Why is zoophilia condemned and homosexuality not? Watch

This discussion is closed.
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#221
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#221
(Original post by Baula)
Besides it being odd, if I remember rightly when two species mate their off-spring is infertile. So, I'm guessing that's why.

(When I talk about species I'm generally meaning totally different ones, not wolves and dogs for example - although mules are supposedly infertile so yeah :P)
Exactly!

The only reason it is condemned by society is because society doesn't like the idea of it, there's no rational reason to condemn it, as it doesn't cause harm to society or the individuals involved.

I'm not a zoophile, but I don't think zoophiles should be condemned as criminals because they have a different sexuality, which I do not personally see the attraction in.

I'm not a homosexual, but I don't think homosexuals should be condemned as criminals because they have a different sexuality, which I do not personally see the attraction in.

You see? People who are for homosexuality but against zoophilia obviously are maintaining a double standard, as they are willing to accept one sexuality but not the other, and neither sexuality causes any harm to anyone.
0
Jordenfruitbat
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#222
Report 7 years ago
#222
(Original post by imperial maniac)
Exactly!

The only reason it is condemned by society is because society doesn't like the idea of it, there's no rational reason to condemn it, as it doesn't cause harm to society or the individuals involved.

I'm not a zoophile, but I don't think zoophiles should be condemned as criminals because they have a different sexuality, which I do not personally see the attraction in.

I'm not a homosexual, but I don't think homosexuals should be condemned as criminals because they have a different sexuality, which I do not personally see the attraction in.

You see? People who are for homosexuality but against zoophilia obviously are maintaining a double standard, as they are willing to accept one sexuality but not the other, and neither sexuality causes any harm to anyone.
Zoopihlia is not an orientation for goodness sake it's a fetish, you don't see people going up to horses and saying what good hooves they have and having a conversation because it is not possible. Just because other animals have sex with different species does not mean it's ok for humans too. The whole consent argument where the animal knows what your doing to it is stupid too, some animals will have no idea that your trying to have sex with it. People can not have intimate relationships with animals it just doesn't work.
0
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#223
Report 7 years ago
#223
(Original post by imperial maniac)
You see? People who are for homosexuality but against zoophilia obviously are maintaining a double standard, as they are willing to accept one sexuality but not the other, and neither sexuality causes any harm to anyone.
Not this argument again, it is a pathetic one.
Thinking people having sex with a WHOLE DIFFERENT SPECIES is, and never will be, the same as when people thought people having sex with the same species (and gender).

Literally ridiculous argument to make.

Murder is wrong right?
Is hunting animals (legally) wrong?
Would hunting humans be wrong too?
I guess your thinking that because we think killing animals is ok, we should make killing humans ok? Or.. is it not reasonable to use the same arguments when talking about different species?
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#224
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#224
(Original post by Cornish student)
What about equating zoophilia with heterosexuals having consensual protected sex or sex where one of the parties is infertile/incapable of bearing children. That meets your "criteria" for being on the same moral level.
If the point of this troll-post is to argue that homosexuality is "immoral" then you must accept that protected sex between heterosexual couples and those who are infertile is also "immoral".
You need to redefine your definition or a troll beyond "someone who has a different opinion to you."

My problem is with the double standard. Why should zoophiles be condemned for their sexuality when I thought society had moved on from such base prejudices.
0
Kareir
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#225
Report 7 years ago
#225
(Original post by WelshBluebird)
But that isn't showing consent, or a will, to have sex with the person.
Dogs naturally hump anything! Pillows, other dogs, shoes, etc etc. Doesn't mean they want sex with the object / thing.
/golfclap




_Kar
0
PurpleMonkeyDishwasher
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#226
Report 7 years ago
#226
(Original post by imperial maniac)
So are we and apes.
We are not to apes what horses are to donkeys. We're on a completely different level of intelligence and our physical characteristics aren't even close.
0
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#227
Report 7 years ago
#227
(Original post by imperial maniac)
You need to redefine your definition or a troll beyond "someone who has a different opinion to you."

My problem is with the double standard. Why should zoophiles be condemned for their sexuality when I thought society had moved on from such base prejudices.
Stop using the term double standards

Double standards is an unjust application of using different sets of rules or principles when looking at very similar situations.

Please explain to me how a a man having sex with a man, and a man having sex with a horse, are 'similar situations'

Else, like i said before, if we are trying to say that these situations are similar we would be able to delve in to murder, and killing animals and why we cannot kill humans. etc etc.
0
innerhollow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#228
Report 7 years ago
#228
The consent argument is valid but applied inconsistently. Even if we assume that animals are simply unable to consent to sex (a very bizarre concept to apply to the animal kingdom anyway), it's a very hypocritical position for most. For example, we do not consider the consent of animals before we breed them in farms and eat them, before we observe them in zoos, before we put them through medical testing etc. You're welcome to think that Zoophilia is animal abuse based on the consent argument, but frankly unless you're a naturopathic vegan, your record of animal abuse is just as bad.

The only reason people condemn zoophilia, whilst meat-eating, captive breeding and animal testing are perfectly accepted by almost everyone, is to do with feelings of revulsion on the issue, leading to social stigma. There's no logical argument to suggest that zoophilia is any more immoral than the above acts.
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#229
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#229
(Original post by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher)
We are not to apes what horses are to donkeys. We're on a completely different level of intelligence and our physical characteristics aren't even close.
A better comparison would be the Neanderthal man.

Shame we killed them all though, hmm...
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#230
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#230
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Stop using the term double standards

Double standards is an unjust application of using different sets of rules or principles when looking at very similar situations.

Please explain to me how a a man having sex with a man, and a man having sex with a horse, are 'similar situations'

Else, like i said before, if we are trying to say that these situations are similar we would be able to delve in to murder, and killing animals and why we cannot kill humans. etc etc.
Because both want to have sex with each other, are both adults, and the act does not cause the individuals harm or harm to society.

Why shouldn't zoophiles be allowed to do what they do? It doesn't do anyone any harm.

I don't understand what your trying to say with the murder thing, we can't kill other humans because it is obviously detrimental to the guy that got murdered, and if everyone started murdering each other for lolz society would collapse.
0
mel0n
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#231
Report 7 years ago
#231
:indiff: Is this fo real?
0
PurpleMonkeyDishwasher
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#232
Report 7 years ago
#232
(Original post by imperial maniac)
A better comparison would be the Neanderthal man.

Shame we killed them all though, hmm...
Maybe, but if neanderthals were around the world would be completely different.

Anyway, as for your original comparison, sexual attraction towards others of our being is innate. Even if you weren't to see another woman (or man if you're gay/bi) throughout your whole life you'd still have the intrinsic desire to reproduce, so upon seeing another man/woman for the first time, you potentially could be sexually attracted to them.

Upon seeing a horse or dog for the first time, you could not feel sexually attracted to them as it is not in our genes to have an incentive to reproduce with a horse or dog. Zoophilia and bestial attraction is a learned quality that can only be acquired through nurture/experience. It doesn't make biological sense for it to be naturally ingrained within us.
0
ISavedMyDay
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#233
Report 7 years ago
#233
(Original post by imperial maniac)

1. Both parties involved are consenting adults.

3. Both involve an intimate relationship.

4. Both occur in nature.
Your argument is deeply flawed.

1 - How exactly does an animal give consent for sex?

2 - This may be the case, but some pedophiles have 'intimate relationships' with children. It doesn't justify their actions.

4 - Did i miss something? Humans have sex with animals in nature... that doesn't even make sense.
0
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#234
Report 7 years ago
#234
(Original post by imperial maniac)
Because both want to have sex with each other, are both adults, and the act does not cause the individuals harm or harm to society.
I don't understand what your trying to say with the murder thing, we can't kill other humans because it is obviously detrimental to the guy that got murdered, and if everyone started murdering each other for lolz society would collapse.
Stop mentioning harm. It is an irrelevant point you keep bringing forward over and over.
You cannot prove it does no harm. What about that i have read that people who turn to animals for sex are more likely to lead to abusing animals and those humans later on in life? I severely doubt 10% of the people who are sexually attracted to animals, and carry it out, do so in a very angelic and nice way .. it is quite obvuious there are going to be plenty of people who force it on the animal.

Just because they 'want to have sex' does not mean they are similar situations.
You arte attempting to make them more similar than they really are and by using the term double standards in such an embarassingly wrong way you are proving this.

And you don't understand ? why not? the concept is the same. Your trying to say the same rules should apply for humans -> animals, as humans - > humans, thus any rules we have on 'killing' animals should effectively be made the rules for killing humans.

Or.. is your argument not valid when discussing a different point? Because picking and choosing isn't good.
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#235
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#235
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Stop mentioning harm. It is an irrelevant point you keep bringing forward over and over.
You cannot prove it does no harm. What about that i have read that people who turn to animals for sex are more likely to lead to abusing animals and those humans later on in life? I severely doubt 10% of the people who are sexually attracted to animals, and carry it out, do so in a very angelic and nice way .. it is quite obvuious there are going to be plenty of people who force it on the animal.

Just because they 'want to have sex' does not mean they are similar situations.
You arte attempting to make them more similar than they really are and by using the term double standards in such an embarassingly wrong way you are proving this.

And you don't understand ? why not? the concept is the same. Your trying to say the same rules should apply for humans -> animals, as humans - > humans, thus any rules we have on 'killing' animals should effectively be made the rules for killing humans.

Or.. is your argument not valid when discussing a different point? Because picking and choosing isn't good.
The fact that no one is harmed by zoophilia is not an irrelevant point.

How is murder and an intimate sexual relationship even comparable? The fact we kill animals is irrelevant when arguing about the morals of having sex with them.

Animal abuse is harmful, sexual or otherwise. An intimate sexual relationship with an animal is not harmful.

You have proven that you are prejudiced, what evidence is there that zoophiles are abusive to animals? I would think it would be the last thing in the world a zoophile would want to do, if they are in love with the creature in question.
0
Jordenfruitbat
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#236
Report 7 years ago
#236
(Original post by imperial maniac)
The fact that no one is harmed by zoophilia is not an irrelevant point.

How is murder and an intimate sexual relationship even comparable? The fact we kill animals is irrelevant when arguing about the morals of having sex with them.

Animal abuse is harmful, sexual or otherwise. An intimate sexual relationship with an animal is not harmful.

You have proven that you are prejudiced, what evidence is there that zoophiles are abusive to animals? I would think it would be the last thing in the world a zoophile would want to do, if they are in love with the creature in question.
You can't fall in to a loving sexual relationship with an animal it would be a meaningless encounter, the animal might not understand or be confused, or not want sex at all and therefore it is abuse. Animals mostly have sex to reproduce not for fun.
0
innerhollow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#237
Report 7 years ago
#237
(Original post by Jordenfruitbat)
If you think zoophilia is similiar to homosexuality, you must think it's similar to heterosexuality too? Even though homosexual relationships don't exist to pro create intimacy levels between two humans is very different between a human and an animal, humans have speech, face to face interaction, sexual attraction, zooiphiles have sex because it's a fetish not an orientation I still fail to understand how it's similar to homosexuality.
None of your arguments actually work- it's just layers and layers of circular arguments. I could summarise everything you've written in this thread as "Zoophilia is wrong because zoophilia is wrong". Just saying "zoophilia is a fetish" doesn't mean anything. Also you said earlier in the thread that inter-species sex is unnatural while homosexuality is... which is rather ironic when you consider the thread title.

Even if we assume that zoophilia always harms animals, Lewroll's point about how animals lack consent in the meat industry and zoos etc. is extremely valid, and just because YOU as an individual do not eat meat or condone animal captivity does not discredit the argument.
0
Carnivores
Badges: 1
#238
Report 7 years ago
#238
Long story short:Because another man is still a human.
0
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#239
Report 7 years ago
#239
(Original post by imperial maniac)
How is murder and an intimate sexual relationship even comparable? The fact we kill animals is irrelevant when arguing about the morals of having sex with them.
Animal abuse is harmful, sexual or otherwise. An intimate sexual relationship with an animal is not harmful.
You have proven that you are prejudiced, what evidence is there that zoophiles are abusive to animals? I would think it would be the last thing in the world a zoophile would want to do, if they are in love with the creature in question.
You cannot prove that it does not harm animals, the person involved, or society in any way. You seem to think that harm is only physical harm and pain and this is where your argument is flawed, like in many other ways.
Urgh, you really are uneducated if you think a human having sex with a human and a human having sex with a different animal are very similar as to warrant to the use of the term double standards.

Your continuing to fail to grasp your own arguments :facepalm:

Your saying that humans having sex with humans, or animals, is essentially the same. Thus we should treat it 'the same'. To do this we must conclude that we should treat everything the same, thus we should treat killing the same. It is an obvious flaw in your argument that you are just flat out ignoring.

They are not in LOVE with a creature. My god do you even understand anything? It is a person who is sexually attracted to an animal other than a human. They may have strong relations and affections for them, but the whole point of this discussion is the physical act of sex.

'There have been several significant modern books, from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002), but each of them has drawn and agreed on several broad conclusions:'

-Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by these, and other common misunderstandings: "This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens".'

Read the related books/articles if you want, i did go through them on google books but i really can't be assed picking all the best points of the whole books(s) and copying them over here
0
innerhollow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#240
Report 7 years ago
#240
(Original post by Tommyjw)
You cannot prove that it does not harm animals, the person involved, or society in any way. You seem to think that harm is only physical harm and pain and this is where your argument is flawed, like in many other ways.
Burden of proof is on you though.

At no point has the OP seemed to think that harm is only physical harm and pain. Where are you getting that from?

If you want people to follow up those book links, you should post titles rather than just authors. However, I am very skeptical that any study has found zoophilia to be harmful to society as a whole. How would a few farmers across the globe getting intimate with their horses affect the rest of us exactly?
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (213)
39.23%
No - but I will (38)
7%
No - I don't want to (36)
6.63%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (256)
47.15%

Watched Threads

View All