CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
should Zoophilia/Zoosexuality be legal
I know there is a debate like this but it not active. I don't think people should be against something thats not even wrong. And please leave god out of this. To let you all know I will answer all your arguments
I say a size limit should be medium dog size anything that is under a medium size dog is not legal. Anything thats bigger or as same as a medium size dog is legal. So were talking about animals that are a size medium dog or bigger.
And please look to the right to see if I are ready answered your question.
Extremely barbaric to impose upon an unaware being. Can't imagine how this could be seen as "OK" by anyone. People attracted to other species should seek council to avoid raping any unsuspecting animals... how fucked up can people be
I am not sure I just know that I would give up anything and everything to prove it. I would keep cameras all over my house if I have too. I am to in love. If cameras does come down to it so be it. I would rather lose my privacy. Then not be able to give my love his needs. But wait maybe they can qualify their consent. Their are not good studys proven they can't. I can't say much when it comes to making a law. But I still believe they can make it possible. For those who are willing to give up anything for it.
What is typed does not have to be long. What is not given the zoo is what they already have and that is love that works no ill to their neighbor. Give them that love back. It is only fair to do so.
To even have this conversation means there is no freedom. People need to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling rather than give the zoo fear and trembling. It should be a no brainier. Let zoo be legal. It is up to the individual to be good to the non human animals not working ill to them or another human being for that matter.
It is like having sex with a young toddler. The animal can't consent to it like the child can't and also it would probably be traumatic and scary for the animal like how it would be for a young child.
Lacking a common language, a human cannot consent to sex with an animal either. In the case of a woman allowing herself to be mounted by, say, a dog, is she still raping the dog who has quite obviously chosen to mount her? Or is the dog raping her because the dog did not secure HER consent first?
Note: I do not condone zoophilia in any way, I just question the reasoning here and the assumption that it must be traumatic and scary. Mature animals may have an intellect on par with a toddler, but that doesn't make a sexually mature animal equivalent to a toddler. I'm also aware that you never said rape, but it's the logical extension when you're talking about inability to consent. Perhaps statutory rape would have been a better term.
Alot of normal dogs will rape anything. If the dog has a bond with the woman then he would first ask in some way or form. After that the dog must understand your boby movements. If then you show your body movements to him in away your allowing it. He will then do the act that he wants to do. No she would not be rapping as long as she does not force it.
This is all lies. You can go on the internet and find videos upon videos of people being mounted by dogs, then they show body language and verbal cues that they do not want what is happening, and the dog will continue to mount until stopped.
Also, you say that the dog will ask somehow. I do not believe you at all. Give me a link, or a source, and or an example of how and when a dog has asked it's master for sex.
Yes what he said was true. But he was trolling this debate to that the real reason why I banned him. Not only that it offends me. Because zoophilia are not like that.
I will unban drawfour. but J I did some wrong. But he will stay banned because he downvoted me alot. He gave up debating with me. And he could not agree with anything.
Cool. I am glad that you are willing to change your mind at times - that is not always the case here.
he will stay banned because he downvoted me alot.
I don't think I would miss the downvote feature if it was removed altogether - it seems to create more drama than it is worth sometimes. However, I would not consider it reason enough to ban someone from making arguments.
He gave up debating with me.
In that case, unbanning him would have no detrimental effect.
And he could not agree with anything.
If you are looking for people to agree with you, a debate site may not be the answer ;)
I guss I will unban him. But when I said he didn't agree with anything. I meant he didn't even reason with anything that I said. But whatever. I unban him.
If I cut my brain apart to get at equal level so there would be no taking advantage of. Then would you allow it or would you still come up with another lame excuse.
Er, did you read my post? While I don't personally condone or approve of zoophilia, my last post was actually supporting your position. My distaste for such is a personal view, I don't believe or assert that it's an issue of objective morality (if such even exists) nor do I believe that terms like 'rape' are applicable here for reasons I've already listed. If you want to sleep with animals I'm not going to try and stop you- just do it in private, and not with any of my animals. Whether I 'allow' it or not is completely immaterial.
People need to fear God not people saying whoever or whatever did not consent. I guess body language means nothing then. The dog does not give a damn. It will hump anything. People need to fear he that is not seen being sure that their tender mercies are not cruel to whoever whatever activity including sex. That eliminates laws leaving whoever accountable to God. People are not immortal you know.
What you are looking for is something called "informed consent" and not just consent.
Two adults have the mental capacity AND background knowledge to know the risks and other issues that go along with this type of relationship.
While an animal may have sex with a willing participant they are not informed of the negative/positive issues that stem from these relationships.
In this context the animal is being taken advantage of.
If you believe animals do have this capacity and base your decision on this factor then you should have no problem with animal testing. This is not saying you can find another reason to disagree with animal testing.
I am fully aware that the idea of informed consent in legal circles is different and much stricter. I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent. No one who has a pet, no one who has partook in any animal derived products has ever had informed consent from any animals. It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action. Something that requires the ability to predict the future with 100% certainty.
In practice what is meant by informed consent is that one party discloses any information about the interaction which may reasonably be expected to affect the other’s decision. If one party does not have the information it cannot be given. If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement.
I can't keep typing, The rest of this argument is on the right of the page. Please read all.
Really. Just ban me. You can't win. You barely have a working knowledge of grammar let alone issues of consent. This argument you give is obviously not your own, you can see via the grammar used. I googled it to see where you ripped this from, word for word even.
You can't even think for yourself and just got caught ripping someone else off for their argument!
Where I disagree with his argument is he supposes that in one instance with the doctor they would go for safe way and presuppose they want to be saved, but then for animals you just don't have to presuppose that they would want whats best for them.
He applies his logic both ways. If you follow his logic you can have sex with people in comas, or incapacitated women.
As for the rest of the drivel you typed...
Already addressed the points you keep repeating. You are using an incorrect definition of 'informed consent' again. You keep leaving out ability and the fact that is must be sufficient and not 100% as that is impossible. If you follow your definition there would be no such thing as child rape. I will address this further...again...below.
If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement.
By this stolen definition you use you then make the same mistake of applying it incorrectly. With this definition you would not need informed consent when dealing with children, so they can give consent for medical procedures and sex. Well, this is wrong. In terms of incapacitated patients and doctors it is assumed they would want procedures to save their lives unless otherwise stated (DNR bracelet for example). This is not the same thing as capability.
Faden, R. R.; Beauchamp, T. L. (1986). A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press.
Beauchamp, Tom L.; Childress, James F. (1994). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (Fourth ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
"For an individual to give valid informed consent, three components must be present: disclosure, capacity and voluntariness. While Disclosure requires the researcher to supply the subject with the information necessary to make an autonomous decision, the investigators must ensure that subjects have adequate comprehension of the information provided. This latter requirement implies that the consent form be written in lay language suited for the apprehension skills of subject population, as well as assessing the level of understanding during the meeting. Capacity pertains to the ability of the subject to both understand the information provided and form a reasonable judgment based on the potential consequences of his/her decision. Voluntariness refers to the subject’s right to freely exercise his/her decision making without being subjected to external pressure such as coercion, manipulation, or undue influence. "
See how I used quotes and credited the authors of this? You probably won't read this and say I did what you did. Well I am using professionals and citing their findings you are trying to pass someones work off as your own.
Please read all.
You should do this. Plenty of people here have shown you haven't done this action. The fact that we already discussed this and the links I provided show you are incorrect with your definition shows this.
I can't argue with someone that likes to be stupid and not caring. So there for I ban you for being a loser and a child. And everything that you have said has been defeated by me and other people. And I would like for you to stop hating. I spell bad because I don't care about spelling something that someone going to argue with. After the fact I am right. Please before you debate with anyone else about informed consent you should learn more about it.
If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement.
Our current system of laws gives weight to knowledge and intent, do you believe this is improper? For instance, should someone who accidentally causes a death be punished in exactly the same manner as someone who commits premeditated murder? If I don't know that I have AIDS and have sex with someone, should I be punished exactly the same as if I know I have AIDS and then deliberately engage in unprotected sex with someone without telling them?
If I go to Africa and find someone who does not speak my language but is willing to have sex, is it "not considered a requirement" for me to convey to them I have AIDS because they speak a different language?
If I go to Africa and find someone who does not speak my language but is willing to have sex, is it "not considered a requirement" for me to convey to them I have AIDS because they speak a different language?
No, It is still his,her choice if they want to take the risk of sex with someone that they don't know, Thats there fault. Unless the person that has a disease and new about it, But still did the act anyway is in fault.
Animals do know that there are disease and that they can die. So just like in the wild. It there choice to take. But also that why people need to go to the doctors. And take there animal to the vet. If they don't do this. Then it the human fault if either one of them gets sick or dies. And that should be in the law that you don't have to inform your partner. But you have to be honest with your self if you know you have a disease. You should not consent to the act in the first place. And if you do consent knowing you have a disease. It your fault and you could go to jail.
It may just be the way I am reading your grammar, but this part seems to say that you disagree:
It is still his,her choice if they want to take the risk of sex with someone that they don't know, Thats there fault.
And these seem to indicate that you agree:
Unless the person that has a disease and new about it, But still did the act anyway is in fault.
and if you do consent knowing you have a disease. It your fault and you could go to jail.
Animals do know that there are disease and that they can die.
A few animals understanding the symptoms of some diseases in their own species population is quite different than all of the relevant animals having the applicable knowledge of how diseases are transmitted, what disease symptoms, if any, present in human populations, or an understanding of available prophylactic options.
it the human fault if either one of them gets sick or dies.
A few animals understanding the symptoms of some diseases in their own species population is quite different than all of the relevant animals having the applicable knowledge of how diseases are transmitted, what disease symptoms, if any, present in human populations, or an understanding of available prophylactic options.
No, alot of animals now there symptoms in there own species and others. They know some ways on how there transmitted. I don't get all your trying to say here. If the animal does the act with out informed consent anyway why does it matter.
No, alot[sic] of animals now[sic] there[sic] symptoms in there[sic] own species and others.
Is there any evidence that the relevant species can detect STDs in humans?
They know some ways on how there[sic] transmitted.
I need some evidence for this one too.
I don't get all your[sic] trying to say here.
Mostly I was arguing against the claim that "If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement." I am still not sure from your post above if you agree or disagree.
If the animal does the act with out informed consent anyway why does it matter.
This depends in part on your opinion from above. If, as the end of your previous post "It your fault and you could go to jail." suggests, you think that if someone knows they have a disease, the act should be illegal, then at least the analogous scenario should be illegal with animals, correct?
From there I would ask about the extent of responsibility for the human to be in a position to know - what if a person just purposefully never gets tested to avoid having knowledge that they have an STD? what if a person is experiencing symptoms and reasonably should know they have something that might be transmissible? What if a person takes reasonable precautions, but still ends up infecting an animal?
P.S. - to indicate comments from someone else, I generally use three asterisks (*'s) before what they say and three after. One puts things in italics, 2 makes things bold, and 3 will make them bold and italic. Of course you could also just put a dash in front or put in quotes, etc....
I don't have evidence. I just have information that I found on that.
same here I don't get all this online. I am sorry.
What I say is if the animal can't receive everything it need to know about risk/rewards. Then it must at least know that there are risk/rewards in the act to make a choice to do the act or not.
If the human takes the responsibility. The human must see the doctor regularly and take the dog to the vet regularly.
If in any case the dog is still end up getting infected even after the reasonable precautions. Like I said it was the dogs choice to take the risks to do the act. But still the human needs to take the reasonable precautions and take the dog to the vet to get better.
I don't have evidence. I just have information that I found on that.
same here I don't get all this online. I am sorry.
Actual studies that have been done show that a small number of breeds of some species can detect some diseases in humans. This is far from all of the relevant animals and none of the diseases detected so far (cancer, anxiety, hypoglycemic shock, etc.) are STDs.
If it were the case that all of the relevant animals could detect all of the relevant diseases (or even close to that), some evidence would exist somewhere in a book, movie, magazine, or in the entirety of the internet such that a citation could be made. People on this site do not (nor should they be expected to) just take assertions for fact. I am not an anthropologist or biologist and, in order for my argument to have weight, I must substantiate my assertions. As far as the people on this site are concerned, you are a random guy on the internet with atrocious spelling/grammar and no extraordinary c.v. to mention - therefore you must similarly provide substantiation for your assertions or be prepared to have them disregarded.
it must at least know that there are risk/rewards in the act to make a choice to do the act or not.
Instinctive drive for sexual pleasure does not require knowledge of any risks.
-----------------------
You may not agree with these suppositions, but I will pose a simplified view of my perspective as a hypothetical question:
If you believed that the law that you are seeking was untenable - e.g. there are not enough police, prosecutors, judges, biologists, veterinarians, tax dollars, etc. to enforce it,
And that you must then choose making zoosexual acts largely or entirely legal or illegal,
And you believe that having it be legal would increase the cases of animal rape (along with other consequences)
I am sorry but I don't have nothing to say about the top.
I don't think it would increase animal rape by much.
I think we should make it largely legal But save some states or countrys for people that are deeply against this. I still care about people that are against animal sex.
Let me till you a true story when I was young.
I was young about 12 or 13 age. I just found out that I had sexual feelings for animals. I thought about it more and more. Then I told my friend at school about how I feel. "She said your disgusting" Then I tryed to tell her that I was not going to rape a animal but she did not believe me so she told my parents. My parents was so mad they said "having sex with a animal is down right disgusting and wrong" I cryed so long in my room. I was afraid to show my self at school. I was lucky that my friend did not tell anyone at school. I tryed to argue with her but she said again and again "it wrong and it is never going to be legal" I can't type any more please keep reading on my next posting.
And no matter how I didn't wanted to believe that. But I did I believed what she said I was so so sad. I didn't know what to do with my life I cryed for so many days. I wanted to kill my self so bad I was just to scared to do it my self. I stayed that way for a long time.
My point is that if we make this legal, Kids that feel the same way about animals would not have to grow up how I did. Yes I favor it becoming legal. I spent like three years hating my life. And it a good thing for animals too if we make this legal. It could bring in lots more money helping them. And that a animal would not have to go there life with out love. It could help with alot of things.
And I have question for you. If someone told you that you will never be with something that you care/love/feelings so much about. How would you feel.
It can be either way around the animal may take advantage of it. Or the human may take advantage of it. I am just fine on animal testing as long as we do it to humans too. You can say the same for humans. Animals know most of the negative/positive issues that stem from relationships.
It can be either way around the animal may take advantage of it.
Disagree, you are leaving out a key element of 'informed consent'. The animal does not have the advantage of the background knowledge that the person has (this counts the person being willfully ignorant as well). I am not talking about who is doing who here.
A mentally challenged 24 year old may consent to sex with another 24 year old who is not mentally challenged but this does not mean the it is ok if the mentally challenged person does not have the capacity to understand the relationship and risk/rewards fully. The person has consent, but not 'informed consent'.
I don't have much to say about this. But I know it doesn't matter if your mentally challenged or not. Alot of people don't know the risk/rewards fully. They still do the act anyway. Your point has little effective but not much. If the person did not like that he doesn't know the risk/rewards fully. Then they would not be in the relationship. So if the animal cared about the risk/rewards fully. Then they would not do the act. Not saying the act is bad just saying if they cared they would not take the chance.
I know it doesn't matter if your mentally challenged or not. Alot of people don't know the risk/rewards fully. They still do the act anyway.
It does matter. This is about ability/responsibility. Animals or some mentally challenged people do not have the ability to know these things to the extent a non mentally challenged adult would, those who do have the ability bear the responsibility to educate themselves. If they do not educate themselves they have no one to blame but them selves.
If someone has the ability but is willfully ignorant they still bear the responsibility regardless if they want it or not.
So if the animal cared about the risk/rewards fully. Then they would not do the act.
As an animal does not have the ability to know the risks/rewards fully the person engaging in the act with them who does have the ability is taking advantage of the animals lack of ability.
It doesn't matter. Poeple don't just look up everything about the persen there with. It takes years to know someone. The person you with could be a killer. But that your choice if you want to take that risk to go in a relationship to do that act yes there may be a risk or reward. But that is always your choice unless there are forced. Then that wrong. Nobody ever knows the risk/rewards fully.
You can't take advantage of there lack ability. Unless your trying too. The animal knows there is risk/reward. They may not know what the risk/reward is? But they still do the act anyway. And we the same we don't know the risk/rewards fully. But we still do the act anyway.
that your choice if you want to take that risk to go in a relationship to do that act yes there may be a risk or reward.
You are skipping the whole ability part of the issue. I even italicized ability. If the person has the ability then they bear the responsibility to learn the risk rewards.
The you state that the animals know the risk reward but not what it is. This has to do with ability, not responsibility. Animals do not have the ability to know the risks/rewards.
Nobody ever knows the risk/rewards fully.
Fully in this for an adult adequate comprehension of the information. No statutory rape case would get off of the ground if it were 'fully' as in everything. In science terms no doctors even know these fully as there is no such thing as complete science.
Informed consent isn't just a term I am throwing around here. It is used extensively in the medical sciences, social sciences and legal fields. You can google it to see large amounts of scholarly articles discussing the issue. The wiki would be a good start for someone wanted a quick and dirty version of it.
Yes they bear the responsibility to learn the risk rewards. And people do learn what they can on risk rewards. Animals do have the ability to know risk rewards too. But what is your point. And I know what the term means I am science man.
Animals do have the ability to know risk rewards too.
You first agreed animals cannot know these and it didn't matter because people do not always know the risk rewards. That is why we discussed ability and responsibility, which the animals do not have, lack of language development of sufficient levels being the first factor that impedes this. So you are now changing your stance here.
You now are making a positive claim of yes they do which means you think you have information that shows they do. You bear the onus to verify this. Links to what verifies this?
Here are some professionals that deny animals can have informed consent.
I never said they didn't have the ability. I said they can't understand it as good as we can. Animals do know things about risk and reward. I don't get my research from online. So I can't give you links. But I insure you I am up to date on all this stuff. I can tell you that Animals have the ability. Example I seen in my studys that pack dogs know when another member is sick or not healthy. They find this out by the members movement, the way they act, changes on there body, sometimes they even leave the pack because the member knows he is sick and going to die.
I just don't see why imformed consent has this much to do with this topic. I know everything about this stuff. I just think your making a big deal out of nothing.
I said they can't understand it as good as we can.
Which is the whole issue. Same reason why adults can not / should not have relations of this sort with children.
You state you know about such ideas then show you do not.
You have no proof of your stance what so ever.
I just don't see why imformed consent has this much to do with this topic.
It applies in cases of where sex happens, that is why it is relevant. You are being willfully ignorant of such concepts and how they apply in this situation; it applies in cases of consent. I linked you lots of resources on this including a professional veterinarian association. You clearly do not have this concept down even though you claim to be a person of science.
Ban me if you want, I am done wasting time with you as you have proved incredibly lacking. This is a public forum, the overwhelming majority of people who read this will see you have no leg to stand on. My goal wasn't to change your mind, but rather to explore why I feel you are incorrect on this.
Believe me or not I don't care because I know I am right. If you think some stupid links prove anything your wrong. I not going to bann you because if you want to try again you can. Like everything you said last argument was false. I worked my hole life working with animals. If you can't believe that will that your problem not mine.
informed consent. Then how are we to feed are animals if we can't inform them the risks and rewards. Then how are we to give shots if we can't inform them the risks and rewards. Then how are we to even own them if we can't inform them of the risks and rewards of that. Then how are we to neuter and spay if we can't inform them the risks and rewards. If we can't give informed consent to them. Then all this is wrong. And it should be banned too.
Your definition and application of this is still off, you seem to be tacking 'informed consent' onto all forms of 'consent' now. Words have specific meanings and if you use them out of context it doesn't make the idea incorrect, it makes your application incorrect. You really should look it up, this will prevent you from making claims such as the feeding claim.
Feeding and sex are not equal under claims of consent, anyone should be able to see this.
Feeding and the like fall under consent, not informed consent, as feeding and the like are quite basic needs. You can feed a starving kid if they consent (beg/ask for food) because they understand this basic need at a sufficient level, you cannot take their consent for vaccines though as that requires a higher understanding of the issue. Their parents can consent as they have the ability to view the issue at a higher level of informed consent.
We take the role of a parent when we are giving shots to an animal as they cannot give informed consent, we make the choice for them as we would a child as they do not have the ability to view the issue at a sufficient level.
We already discussed being willfully ignorant/ignorant and the issue of responsibility. An adult holds the responsibility to have the proper knowledge to deny/accept these ideas as they have the ability.
Your argument falls apart on the ability portion of 'informed consent'. This is the same reason why adults cannot take a child's consent for sex. The child lacks the ability, even if they think they have the ability.
I read everything about informed consent before even posting. Food would fall under informed consent because it apart of health. It still would be wrong to give shots because you can't inform them. And it is only human view that it is are responsibility. But for real it not are responsibility. And either way animals have the choice. They understand there is risks and rewards. There for it not hamuns fault, That they do the act anyway.
Food would fall under informed consent because it apart of health.
You are saying children have the same capacity to be informed on being hungry/food are equal in quality to their information on sex/relationships.
By this logic I can assume you feel that a 30 year old adult can have consent for sex from a 6 year old child.
Here is a primer for you to start with the concept you are showing you do not grasp. You can jump to more academic sources if you grasp this at some point in time.
You keep asserting things you refuse to prove. You keep asserting you understand things that you have shown you don't. You also keep asserting things that I have already shown to be wrong.
Your argument is weak, everyone can see that it is. Saying "nuh uh" doesn't undo any points I have made nor does ignoring points. Your inability to understand very basic concepts alludes to you just trolling or being much younger than you claim.
I am not looking to discuss such issues with children or someone trolling.
Like I said before, my goal isn't to change your mind but to show where I disagree.
Unless you have anything relevant to say I am done. Last word is yours.
I gave you another chance to state that I am right. But you are acting like a child. Everything you have said is just hate mail. I am probably for sure more experience on this topic then you. And if you can't stop lying about me and being a hater. I will bann you. And yes I read that link at the beginning before even posting again. I don't think you get that animals know that there is risks and rewards. So please learn that. And since animals know that there is risks and rewards. It would be there fault for doing the act.
If I cut my brain apart to get at equal level so there would be no taking advantage of. Then would you allow it or would you still come up with another lame excuse.
If animals can't consent we should bann everything. If you say animals can't consent then it is wrong to neuter animals because they can't consent too it. Then it is also wrong to put animals in kennels because they can't consent to it. Then it is also wrong to hunt animals because they can't consent to it. Then it is also wrong to put collars and cloths on a animal because they can't consent to it. Then it is also wrong to even own a animal because they can't consent to it. Then it is also wrong to keep the animals fenced in because they can't consent to it.
Absense of consent would not make things that are in the animals best interest immoral. The issue then would be what the person truly believed was in the animals best interest - though this would be a measure of morality not whether something should be legal.
If an animal does not consent to being our pet, the harm done is that the animal becomes our pet; if an animal does not consent to sex, then it is basically being raped - the harms/benefits of those two scenarios are drastically different.
Nothing that I listed was in animals best nterest. A male does not want to be neuter he would not agree to that. It only in humans best nterest. Most people look at morality in gods view.
Yes I agree if animals could not consent it would be rape but doesn't mean two wrongs make a right.
As you mentioned in another post, millions of animals die in kennels every year. Neutering helps to minimize the excess animal population relative to the number of people who take those animals in.
Most people look at morality in gods view.
I do concede that one reason people have not stopped eating animals is that many religions specifically allow it. I also agree that some people give no more thought to the morality of bestiality than 'the bible says it is wrong, therefore it is wrong'. However, I assure you god's view is not the foundation of my opinion.
There are many different ways. We don't need to be taking there malehood away. I mean watch your dog 10 minutes a day or buy a fence. I am against spaying too. But I find it better then neutering.
Good, I can keep arguing then. So what is your opinion right now. Are you saying I am wrong to give my life, body, love and everything else I can give to my dog.
what if your dog has sex during the other 1430 minutes in a day?
or buy a fence.
this works as long your dog can't jump over the fence or dig under the fence, and no one accidentally leaves a gate open, and you never take your dog to the dog park or elsewhere outside the fence, and, and...
I am against spaying too. But I find it better then neutering.
Why is that?
Good, I can keep arguing then.
absolutely
Are you saying I am wrong to give my life, body, love and everything else I can give to my dog.
I know zoophiles do not like the pedophile comparison, but bear with me for a minute.
If someone came to you and said:
I really really love my 4 year old child (or 8 or 11, etc. - feel free to qualify your answer based on age), and I would never do anything to harm them. She asks me to have sex and I would do anything for her. I make sure I am disease free with regular doctor visits. I can't help that I am more attracted to children than adults. Pedophilia being stigmatized and generally illegal makes me distraught, fearful, and often very depressed to the point of contemplating suicide. Besides, there are lots of things we do to kids without consent like vaccinations, etc.
Would a person telling you those things make you think that sex with children should be made legal? What major distinctions do you see between that case and this?
I am so sorry. My computer keys are not working or it just the computer.
Like that why you be smart and not leave them out there that long.
I take my dog to the lake with another dog. We go for walks. And do lots of things out side.
Because it more common for women to do it anyway.
I would say, I am very sorry. But I can't help you kids are just to young. But maybe someday, It will be possible. Hold on!!!
Yes I guss I feel bad for them. But it not there time. It zoophilia time to get there rights. Because it is possible. Just like gays rights
.
The difference is it not possible for pedophiles. Not in this time but maybe someday. And zoophilia it is possible. We have proven alot of things. The only big thing that is in are way is religion.
I don't think he would do that. But if he does I got money to pay for the abortion.
I meant that women commonly get them own selfs spayed anyway.
You don't have to help us. You just need to stop going against us.
I am not saying that in a wrong way. I just mean that someday people can transform them selfs to look like kids. And that in this time period we can't transform in to kids. But maybe someday we can.
Can you guarantee that you could/would capture the other animal, even if it is ferrel, and take it to have said emergency spaying/abortion done.
I meant that women commonly get them own selfs spayed anyway.
um, what?
You don't have to help us. You just need to stop going against us.
In keeping with the analogy, what would you say to pedophiles who said the same?
I just mean that someday people can transform them selfs to look like kids. And that in this time period we can't transform in to kids. But maybe someday we can.
Then should zoophiles wait until we can transform into animals (or create robot animals, etc.)?
Nothing is ok for taking away there rights. There are still alot of different ways we can go about this.
Never mind.
I am sorry but kids are now matter what still to young.
Why should we, Many of scientists as proven animals can consent and sex with them would not cause anymore or any less harm then what it could cause a human. I am not saying let anybody have sex with animals. Just people that has proven them selfs that they only have sexual feelings for animals.
Why is this not applicable to pedophiles? Why should sex with animals be a right?
I am sorry but kids are now matter what still to young.[sic]
and Many of scientists as proven animals can consent[sic]
Too young in what way? They can "consent" at least in a similar way as the relevant animals.
sex with them would not cause anymore or any less harm then what it could cause a human.[sic]
Sex with humans takes into account several factors which are not applicable to animals - informed/qualified consent, etc.
There are also several laws related to the practice - rape, statutory rape, pedophilia, sex with those of diminished capacity, who are in a coma, are brain dead/dead, etc.
Sex with humans provides additional benefits - e.g. the propagation of the species...
I am not saying let anybody have sex with animals. Just people that has proven them selfs that they only have sexual feelings for animals.[sic]
How is someone to prove this? Also, why would the same treatment not apply to pedophiles?
I am not saying any of this is easy.
Correct - if anything you are showing how difficult, if not impossible, what you are advocating would really be in practice.
I really don't want to talk about pedophiles. They are not what I am fighting for and even know we are somewhat similar we are not the same.
I see, but there are still alot of reasons why sex with animals is probably even better. For one sex with animals doesn't give a big risk of disease to either party. For two having sex with out getting a baby is a good thing it could mean less homeless kids and animals to feed and it would help out with alot of other things too.
Maybe look at there history see if they showed any feelings for animals or if there is no history of that. Maybe have a interview and have them explain why they love and have feelings for them.
I feel bad for pedophiles sometimes but I am not going to fight for them. There battle is not my battle. I am just simply not going to go with them or against them.
Love is what is need to be given to beings who already have it. The ranter is void of it. Your complaining makes you righteous? people use probably and maybe not having a clue. You are not the judge. Guess who is?
We are responsible to one unseen being for what we do good or evil. People put others in bondage trying to give their form of justice. They are giving people fear. It is up to us to not see God as fire. When a human tries to give justice they end up giving fire. Satan is the one who gives fire. We need to give the water of life. The holy spirit is he water of life and the comforter. That is what we need in us.
Often they are compared to children because of their position in our society, and from hence we hear the argument that they can't consent and that sex with animals is akin to child abuse. The flaw in this argument is that while there are some similarities, the differences are much greater. Namely that adult animals can hunt for their own food, care for themselves, raise their own young and most importantly are sexually mature.
what did you post earlier. True they can't consent in away as saying yes I love you too lets have sex) But doesn't mean they can't show it. Having sex with a animal is not like having sex with a toddler. Animals would not be afraid to have sex with a human.
That why you don't do that. You need to let them come to you. And the animal needs to be a good size. Sometimes you need to get down to there level for them to understand what your wanting to do.
Posting the debate several times won't make more people agree with you. Just for fun though, say we all agree that it should. What would this prove? I mean I am asking you, goodmale personally, what will be achieved by having some nobodies agree with you that zoosexuality isn't wrong, and should be legal?
It would not prove anything knowing that it has already been proven in many states and some countrys. Made this debate because there was to like this that was removed. I just samply here because some people still believe it wrong.
youre a freaking monkey loving douche-surf! this is sick stuff and people that like it should be strung up by their scrotum and shocked with a car battery!
Are you for neutering/spaying or anything that has things to do with consent. Also you still have to show a example of how they can't consent and maybe give links if you can. I can simply give one right know showing they can consent example, Asking your dog if it needs to go out side and then the dog will show body language trying to say yes or no. I know this is weak example but there are a lot more.
Are you for neutering/spaying or anything that has things to do with consent.
I am for neutering and spaying because it is for the good of the species. There are 5-7 million homeless animals in the world, and 3-4 million are killed in shelters because they can't find a home. Neutering and spaying helps prevent this. Of course they cannot consent to this, because they're animals, and you're their master.
There are laws against 40 year olds having sex with 10 year olds, even if the 10 years olds consent. Do you know why? It's because the 40 year old is much more experienced, and in turn, has a lot of power over the 10 year old. (The same laws apply to therapist having sex with their clients, teachers having sex with their students, etc.) It is considered statutory rape.
The reason that these laws are in place (position of power) could also be applied to the reason you can't have sex with your dog. Your dog isn't as intelligent as a human being and you're his master. These are both reasons why you are in a position of power. If we were to legalize having sex with animals, it would put us in an uncomfortable position; where do we draw the line? Can 40 year olds then start having sex with 10 year olds, since the position of power doesn't seem to matter?
Why not neuter and spay humans because if anything there are more homeless humans then animals because basically most animals live out doors anyways and we don't. There are millions of kids that die because they can't even eat and there are no masters just alpha.
Animals are adults not kids and therapist can still have sex with their client if there in a relationship. You are saying human1 can't be with human2 just because that human2 can't do something in the relationship that human1 can. There is no wrong with inequally has long has that person doesn't take advantage of the other person.
No animal looks at there mate as a master and zoophilia aren't masters even in the human view there just mates. I want to know if you were a animal, would you want to have sex with a women that cares about you and respects you or would you want to be neutered and be nothing more then just a house pet.
basically most animals live out doors anyways and we don't.
Well, not house pets. and homeless means that they don't have anyone to feed them, take them to vet, etc.
There are millions of kids that die because they can't even eat
And we are working towards a cure to that. Your point?
there are no masters just alpha
Legally, you own the dog. The dog may view you as his alpha, but you do own him. (Also, even if he does just view you as an alpha, you're still in a position of power.)
Animals are adults not kids
Maybe, but they have the reasoning capabilities of a child.
and therapist can still have sex with their client if there in a relationship.
You are saying human1 can't be with human2 just because that human2 can't do something in the relationship that human1 can. There is no wrong inequally has long has that person doesn't take advantage of the other person.
See, those laws are in place to avoid the possibility of being taken advantage of. You having sex with your dog is taking advantage of him, he isn't intelligent enough to say yes or no.
No animal looks at there mate as a master and zoophilia aren't masters even in the human view there just mates.
From a legal standpoint, you own them. That makes you their masters.
I want to know if you were a animal, would you want to have sex with a women that cares about you and respects you or would you want to be neutered and be nothing more then just a house pet.
Frankly, from what I know as a human, I would rather just be a house pet. You can love and care about a house pet, as a member of the family. However, sexual interactions with them are taking advantage of them. If I didn't want her to have sex with me, I wouldn't have any way to tell her that.
Are you saying since animals can't consent to being neutered or spayed that we should take advantage. A lot of house pets can easily survive out in the wild and also you still have to prove animals can't consent to sex. My point is why not neuter and spay humans or should we stop neutering and spaying and find a cure for animals too. The only position I am in is asking for sex not forcing it and he has perfect understanding of it. I am not taking advantage because he has the choice to say no to it. That's your choice to be a house pet but a lot of other people would want a women that is caring and wanting to give them there every need.
And please don't forget my other argument at the bottom also please keep that and this argument spilt.
Are you saying since animals can't consent to being neutered or spayed that we should take advantage.
No, I'm saying they cannot consent to anything, so that point doesn't matter in the first place.
A lot of house pets can easily survive out in the wild
Perhaps, but that's beside the point.
you still have to prove animals can't consent to sex
Well, it's my personal opinion that they cannot. I don't think that's something that you can prove or disprove. My point is that it really doesn't matter if they "consent" or not, their consent doesn't matter in the eyes of the law, because of the same reasons that there are laws against statutory rape.
My point is why not neuter and spay humans or should we stop neutering and spaying and find a cure for animals too.
What?? I think what you're trying to do is find a parallel between having sex with an animal and spaying an animal.. There really isn't one, because spaying and neutering is healthy and good for their population and the world. Having sex with them is not.
The only position I am in is asking for sex not forcing it and he has perfect understanding of it. I am not taking advantage because he has the choice to say no to it.
You still have an advantage. It's nothing you can control. Because of your species, you are smarter and have a better grasp on the situation than he does.
It does matter because you are taking advantage of them.
Ok?
And it's my own opinion that it is fact true that animals can cosent. Also it would matter to the law because statutory rape and this is different.
There is a parallel and spaying and neutering is healthy and good for humans population and the world. And having sex with them is good because it's helps with the population and there personal sexual feelings.
Just because I have a better grasp on the situation than he does that shouldn't mean for it to be illegal and also I can cut my brain apart so we can be at equal level so there would be no taking advantage of.
It does matter because you are taking advantage of them.
For the good of their species. How is that any different than taking advantage of them for sex? that's not for the good of any being except yourself.
And it's my own opinion that it is fact true that animals can cosent. Also it would matter to the law because statutory rape and this is different.
No it isn't. You asked "should Zoophilia/Zoosexuality be legal". I'm saying that no, it shouldn't, for the same reasons statutory rape is not legal. Your debate does not ask the question "can animals consent".
There is a parallel and spaying and neutering is healthy and good for humans population and the world.
It is also good for the animal population.
And having sex with them is good because it's helps with the population and there personal sexual feelings.
How does it help with the population?? I'm sure that they do not require having sex with a human to release. (Also, if you spayed/neutered them in the first place, they wouldn't be having those said "sexual feelings")
Just because I have a better grasp on the situation than he does that shouldn't mean for it to be illegal
Well that's why sex with a child is illegal. By that logic, you're saying that a 50 year old should be able to have sex with a 12 year old, if the 12 year old wants it. Both the child and your dog don't fully understand the situation.
and also I can cut my brain apart so we can be at equal level so there would be no taking advantage of.
I'm not even going to dignify that ridiculous statement with a rebuttal.
This is what you are forgetting it's not about the good of the species because it's about the good for them and it's still wrong to nueter/spay them just like it is wrong to do it to a human. It is good because it helps the animal too and not just yourself. Also zoophilia is not in the relationship for them self it is also for the animal.
Yes it is. And like I say again statutory rape is different from this.
It's not good because your still taking advantage of them and the only reason why there population is so high like humans is because humans was the fault of overpopulaten and not them.
There are many of animals that would try to have sex with humans. I think that you should be neutered so you would not have those said feelings. And it helps because sex between a human and animal will not get you a baby.
By the logic adult animal don't have the thinking process of a kids. Adult animals are grown and can make choices for them self just like a stupid adult human.
It means the good for themselves not the good for there population.
Why because it is wrong to neuter somebody because it's there body and not yours.
What the hell do you think I am talking about and yes I mean sex. And it is good because they can have sex to and in joy it.
No it's not and the difference is because they are not under age and can make choices that they can understand.
There is a difference in to ways for one I am not trying too and second they can understand the act of sex but not the act of being neutered.
Do you ever learn anything about animals and human history and it is are fault because we breed them a lot in the old days and now we are trying to fix are population problem on them.
It helps because we want to lower there population but do it in away that wouldn't be that wrong.
Don't be stupid and I mean sexual feelings.
Yes we know there not intelligent as humans and your point is.
So are you saying if I do so would it be then legal.
It means the good for themselves not the good for there population.
what is good for themselves?
Why because it is wrong to neuter somebody because it's there body and not yours.
Well actually you legally own your pets' body. Of course, there are some lines, such as beasitiality. But spaying and neutering doesn't harm anyone, so it's legal.
What the hell do you think I am talking about
We've had this discussion before. I cannot understand you when you don't use grammar and you can't spell correctly
and yes I mean sex. And it is good because they can have sex to and in joy it.
That's the thing. it's such a fine line. We don't know if they're enjoying it, we don't speak their language. Body language can't tell everything. And this leads back to my point, it's still considered rape.
No it's not
What the hell are you trying to say?! You literally just said "yes it is" in the argument I was responding to. Can you please stop writing in block form? Bold the arguments that you're responding to, and then write your response. It would make it a lot easier for us to understand each other.
and the difference is because they are not under age and can make choices that they can understand.
There is a difference in to ways for one I am not trying too
That doesn't mean you aren't.
and second they can understand the act of sex but not the act of being neutered.
They don't really understand either of the situations actually. All they know is that their master wants them to do something, and they do it in order to keep him happy.
Do you ever learn anything about animals and human history and it is are fault because we breed them a lot in the old days and now we are trying to fix are population problem on them.
We bred them because they were useful to us. You can't blame humans solely for a population problem. If you left a male and a female dog together (unspayed and un-neutered), they are going to mate. We didn't force them together, it's in their nature to mate with other genders of their species. Once you spay/neuter them, that obsession goes away.
It helps because we want to lower there population but do it in away that wouldn't be that wrong.
You realize that them having sex with you won't make their urge to mate with their own species any less, right? and spaying/neutering them isn't wrong.
Don't be stupid
hahahahaha
and I mean sexual feelings.
Humans can control themselves though. We don't need to spay/neuter ourselves to focus on other things besides sex.
By the logic adult animal don't have the thinking process of a kids.
well, they don't. They aren't as intelligent as humans.
Yes we know there not intelligent as humans and your point is.
my point is, that's why it's considered rape.
So are you saying if I do so would it be then legal.
I mean, at that point I don't think it would matter. The surgery is very rare, only reserved for extreme cases, so I doubt you be able to find somewhere to get it done, just so you can fuck your pet, (which is illegal, complicating matters even more). It also mostly reserved for children, who's brains can handle that. Not only that, it will most likely result in many problems, most of which lead to death. So yeah, if you (and a lot of other people) could find a way to get that surgery, and could come out of it with no handicaps, there's a possibility that the United States might consider altering about that law.
~
For real tho, please start forming your arguments the way I do, with the bolded arguments before your responses. It would make it easier for both of us. if you're feeling generous, correct spelling and grammar might help too.
If you don't know how to bold: Put two asterisks right before and after the sentence that you want to bold If you press preview, you can see if it worked.
I tryed it but it will not let me for some reason.
The good is the pleasure.
But just because it doesn't harm doesn't mean its right.
It has been clear that we do know what there saying and also why wouldn't it apply to people that can't talk.
I honestly do think a toddler is NOT capable of making such an advanced decision on whether or not they want to have sex with someone.
They do understand the situation. Also animal don't please there master because they don't consider someone that they mate with is there master.
If animals had breed on there own there would not be a overpopulation its because of us forcing them to breed that did so its are fault.
It will not make it any less but it would still help them release there sexual feelings. And neutering and spaying is still taking advantage of them so its wrong.
If we could control are sexual feelings why is there rape.
You don't have to have intelligence at everything so all they need to know is this act.
That is a very good point. In your comparison to the human equivilant - which is a very accurate one - the ten year old is also not mental capable of giving consent.
God made the non human animals to have those parts. There is an eternal soul in the non human animals. God gave them those parts for a reason. They are a part of the endocrine system. They are not to be treated like they were a tumor. Stop the war aganst them with altering and shots that people are waking up to see as being toxic to the body doing less than nothing. Let God judge whose heart is pure and not pure. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. It is up to you to not see God as fire. Better to obey God's laws. The zoo does not see the relationship as a power thing at all. Fear God not man. People who are good to whatever age and whatever species will see God as light. Work to that end.
Also lets make a scenario in saying you are right and it does become illegal in the hole world. So here that would be more bad then good because zoophilia and bestilty will still do it and there would be like 2 million more crime cases in the world and america and other countries don't have the space or money and supplies to deal with 2 million prisoners. It would be like D day but a 100 times bigger !!!
Also there will be alot of suicides and some of us will not go down with out a fight and that will mean killings. I mean I don't think you would want to be killed just because you split up love.
Also even for people that don't do the act again and don't commit suicide. What would you tell them on how to satisfy there sexaul feelings because you can't say live alone then your will be the wrong one and you can't say either find a human because most have already tried that.
But this is something I have spent most of my time researching. This would also fall under too has baestilty and there are 15 states and still a lot of country that allow it like russia is one of the big ones. I have done many of calculations on this so yes I do know how many zoophilia there are.
Best number 2 million and you still have to argue on how are we to survive if we can have sex with them and also answer if it would cause more bad or good.
Alright, can you please stop putting your arguments in block form? Bolding my arguments and then putting your response will make it a lot easier for me to address your points.
~
how are we to survive if we can have sex with them
I think you mean can't and I would just like to remind you, people survive without having sex everyday. I'm a virgin, I'm still alive. There are plenty of other examples.
also answer if it would cause more bad or good.
I think it would ultimately cause more good. If we legalize beastiality, then people will start asking questions regarding other laws, like statutory rape. Not only that, consent is a very hazy area. They cannot speak english, and we cannot speak animal, so how would we know FOR SURE if they agreed or disagreed. If someone rapes an animal, they can easily say that they thought the animals' body language was agreeing to it.
Sorry that makes no sense to me either but what I meant to say is that what are zoophilia or beastility so prose to do with there feelings.
It is not rape because there body movement says it in a way that obviously show they are trying to say yes or no. And also we would not do the act with them if there giving bad body movements. And obviously we would make the law that you have to understand animal body movement before doing the act.
Sorry that makes no sense to me either but what I meant to say is that what are zoophilia or beastility so prose to do with there feelings.
(*supposed?) Well, what I meant to say is that it's not that hard to suppress sexual feelings and urges. As a people, we do it every day.
It is not rape because there body movement says it in a way that obviously show they are trying to say yes or no.
Even today, with humans, we have legal issues with whether or not the woman (or man) wanted to have sex. (S)he can even speak english. Animals can't. imagine how hard that would be to sort through.
And also we would not do the act with them if there giving bad body movements. And obviously we would make the law that you have to understand animal body movement before doing the act.
How would you regulate it though? It's all an opinion really, there's no way to tell for sure if the animal liked it.
Look, at this point, our argument is just going in circles. I'm just going to stop responding now because it's not worth it at all. It's getting pretty boring and repetitive. Thanks for the new outlook on zoophilia, although I still haven't changed my mind.
If you still think it should be illegal then reason with me on something that would help me satisfy my feelings in a different way like allowing me to build a animal robot or being able to watch animated animal pornography.
Your the law maker here and I hope you try to make it as fair and reasonable for me.
Zoophile is just horrible to think about. This is a gross thing to do, and why do you want it legal. Not only is the idea of it mentally scaring, it's a horrible sin. If you think the bible doesn't like gay marriage, imagine going outside your own species with you sex life. Doing this shows you don't care about finding the love of you life. This is like multiplying a sexual predator by one hundred. What people see in that I don't now, and I sure don't think that should be legal.
What is horrible are people saying nothing good at all. Obviously those that do don't thkink it is gross otherwise they would not do it. God's laws are not there to say, AH, Ha now I cam n arrest you. The bible wants people to bear one anothers burdens. Legal system does just the opposite. We are to not work ill to people. Legal system does just the opposite. People against the zoo use that evil legal system against them breaking God's laws. I don't advocate marrying another species. They don't know what marriage is. That makes the ritual pointless.
So should we open Greek Orge Houses again. Go back to human sacrifices for fun like the Egyptians did. Make rape legal, I want to see 10 year olds in porn videos. Why, because this guy is atheist. What, the legal system isn't made to conform to things such as these just because Kobidobidog feels like it should. Too bad. :3
The way I see it, animals are like children or underage teens. There is no way that they can give you absolute consent. During sex there could be no communication to assure the human or animal that what is happening is okay. There are so many issues with this and that is only the one that stands out to me the most. I am a very liberal individual and am a huge supporter of all types of sexual orientations... as long as each party is able and willing. Consent is the number one most important quality in any type of relationship and an animal is simply not equipped to give that to a human.
While I completely agree that this is an odd sexual orientation and many may find it disturbing, it is a sexuality nonetheless and we should treat it as such.
I was against it a little. But know I see that zoophili or zoosexual. Are people too they feel in a different way. I don't think they like that there even a human. I think there should be limits too. And that zoophili and zoosexual should be allowed. I think there people that are just misunderstood.
There is a difference between killing and loving. A killer is still a killer even if he or she is misunderstood. A love or lover is still a love or lover even if he or she is misunderstood.
You can love a child, or a person who has died, or is brain dead or is in a coma. A rapist, pedophile, zoophile, necrophile, etc. is one even if they are misunderstood. An act should not be legal just because the person that does it is sympathetic or misunderstood.
A zoophilia is not a rapist because both adults are consenting.
I am not saying that they are the same - only that them being misunderstood is not a good reason to make what they do legal.
Anything that evolve rap is a nonzoophilia.
I am not positive exactly what you are saying here. Do you mean anything that involves rape is not zoophilia? Clearly laws cannot prohibit sexual feelings towards animals only zoosexual acts. Zoosexual acts may happen with or without any degree of consent from the animal.
you can love someone and still have sex with them.
And it is possible to have sex with people you do not love.
As long as it's your partner and not a kid.
If your argument is consent, clearly very young children can consent to the same degree as animals.
Yes I did meant involves. Everything happens with or without any degree of consent from the animal anyway. But if there was no kind of consent given. That means it not a true zoophilia.
Will then that would not be love. It would just be sex.
But there is a difference between a child and adult dog. The child is not mature. A adult dog is mature.
I do not think his request for evidence was trolling - in fact, I think this may be my fault.
After your post where you said you didn't have many sources (here), I was the one who responded to you. So, when you posted links, I was the one who saw the response in my activity instead of pakicetus.
I really dislike people being banned and try to only use it when people are spamming, selling things or just trying to get people to click their link to some other site, etc.; I would feel terrible if I was the cause of someone being erroneously banned.
Please accept my apologies for any confusion I caused you and pakicetus.
if there was no kind of consent given. That means it not a true zoophilia.
Will then that would not be love. It would just be sex.
It is very difficult if not impossible to legislate love - there is some ability to effectively legislate sex with animals, which is partly why I think it should be illegal. As you can see from our discussion, the machinations necessary to prove that the animal consents to sex involve nearly perpetual surveillance, constant medical and veterinary vigilance, an army of biologists establishing guidelines, etc. etc. That law being impractical results in the zoosexual acts being either nearly totally legal or illegal. Of those two options, I favor illegal because of the inevitable rise in non-consensual acts with animals along with the diverse disease risks. Especially when compared to the only proposed benefit of sexual gratification.
The child is not mature. A adult dog is mature.
What signs of maturity do you believe exist in the dog that do not exist in the child?
No, Because what they did was wrong. Someone got hurt that why what they did was wrong. If they are on a bad pill from the doctor and can't control there acts. Then yes still wrong. But it was not all is fault. Oww sorry this was not my argument. My fault. I say sorry again.
No worries. Unless two people have a clearly established dialog, I don't think it is a major faux pas to interject.
Because what they did was wrong.
Her argument was not that zoosexual acts are not wrong, but that she has sympathy with the people that commit the acts. My response was meant to illustrate that sympathy is not reason enough to legalize a given action.
Can you please watch this. It shows alot of good things. I think even for a closed minded person it. You would like the film. And please share this to other people.
Occasionally people cite health concerns as a reason bestiality should not be legal. Maybe that is because some people associate "lower" animals as dirty. The only likely risk is ticks, otherwise most kept animals are vetted for and kept clean. Because animal companions are a different species, there isn't a chance of getting pregnant, viruses and colds are usually too species specific, and human germs are far more dangerous to us then a canines germs.
For those who are worried about the welfare and rights of animals, we should look to the billions of meat and dairy animals that suffer systematic animal abuse and cruel methods of slaughter. Hunting of hundreds of thousands is allowed of almost every wild animal in the food chain (if they aren't already nearly extinct) and abandoned and unwanted domesticated animals die by the millions in shelters. Our focus should be on solving those problems instead of attacking a minority with an unpopular orientation.
That is not accurate. Many diseases exist in humans that are transmittable to animals and vice-versa.
(Most pathogens that cause human disease are transmitted by animals - ref)
viruses and colds are usually too species specific
That many viruses largely stay within a species is far from saying that they do not cross species boundaries.
"HIV/AIDS is the result of at least eleven cross-species transmission events of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) from non-human African primates to humans." ref
Some animals act as a reservoir for multiple viruses and can facilitate the emergence of new virus strains through gene reassortment. ref
otherwise most kept animals are vetted for and kept clean.
I assume that you propose that the new law should restrict the allowed animals to "kept animals" then?
we should look to the billions of meat and dairy animals that suffer systematic animal abuse and cruel methods of slaughter.
Cruel methods of slaughter are illegal_, and people who eat meat generally assume that instances of cruelty are the exception rather than the rule and should be prosecuted.
There is evidence that humans might not have even become humans if early primates did not begin to incorporate meat into their diet. ref. While slow, the fact that we are reversing this long established practice is actually pretty remarkable.
Hunting of hundreds of thousands is allowed of almost every wild animal
See above + hunting would likely still be considered moral when it prevents overpopulation of a species. It should also be noted that hunters generally do not want prolonged suffering of the animal and a quick kill is in the hunter's best interest since it minimizes the tracking/retrieval process.
abandoned and unwanted domesticated animals die by the millions in shelters.
Millions are also rescued every year. This is less a result of intentional harm than a result of prioritization of resources.
-Our focus should be on solving those problems instead of attacking a minority with an unpopular orientation.
I hadn't heard that cracking down on zoophiles had become a top priority. Is that the case where you live?
The other argument commonly used is that animals can't communicate and thus can't consent to sex. Anyone with any level of experience and awareness of other species should know this is false. Most all the species in the animal kingdom have some forum of language, and some have even learned some of our own. Just in the day to day action of a pet owner interacting with a dog sees volumes of information communicated through body language, behaviors and vocalizations. It requires communication for a dog to let you know when its hungry, needs to go to the bathroom, or wants to play. Why would this apply to every other behavior and interaction with animals except for sex?
Another claim is that bestiality is like pedophilia...this is completely false!!! Most people who are sexually attracted to animals are attracted to mature animals (the word “animal” includes both humans and non-humans). In other words, the vast majority of zoosexuals are attracted to mature animals who have reached adulthood. In this sense, zoosexuals have the same aversion to pedo-oriented sexuality that most people have.
I am fully aware that the idea of informed consent in legal circles is different and much stricter. I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent. No one who has a pet, no one who has partook in any animal derived products has ever had informed consent from any animals. It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action. Something that requires the ability to predict the future with 100% certainty.
In practice what is meant by informed consent is that one party discloses any information about the interaction which may reasonably be expected to affect the other’s decision. If one party does not have the information it cannot be given. If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement.
For instance, you bring an unconscious stranger into a hospital, the doctor will still treat them on the presumption that they want to be healed. This is implied consent but cannot be informed consent.
The point is that informed consent, while an objective standard, relies on the context of the typical human mind and language. It loses applicability beyond the scope of the human race, attempting to apply it to morals involving non-humans leads to contradictions and absurdities.
If in the ‘eyes of the law’ no animal can ever consent then no animal has ever consented to another animal. That means every single sexual encounter in the whole of history before mankind was in fact rape. I consider the above a valid form of Reductio ad absurdum http://en.wikipedia.org...
Finally I would like to point out that current legal precedence and tradition never tries to apply informed consent to animals. All anti-bestiality laws appear to be based on either religion or the concept of abuse. The law does not care about informed consent of animals.
It not there choice. They have more feelings for animals then other people. I think there the best at understanding animals. Since there with animals all the time. I for one still think it sick. But it still love and caring with no harm. It better then all the other things we do to animals like chemical testing. DNA injecting, Farming of animals.
People have been haveing sex with animals ever since we were born. We all came from animals are people forgetting that.
Zoophilia are not killers or rapist. There people that loves and cares about animals more then anybody else.
Pedophiles are different then Zoophilia. Pedophilia is the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children. A zoophilia is a person that loves and cares and respects animals but also has sex with adult animals.
Whats the difference between adult dogs and kids. You can also then ask your self what is the difference between kids and adults.
The difference is that adults are fully grown and there brain have developed completely and kids are still growing and learning.
Making zoosexuality legal would hog tie haters who give threats of killing the zoosexual or their sexual non human partner or partner's. It would stop people from threating to burn your house down. It would stop violent pre flood type people from doing what they say to me and I am sure to many others.
People need to obey work out your own salvation with fear and trembling to not see God as fire refusing to terrorize the zoosexual or anyone else for that matter.
Degrading, fear giving hate giving nothing that is good puts a burden on people that it is directed at them. We need to lift the burdens of others. God wants us to love others. Zoos are lovers. God wants us to love lovers. That is keeping bear one anothers burdens. To avoid symptoms for named ailments do this now:Upcspine or The specific chiropractic or Upper cervical heath centers. Two Good UCS only Chiropractors are Steven Duff is in Windsor California. Richard Duff is in San Francisco California.
People need to stop pussy footing around letting zoosexuality be legal. It is up to the individual to be good whatever species. The law of man oppresses people. Sodomites did that. Read Isaiah 1 KJV Cambridge editon bible 1611.
The topic of bestiality has been a taboo in our society for a long time but the stigma behind it isn't justified. All the latest science suggest that the majority of mammals are intelligent individuals and can enjoy sex just as much as we do. Studies on zoophiles and zoosexuals have only shown that they are misunderstood, understudied, and are a diverse group that functions well in society without a problem.
There are several common misunderstandings and bad perceptions about the subject of bestiality. Sex with animals CAN be abusive and cruel, but the same can be said for all other forms of sex. Often, the only time it is reported on is in the rare instance of an animal abuser that is caught molesting and harming an animal. So the publics perception is that the act only happens in an abusive and criminal context, when on the contrary, their are many more zoophiles in the world (that the public doesn't know about) that love their animal partners deeply and put their animal companions needs first.
I am sure many animals would not enjoy being raped by a human. If I picked up my cat, or one of my chickens right now and started shagging them I am sure they would find it unpleasant and would start crying out in distress.
Devil's Advocate: If you were to just pick up a human and start shagging them, I imagine they'd generally find it unpleasant as well. If you assume that there would be no equivalent of courting and/or foreplay in the case of animals but would be in the case of humans, you aren't making an apples to apples comparison.
No we are talking about all in animals in general, you dud nit include in the description that it was only animals of a certain size. So would you have a size limit? Were would you draw the line?
yes I would have a size limit I say a size limit should be medium dog size anything that is under a medium size dog is not legal. Anything thats bigger or as same as a medium size dog is legal.
Rather than getting rid of all laws making it illegal, you are for laws making it quasi-legal depending on the circumstances, correct?
Then, how do you propose the new law(s) should be enforced? Does someone go around measuring all animal species and setting guidelines based on genitalia sizes? determining acceptable age of sexual maturity for each animal and developing instructions for how a person with these proclivities should determine the age of a given animal? determining if each species exceeds the threshold of capacity to consent?
Additionally, since you seem to be arguing not that consent is irrelevant but that consent can be given, should we employ Dr. Doolittle to ensure the animal did give consent for the sex? And, if consent was not given, should the animal be expected to pick a perpetrator out of a line-up?
If the answers seem silly, it may be because of the nature of the question...
Yes scientists would be able to go around measuring all animal species and setting guidelines based on genitalia sizes and age. And I don't think zoophilia would ever have sex with the animal with out consent. I know I wouldn't anyway. But maybe a stop to a vet every mouth would be good. Or show the police one video showing how you and your animal gives consent at sex. Or mayby Dr. Doolittle. I think it will be a hard law to make but we can do it. I don't know how it would be enforced. But we will find away.
Yes scientists would be able to go around measuring all animal species and setting guidelines based on genitalia sizes and age.
and maybe a stop to a vet every mouth[sic] would be good
I believe at least some of the difficulties in making the acts legal/quasi-legal are beginning to become apparent. Is there any possible cost that you believe could outweigh the benefit(s) you perceive? I'm not saying these activities would surpass it, I am just asking out of curiosity.
show the police one video showing how you and your animal gives[sic] consent
Does consent to one act of sex bar future refusal of sex? (If so, I have a few old girlfriends I need to call...)
I don't think zoophilia[sic] would ever have sex with the animal with out[sic] consent. I know I wouldn't anyway.
That would be just like me saying, "I don't think anyone would ever rape someone else because I wouldn't" (or even, "I don't think anyone would have sex with an animal because I wouldn't.")
mayby[sic] Dr. Doolittle
Dr. Doolittle is fictional.
I think it will be a hard law to make...
and I don't know how it would be enforced.
Kudos for honesty at least.
but we can do it and But we will find away[sic].
But should we? If there are harms/risks to both the human and animal populations, and the only proposed good is sexual gratification for humans and sometimes the animals, is it a good idea?
Is there any possible cost that you believe could outweigh the benefit(s) you perceive?
No. Why because if there was any possible cost. It would be non zoophilia having sex with a animal just for there own benefits.
Does consent to one act of sex bar future refusal of sex?
A little but no, I don't know how we can 100% be sure. But I would do anything to show I am following the laws. And I am sure other true zoophilia would do the same.
That would be just like me saying,
True, But it says in definition zoophilia is, love and respect there animal and has sex with them but would never hurt them. And anybody that doesn't follow. Is not a true zoophilia and should not be allowed to do the act.
But should we? is it a good idea?
Yes we should, People like us would not have to fear of it coming illegal. And end up killing are selfs. And it would be good for population. No baby come from humans and animals have sex. It a good idea. It could bring new business. People trying to sell hot animal posters.
if there was any possible cost. It would be non zoophilia
I mean any cost to those that engage in the acts (self-surveillance, medical/veterinary, etc.) and the cost of setup (tons of biologists) and enforcement.
I would do anything to show I am following the laws. And I am sure other true zoophilia would do the same.
Unfortunately, laws don't only apply to the true believers.
People like us would not have to fear of it coming illegal. And end up killing are selfs.
Many people feel compelled to do things that are illegal (stealing, murdering, etc.) - we should not make those things legal simply because of fear or shame brought on by that compulsion.
I don't care if you read this. I just was not done reading it my self I am going to have to read the rest tomorrow. I did not want to forget the link. So that why I posted it. I think you should read this, But you don't have to.
Humans are mammals. Female humans have mammary glands. Non human animals have mammary glands. Clothing covers the male parts giving the illusion that they are not an animal too. Thus the battle that now rages with one excuse after another against the zoo. Legal and illegal means we do not have freedom. Jesus came to give freedom. People need to keep God's law of work no ill to your neighbour. KJV Cambridge edition bible 1611 or 1900. Romans 13:10: Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Love the zoo.
People are walking around in an unwalled prison with zoosexuality being illegal. People are not free. Jesus in us frees people. People are responsible to God for how they are. People talk about the bible never keeping it. People should not come down on a person like a falling brick wall when they see the many types or sexual interactions between species or their own. They need to keep, 1 Thessalonians 4:11 - And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you. Romans 13:10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Philippians 2:12 - 12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Philippians 2:3 - Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Proverbs 8:8 - All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. KJV Cambridge edition.1611 or 1900.
Luke 6:37Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Although there may be social reasons for ignoring and/or condemning zoosexuality, one reason for the taboo of zoophilia may be evolutionary; from a biological point of view, having sex with animals makes no sense because it doesn’t result in any offspring; consequently, the only humans that survived were humans that had sex with other humans, and because of this it became hard-wired into the DNA of their descendants (ultimately, most humans). This might explain why when someone is approached with the idea of zoosexuality, their initial reaction might be “eww, that’s gross” or “that’s perverted”. It’s because they’re not used to such “abnormal” ideas because society has told them it’s wrong and they are biologically programmed to do so. However, keep in mind that saying “that’s gross” is not a philosophical argument; it does not rely on any rational reasoning system to determine whether or not zoosexuality is moral. There are rational arguments that could be made for or against zoosexuality; for example, a utilitarian argument for zoosexuality is that it increases happiness so long as both parties are satisfied.
