at all. The reason I can't just go next door and kick my neighbor's dog is because that dog is my neighbor's property. Heck, even if his dog bit me, his property insurance would get involve, implying that the dog is nothing more than property.Animal "rights" advocates have pushed through legislations to give animal INTERESTS. There's a difference. We don't give animal rights, but we give them interests.So, if we can bestow all of these things on animal, why the hell can't we have sex with them? Sure, the idea disgusts me, but that doesn't mean I can impose my taste on other people.So, fellas, if you want to have sex with your dogs, go right ahead. Just don't touch my dogs. I'll sue you for property damage and violation.

---

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!

I'm officially pissed because I wrote a lengthy reply and the message got lost because my dumbass clicked submit while my internet was unplugged. Let's look at it this way. If we can legislate beastiality because it disgusts you and me, why stop there? Hairy man-ass sex disgusts riverrat and his kind, so we should ban that too? How about vaginal sex? It digusts some gay people I know. Perhaps we should ban that too? Let's not stop there. Obesity and obese people disgusts me. We should ban them from showing up in public? Perhaps we can ban fatty foods as well? Fast food places ought to be banned?Where do we stop? Taste, or distaste, is never a good reason for legislation. Why not? Let me tell you a short story. During my last vacation, my wife and I visited a zoo. While waiting in line for lunch, the young couple ahead of us were really going at it. They were just one step from having vaginal sex right there in public. His tongue was visibly down her throat and vice versa. His hands were massaging her body. If his hands were 2 inches from where they were, they would have been massaging her breasts.I didn't mind much but my wife was bothered by it and wanted us to go elsewhere for lunch. Everyone else around us didn't seem to mind.We as a society tolerate such blatant public display of affection between and human male and a human female. What about other people of orientation? I'm pretty sure some people were disgusted by such public display of affection. How come we don't pass laws against straight people going at it in public?Oh, and did I mention that both these people were obese? I'd tell my children to mind their own business unless it harms them or other people. No line. Special interest groups draw their imaginary lines and want to force the rest of us to follow them. You really want to join their ranks?

---

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!

Can you prove that heterosexual sex would not ever cause a disease to be threatening to the human population, or be a threat to anyone?

---

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!

It's not that those of us who didn't treat rat's argument seriously didn't treat the issue seriously. His argument disguised in the form of a question reminded me of an interview I heard on the radio over the weekend.On NPR, they were talking about a Muslim community in the US trying to raise public awareness of their belief in peace and coexistence rather than the war-like images we see everyday on the major news networks. There was one interview of a Non-Muslim in this particular town that had a proportionally large Muslim community. The person being interviewed said that the Muslims in town do a lot of things that would make people suspect and worry. When he made that statement, I said in my head "like what?" Right enough, the reporter asked that man, "can you give us a few examples?" Then there came a long silence. After about a minute or two of silence (there were some background noises of people talking and cars driving by), the man said "well, I can't think of any off the tip of my tongue, but they do do a lot of suspicious things that concern a lot of us."Rat's question-argument was based on his prejudice. Does anyone here actually want to stand up and say that you believe Rat thought this through thoroughly before giving us that single sentence argument?Now, onto your (real) argument. Well... I'll explain why I would disagree as well as agree with this statement as I go along. You are quite right, of course. But this is no different than interactions between human populations throughout history. The colonization of the Americas was mostly due to old world diseases wiping out almost the entire population of the Americas. Even having promiscuous sex life endangers yourself and everyone around you, not to mention personal hygiene and such. Taking a monthly bath was a big improvement from not taking any bath at all. Taking a weekly bath was a big improvement from the monthly bath. Taking a shower/bath everyday was an even bigger improvement from the weekly bath.We've introduced condom, anti-biotics, and whatnot to help reduce the risks of person to person infections of the various diseases. All of these improvements that I have mentioned came from public health policies and encouragements that evolved as societies became more and more intermingled with one another.It doesn't require an interspecies disease to cause another pandemic. And a great deal of cultural knowledge has been embedded in moral strictures concerning personal hygiene as well as person to person contact. Why do you think a lot of the Jews were spared of the black plague? Circumcision also comes to mind that greatly reduced infection. The old testament also had a whole series of laws concerning cleanliness and uncleanliness.I don't think it's fair that you are only mentioning the cultural taboos regarding person to animal contact when there are an even greater amount of cultural taboos regarding person to person contact. For the record, I'm not a relativist. I'm a moral absolutist. Don't ask. Long story. {Added by edit: Why do you think I've stayed clear of the moral relativism thread?} No comment here. Is there a risk of introducing a dangerous pathogen to our community through contact with another community? Clearly, the answer is yes. But what is more important is the risk of introducing a dangerous pathogen to our community from another is even higher than the risk of introducing a dangerous pathogen to our species through beastiality. Why? Because the pathogens from another community have already been adapted to human physiology. The same thing cannot be said of most pathogens from other species.The most notable pandemics in history have always been the works of pathogens that had been plaguing man kind since the beginning of time. Compared to smallpox or the guinea worm disease, SARS was just a walk in the park. How can you possibly say this when clearly the most devastating pandemics in history have always been those caused by pathogens that have already been in the human populations for eons? I beg to differ.Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

---

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!

We're not Vulcans. Of course feelings have a say when it comes to decision making. Most people come upon their decision of whatever issue they are tackling through their feelings before trying to come up with a logical and, hopefully, consistent reason.This is not to say that we should stick with our feeling-derived decision till death do us part. We all should be careful when we are presented with another argument that counters our previous view. And we all should be prepared to change our minds when the other argument makes more sense. This, I think, is the hardest part and is in most cases against human nature.When I first stumbled upon the issue of beastiality, I reacted like most people. I condemned it outright because it disgusted me. But then as I thought it through, I found that my disgust for beatiality was very similar to my disgust to homosexuality before the Great Change. Sure, we all are disgusted by one thing or other. But in the end, we need to listen to our as well as others' rational side. The rightful role of our feelings is to be there when we don't have much time to react. Our feelings are important because they act as a quick decision making tool in times of need. I can't really see myself trying to tell a soldier when being shot at to think it through whether the enemy deserved being shot back at or not.But beyond that, our rational side should have priority over our feelings. Well... we are all human. Even Spock had a hard time trying to be feeling-free. Even Data couldn't be completely free of feelings. Heck, even the Doctor (Star Trek Voyager), aka Joe, went insane in one episode when he had a conflict between his feelings and his rational side. Captain Janeway had to wipe that portion of his memory matrix for him to be sane again. Oops, I let my trekkie side got out again.

---

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!

How educated is educated? I know it when I see it. I have met gay men that were sent to christian camps by their parents. I have also met gay men that were thrown out of the house by their morally superior christian parents at very young age.Think about what you are saying. You are essentially saying something like "I have no problem with American Indians, but them niggers I can shoot all day and not get tired." I wouldn't say wrong. I'd say your reaction would be closer to human nature than a rational reaction.It took human civilization 6 thousand years to figure out that nobody likes to be someone else's slave. Not a century ago, one of the most advance civilization on Earth committed horrific crimes against humanity without so much as a protest by its citizens.The fact is irrational reactions that are based purely on feelings are more natural than the rational ones. But you have to remember that just because a reaction is closer to your nature doesn't mean it is the best one to make. If you pull on a dog's tail, its natural reaction would be to jerk its head around and bite whatever that's pulling on its tail. Trust me, I know. It takes the dog extra efforts to not react in that way.A child who grows up without having morally developed role models will very likely have an underdeveloped conscience. This happened to me before I forced myself to develop a sense of conscience.So, whether you would react irrationally or rationally to your daughter pursuing happiness through having sex with goats and horses is entirely your choice. You can either control your emotion, which is probably the strongest driving force in our lives, or let it control you. Just remember that too many tragedies have happened in history because people decided to let their emotional and irrational side take over. Your choice. I don't know. But I'm not sure when it comes to it I would be capable of making a decision I would not regret later on. This is why we don't let people seek out vengence against murderers and rapists. I'm pretty sure if it happens to me, I'd be very emotional about it. But I have already told my wife to hit me on the head with a baseball bat if I ever lose control or let my emotion take over.******************************************************************I guess I should explain my background on this issue with emotion versus rational thought. I grew up in christian fundamentalist family with a father figure that almost never controled himself. I remember being struck at when I was little for spilling water on the table. I remember being beaten to almost unconsciousness everytime I did something wrong. I remember seeing my brothers and sisters get beaten for really minor things, like spilling a little water on the dinner table.The thing that really struck me when I was old enough was that I began to observe the same emotional reactions in my brothers and sisters. The personality trait that had made my father an abuser had been passed onto my brothers and sisters. What really scared me was when I noticed that I was also reacting purely with emotion and rage at really minor things, like girlfriend showing up 10 minutes late for a movie. The question I began to ask myself was when the hell would this cycle stop?Reacting with pure emotion IS part of human nature. It takes effort to try to think it through and not react as severely. Sure, it would piss you off to know your daughter likes to have sex with goats and horses. The question is will you control your emotion or let it control you?

---

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!

This is something that I keep having to remind religious folks. Not every issue is a moral issue. Someone else's private sex life isn't a moral issue anymore than whether I chose to go to the bathroom before or after breakfast.

---

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!

I don't agree. Rat's approach is nothing more than a childish attempt at getting the rest of us riled up and then sit back and watch other, more informed people that happen to remotely agree with what he implied make the argument for him.How often do we see the hit and run cases that look something like "evolution has been disproved again and again and again... creation has been proved again and again and again"? Almost in all of these cases, the person usually disappears and then the argument is left to the regular creationists to sort it out with the rest of us.No, when I see an approach like that single sentence argument (as if he's some wise old man that could reveal the secrets of the cosmos with a single sentence), I don't see why I have to waste my time with the person, especially when he hasn't made any real argument since. I don't deny prejudice here. But prejudice to what? Prejudice to rat? Of course not. Prejudice to the way he's threw out a knee jerk reaction to bait someone like to you make the argument for him? Sure. You are commiting a very fatal flaw in your logic.A drunken driver has a hell of a lot more chance at killing someone than a non-drunken driver. On the other hand, there's more of a chance for a killer disease to get passed from one population of humans to another than there is for one to cross from one species to another. You're analogy is faulty. How so?Beastiality is defined as a sexual contact between a human and an animal (I'm using the social definition of the word animal... if you want I'll start using technical terms for the sake of argument). A person to person sexual contact is NOT beastiality, unless you want to make the argument that people are also animal, which would be changing your entire line of argument.The fact remains. It is more likely for a pathogen already adapted to human physilogy to cause the next epidemic or pandemic than it is for a pathogen that have been adapted to another species.You want to really get on people's backs for public health? Make laws forbidding US citizens from having sex or make physical contact with people from other regions of the world. That is a much more rational choice than banning beatiality all together. I was going to ignore this statement, but what the heck. So, according to you, since we are just animal, I am committing beastiality everytime I have sex with my wife? (1) "Beginning of time" in this particular use is a reference to the beginning of human civilization. "Beginning of time" that you are thinking of is a scientific term used in physics to describe the beginning of the universe. But notice that we are talking about beastiality in the social sense, not physics. The main focus isn't even about the biology of the matter. The main question here is should it be morally and legally acceptable. Should have read what I wrote in context of the issue (2)Going back to the "beginning of time" thing, the guinea worm disease plagued the ancient egyptians, ancient greeks, ancient etc. and there are even records of them. Again, social convention of "beginning of time" here, not the nerdy reference. And I didn't say they arise in human species. I said they were adapted to the human species.We both agree that there are risks from both contacts with animal and contacts with other humans. What I am trying to tell you is that the risk for contracting a killer disease from another person is more likely than contracting a killer disease from an animal since there are already a myriad of pathogens already adapted to human species. On the other hand, getting some form of mutated animal adapted pathogen that now could cross into the human species is a much less likely scenario. Oh no, don't get me wrong. I fully recognize the the public health potential that could come from beastiality. What I am trying to point out is that the risk for contracting human adapted pathogen from an animal is a lot less likely than contracting a human adapted pathogen from another person. It doesn't make any sense to ban beastiality when having physical and sexual contact with people from more-often-than-not infested regions of the world like Africa is still A-OK. Ok, then let's cuff the goat that knowingly gave little Ashley her rashes.

---

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!

Nobody is saying we should ignore the less likely threat. What I am suggesting is we treat it like we treat the human to human diseases: we urge people to take precautions, we urge them to refrain from promiscuity whenever possible, we urge them to use the various devices/contraptions/inventions like condoms and whatnot to decrease the chances of infection.I think while you are pointing out that I misunderstood your argument you yourself have done the same thing. By substantiation, if you mean scientific studies on this then I have none. Having said that, just look at the history of severe epidemics and pandemics. Almost all, if not all, were caused by diseases in humans that have been around since forever.Let me turn this around and ask you this. Can you substantiate that having sex with a goat has more chances of you catching a killer bug than having sex with an African prostitute? What creo tactic? You were the one that brought up the point that technically speaking humans are animal, too. I didn't miss your point. I even said earlier that yes the human diseases are probably from other species. What I was getting at was that smallpox crossed species into our own regardless of beastiality or not. If anything, blame it on the lack of hygiene back than rather than beastiality.Your argument is getting eerily familiar to the anti-sodomy crowd. The argument goes like this. Since AIDS is more easily transmitted through anal sex, it ought to be banned. Rather than encouraging precautions like using condoms and whatnot, they want to ban it outright. You really think people will stop having sex with animal after it's banned? How is this an error? A pathogen that has been ravaging a population is expected to have evolved enough to get through the weaker immune systems, as was demonstrated by the various plagues that wiped out the population of the precolonized Americas. Huh? All I'm saying is rather than choosing the policy that would ban the act outright, why not encourage the various precautions to lessen the likelihood of animal to human transfer of diseases? Ok, forget what I said before. How does deeming it morally wrong or legally outlawed going to make it better? You are essentially making the same argument as the crowd that wanted to ban anal sex.The examples you presented, like the pox virus, had nothing to do with cow herders getting it on with their cows. This is like blaming the AIDS epidemic in Africa on homosexuality even though it has nothing to do with it.

---

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!

Sure, you jest. Here is what you said again.

quote:

---

Can you prove that bestiality would not ever cause a disease to be threatening to the human population, or be a threat to anyone?

---

The "would not ever" part tells me it is a loaded question. First of all, Straggler never claimed in the first post, the one you responded to, that beastiality would never ever introduce a new disease into the human population. Secondly, the answer to your question is obvious. It's so obvious that I can't believe you didn't already know the answer. So, the only other option is you just threw it out there for your amusement. Because not too long ago people like you defined homosexuality as a mental illness. Well, a lot of people still do define it that way.What I'm trying to do is to get you guys to take one step further. We've convinced you that the Native Americans shouldn't be enslaved. Now, we have to convince you that the Africans shouldn't be enslaved either. I wish I could just say that no person should be enslaved, but you guys aren't at that level of moral sophistication yet.

---

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!

And I already addressed this portion of the debate also. You should stop quote mining me. Vaginal sex also has the potential to pass along dangerous pathogens. Is that wrong, too? It came from god. Happy?Ok, you get a memo from god that says beastiality is wrong and I'll stop arguing. Another loaded question. Not in my book. If you've missed this, I already said many times that I'm a moral absolutist. And I already addressed this, but for some reason you just ignored it. All forms of physical contacts have the potential to pass along diseases that we'd rather not have. Ok, let's make it a law forbidding all forms of sexual activity, including vaginal sex. How will people reproduce? They go to a lab and get invitro. Happy? What on Earth are you talking about? How is it useless? Getting a disease from having sex with a goat is a lot less likely than getting a disease from having sex with a sexually promiscuous person. It takes just the right mutations for a pathogen to cross species, but the ones that already exist in humans can continue to be passed on among humans. If disease is truely your concern, we should make it mandatory for everyone to reproduce through a lab rather than sex. Ok, since the rate of infection of AIDS is right now highest among straight black women who are getting them from straight black men, who in turn are getting them from other black women, we should ban black people from having sex.I just can't believe you really believe your own argument, seeing how obviously flawed it is. If disease really is your concern, why not address the mainstream sexual behaviors? Why target minority groups? What's your agenda? Just tell us directly.

---

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!

Archer, I really enjoyed reading your little story there. Very clever storyline and some twists. But notice that the only person that hailed it as a good comparison with what we are talking about is someone that not many posts ago admitted that she was going to be stubborn about this.I think your comparison is flawed for several reasons. We are currently talking about people's private lives, specifically private sex lives. Noone here is advocating beastiality out in the open for all to see. That would be an indication of mental illness.Furthermore, at least where I work, even though there isn't much of a dress code, everyone is expected, both professionally and socially, to not be too... liberal when it comes to clothing. For example, just because our dress code is relaxed doesn't mean Nancy can come in with one of her breasts hanging out. Dick's dick shouldn't be in the sun light either.Is there something wrong with Bob wanting to wear his underwear on the outside inside out in the privacy of his home? I think you would agree that no there is nothing wrong with that. I go around in my underwear at home all the time. Is there something wrong with Bob wanting to wear his underwear on the outside inside out at work? I don't think there's anyone here who would disagree with you that yes there is something wrong with Bob's mental state.But that's not to say we should haul him straight to the nuthouse right away. I'd talk to Bob first to see if he is aware of this act. I'd ask him why he wanted to display this seemingly rebellious act. I'd ask him to consider how the rest of us are feeling toward his choice of clothing. I'd ask him many questions before deciding what to do next.While in college, my friend and I had a bet to see who could go around outside the longest barefooted. And this was in Febuary. So, I proceeded to go to all my classes barefooted. People gave me really weird stares while I was running through the snow filled walkways. Some people had some concerns and approached me about this and I explained to them what was going on. According to you, I should have been put in a straight jacket without a chance to explain myself.So, no, I don't think your analogy really matches up with what we are talking about here. If anything, it looks more like an emotive argument dressed in clever and humorous wordings.Again, I really enjoyed reading that story.

---

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!

Throwing out anything that you can cook up to support what you already admitted is something you're going to be stubborn about no matter what isn't going to be helpful, especially your cause on the matter.

---

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!

I will respond to everyone in another couple days or so. I'm giving ample time for some people to calm down.

---

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!

Nope, not what he was saying at all. He's just trying to prevent you from forcing your view on others. Other than that, you can consider it as wrong as you want to.

---

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!