Why is zoophilia condemned and homosexuality not? Watch

This discussion is closed.
EskimoJo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#381
Report 7 years ago
#381
(Original post by Tommyjw)
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?
It was for anyone reading. It seems many peoples' arguments are based solely on the ikkyness. You didn't comment about any of my other points...
0
EskimoJo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#382
Report 7 years ago
#382
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Still yet to get serious answers towards my argument about the burden of proof and you claiming it does no harm to society.
What harm does it do to me and you if some people sleep with animals?
0
Jacktri
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#383
Report 7 years ago
#383
because queers campaign for rights but animal shaggers do not
0
PurpleMonkeyDishwasher
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#384
Report 7 years ago
#384
(Original post by EskimoJo)
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! :rolleyes:
Animals don't have sex for pleasure, only for reproducing, so they don't enter sexual intercourse with the intent of gaining pleasure from it. If you bend over and get bummed by a donkey, it's not because it thinks you're hot but because it thinks you can carry its offspring. Therefore it's kinda like tricking an animal into sex, they don't get from sex what humans do. Also, no way of getting consent from an animal.
1
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#385
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#385
(Original post by Baula)
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.
Infertile zygotes can only occur with species which have very similar genetics. Their is no chance at all that a woman and a dog could produce offspring. I don't know about apes, but I imagine it to be unlikely.

You can get the consent of the animal, if the animal is initiating it for example, it has obviously given consent, you can also look for the signals that animals give to members of their own species to let other members know they are up for it.

"Deviancy" or "weirdness" are completely invalid circular arguments, and these arguments were used against homosexuality in the not too far distant past.
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#386
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#386
(Original post by Tommyjw)
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?
You are not listening to what I am saying.

The zoophiles that abuse the animal, are wrong.

The zoophiles that do not abuse the animal, are not in the wrong.

Therefore only zoophiles which harm the animals are harmful to society, and as I posted in the OP, this thread is about zoophiles which DO NOT harm the animal.

Your argument is completely retarded, it's like saying we should ban all heterosexual relationships because some relationships become abusive.
0
tieyourmotherdown
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#387
Report 7 years ago
#387
Whilst I don't really care who has sex with who or what, there is one argument for zoophilia that I have trouble with.

Obviously there is the consent argument, however people say "We don't ask for animals consent when we kill them, eat them etc. etc, so why should it be any difficult for sex?", which is somewhat flawed. Just because we don't ask for consent on other things doesn't mean not asking for consent when it comes to sex is justified. In other words, no we don't ask for their consent when we kill them and eat them but then just because it happens doesn't make it right, and the same would apply for animals.

That said, providing it doesn't hurt anybody, do whatever floats your boat.
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#388
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#388
(Original post by Mr Disco)
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?
A baby has not reached sexual maturity, it doesn't have the developed organs yet, nor the will to have sex with anyone.
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#389
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#389
(Original post by MelonFroot)
Maybe not, but you are a ****.
Thanks for well thought out, and rational input to this discussion.

(You here that? that was my sarcasm-o-meter overloading.)
0
SundayGirl.
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#390
Report 7 years ago
#390
(Original post by mevidek)
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.
This.
1
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#391
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#391
(Original post by mevidek)
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.
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.
1
emerset
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#392
Report 7 years ago
#392
(Original post by magnum.opus)
You should have said this. If you don't agree with someone, you discredit his argument, not his reputation.
One's failure to follow logic directly affects his reputation.:rolleyes:
0
emerset
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#393
Report 7 years ago
#393
(Original post by imperial maniac)
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.
ooooooh so now you're trying to defend animal rapists, lol, on the grounds of "well we do a lot of bad things to animals" :slap:
0
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#394
Report 7 years ago
#394
(Original post by Baula)

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.
Wtf are you on about.
In nearly all cases (probably all cases really), pregnancy would not be a concern because it simply is not possible.

(Original post by Mr Disco)
Point being that the best available evidence suggests that ****ing animals causes them distress and constitutes abuse.
What evidence.
0
mevidek
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#395
Report 7 years ago
#395
(Original post by imperial maniac)
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.
I'm sorry but I've never heard of animals giving signals to humans that they are "up for it". Plus what you said about a prostitute just isn't correct.

And to do with battery and intensive farming, I totally disagree with that method, but killing animals for food is something that has to happen, because we've done it and so have all other carnivores through all of our existence.
0
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#396
Report 7 years ago
#396
(Original post by mevidek)
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.
0
mevidek
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#397
Report 7 years ago
#397
(Original post by WelshBluebird)
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 :mmm: but she doesn't consent until he pays her though right?
0
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#398
Report 7 years ago
#398
(Original post by mevidek)
I may be wrong because I am not an expert in the area of prostitution :mmm: 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.
0
mevidek
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#399
Report 7 years ago
#399
(Original post by WelshBluebird)
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.
Yeah like I said I'm not an expert :mmm: but still I think it would depend on the order of events.
0
PendulumBoB
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#400
Report 7 years ago
#400
(Original post by magnum.opus)
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.
Yes but by your logic all sex in the animal kingdom is wrong as neither of the animals are giving (What you would call) consent.
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! (207)
40.19%
No - but I will (31)
6.02%
No - I don't want to (35)
6.8%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (242)
46.99%

Watched Threads

View All
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