Why is zoophilia condemned and homosexuality not?

Basically forbidding sex with minors and young children keeps our society in a certain shape that we like, that's all. It's not inherently wrong (nothing is...), and the psychological harm exists only because the child has been taught that what happened to them is wrong/bad/sick/etc.
These things vary between cultures and different times in history.

Let's face it, ****ing off onto a baby actually harms no one at all, but we just find it so extremely unusual that we are moved to outlaw it and probably beat to death anyone known to do it.

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, 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.

The animal is sexually mature...

So? I does not mean I approve of what they do, I would rather that they didn't, but I would rather homosexuals weren't homosexuals, but I respect that they have a different sexuality that I do not personally approve of, and do not believe that they should be criminalised.

Basically forbidding sex with minors and young children keeps our society in a certain shape that we like, that's all. It's not inherently wrong (nothing is...), and the psychological harm exists only because the child has been taught that what happened to them is wrong/bad/sick/etc.
These things vary between cultures and different times in history.

Let's face it, ****ing off onto a baby actually harms no one at all, but we just find it so extremely unusual that we are moved to outlaw it and probably beat to death anyone known to do it.

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?

And only things that are biologically ingrained in us should be allowed?

You think an animal doesn't show pain when it's kicked?

Of course. You consider it, decide that the animal that usually shows discomfort in certain ways isn't showing any and carry on.

Sorry, what practices? Anyway, we're talking about what should be here and not what the law is.

Yes, probably because the issue is quite simplistic to animals. Why are you making it complicated for them? They don't put this much thought into sex.
Same with all those examples I mentioned. Perhaps those doggies have a learned fear of Paris Hilton types and obey out of fear. Why is keeping pets not illegal?

The baby is a human and humans tend to grow to be physically ready for sex and able to consent. Animals have sex without any of them ever developing the need to bring ethics, morality, consent, any of those human concepts into it.

Why is this?

I am not talking about animals being forced to mate with humans, rather an intimate sexual relationship between both partners, to which both have consented in their own way and in which neither party is harmed.

It just seems like a double standard to me, I don't understand either zoophilia or homosexuality. The arguments for homosexuality and the arguments for zoophilia appear to be fairly similar. Yet one is outright condemned and the other is accepted as normal behaviour.

1. Both parties involved are consenting adults.

2. Both zoophilia and homosexuality are a sexuality, rather than a fetish.

3. Both involve an intimate relationship.

4. Both occur in nature.

5. Neither can result in offspring.

Thoughts? I don't even know why this came across my mind, I guess this is what happens when I do too much procrastinating.

Please note: I am not a troll, BNP supporter, a homophobe or a Zoophile, I am a student trying to have a sensible discussion and understand the logic behind people's opinions.

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.

Fine.

Now explain why that makes sex with animals justifiable and sex with infants unjustifiable given that neither would interpret the acts as sexual.

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.

It's not a matter of consent but of sexual maturity as consent is a grey area. Personally I couldn't care less about paedophilia if all we cared about was consent whereas the law is based on sexual maturity hence it does seem absurd to make zoophilia illegal for the animal is sexually mature and doesn't seem to be complaining, whereas if a human had sex with a baby/child it often either results in damage to other family members and the child is psychologically traumatised. Whereas this doesn't seem to be so with animals.

However it's not like we can observe psychological changes in animals or whether they consent or dissent the sex, but what we can say is that it doesn't cause physical harm/fear as those are physical stimuli which can be observed empirically.



Dumstruck.

How did you even manage to come up to such conclusion without any knowledge of genetics? animals of different species have different number of chromosomes hence they don't just produce infertile offspring, they simply don't produce offspring... Unless it's two different kinds of wheat which are very likely, or a horse and a donkey however this doesn't occur between a human and a sheep...

Even if we produced such chimeras wouldn't it be interesting to study them, why is it morally wrong?

Because it's animal cruelty.

As for the whole thing about genetics... That's what I'm meaning - It's really weird on that level.

In relation to this, you need to see the film "Splice" An impossible film but creepy none the less.

I don't like scary movies.

surprise, surprise humans are animals...

With regards to sexing animals/children, yeah.

That was just my view on why zoophilia is frowned upon.

The way an animal expresses pain might not be clear to us.

What an extraordinarily odd approach. Surely you think about whether an action is likely to cause harm before carrying it out.

Furthermore your approach is unreliable, you may be uneducated, or at least unsure about the ways an animal might express pain. Some indicators are universal, some are not.

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

You have, I believe, misunderstood my point. My argument was a counter to the idea that animals are capable of tacit consent.

We are not entitled to say that animals are capable of consent for the reasons that I outlined.

I have no memories from when I was a young infant.

It is still unclear to me why sex with animals is appropriate whilst sex with infants is not.