Why is zoophilia condemned and homosexuality not?

Nowhere did i say it is illegal because it is 'ikky'.. so i'd like to know why you felt like posting that piece of completely rambling irrelevant information?

Still yet to get serious answers towards my argument about the burden of proof and you claiming it does no harm to society.

Only with sex! Nothing else is as important as sex! Lets kill animals for food or take them to war, but God forbid we ever gain sexual pleasure from them!

I think you've misunderstood my point. There's a huge difference between homosexuals and zoophiles. My point was that althought homosexuals can't reproduce (in the traditional sense) they are the same species and are fully consenting adults.

Zoophiles, on the other hand, can not get the full consent of the animal and it's pretty deviant behaviour. . .

Also (the point of my previous post) if you mate with an animal, you can't protect from pregnancy (assuming you're male and the animal is female) This is pretty dangerous because our genetics are not the same. When animals of different species have successfully created a new life, the offspring is infertile. As I said before, I'm assuming besides the weirdness of it all, the reason it is probably illegal is because of this.

In summary: Homosexuality is not dangerous but zoophilia has he potential to be, both psychologically and biologically.

I have said it before, i will say it again.
Zoophilia has been known to involve the abuse of the animal, i have stated this before with reference to a researcher who stated this. Not all 'zoophiles' abust the animal, but it happens. Abusing animals is harmful to society, is it not?

The evidence that it causes the animal pain and suffering exists, it just isn't tangible. You could no more prove an animal is enduring pain whilst being kicked than ****ed.

That the animal has not expressed discomfort shouldn't stop us from considering whether the act was likely to cause it suffering.

People who who engage in such practices are prosecuted under the category of "abuse."

Your argument concerning tacit consent is too simplistic. An animal might be large enough to resist amorous advances, but might have a learned (and justified) fear of human beings.

To turn the issue on its head: If you can justify sex with an animal, what arguments are there against sex with a baby?

Maybe not, but you are a ****.

But zoophilia is immoral, and the animal obviously doesn't want it, so it goes against animal rights. Homosexuality needs the two persons' consent. Plus zoophilia is perverse. However I am not saying homosexuality isn't, because I think that homosexuality is not normal, but I wouldn't say it's up to us to judge whether it is wrong.

But zoophilia is immoral, and the animal obviously doesn't want it, so it goes against animal rights. Homosexuality needs the two persons' consent. Plus zoophilia is perverse. However I am not saying homosexuality isn't, because I think that homosexuality is not normal, but I wouldn't say it's up to us to judge whether it is wrong.

Also (the point of my previous post) if you mate with an animal, you can't protect from pregnancy (assuming you're male and the animal is female) This is pretty dangerous because our genetics are not the same. When animals of different species have successfully created a new life, the offspring is infertile. As I said before, I'm assuming besides the weirdness of it all, the reason it is probably illegal is because of this.

Point being that the best available evidence suggests that ****ing animals causes them distress and constitutes abuse.

That is completely circular logic, backed up by claims which are not justified.

Personally I believe animals can consent, since they can initiate it/ give signals that they are up for it towards the human involved, the reason they consent is irrelevant, they still consent. It's like if I have sex with a prostitute on the pretence that I pay her, then do a runner, that isn't rape, just lying to get some sex.

Even if the animal is not consenting, why is suddenly a crime to rape an animal when we commit similar atrocities to animals all the time. We regularly abuse animals for money (battery farming) keeping them in cages so they are barely able to move, killing animals for food and for sport.

Plus what you said about a prostitute just isn't correct.

As far as I am aware, it is correct. It would not be rape. It would still be illegal, probably under "using services without paying", but it would not be rape as the prostitute would have consented to sex.

I may be wrong because I am not an expert in the area of prostitution but she doesn't consent until he pays her though right?

I don't actually know, but in reality I would imagine that you would pay first. The person you replied to seemed to be suggested you do the act first. In which case the prossie would have consented.

You're right, OP; there is no logical reason to label cross-species sex as immoral (then again, nothing can logically be referred to as immoral). However, humans can't marry animals because animals cannot express consent for marriage. Gay men and lesbian women can. That's where the distinction lies, in the extent of the relationship.