People that argue beastiality is wrong because of consent are slightly retarded??

We're not talking just about pleasure, we're talking about the evil committed on these animals. You would have be crazy to believe that being imprisoned per se is worse or equal to being sexually assaulted.

I'm not homophobic, I'm actually a fan of Neil Patrick Harris.

Well surely that depends on the circumstances. Having sex does not necessarily equal sexual assault. Animals may not verbally be able to consent to sexual activity, but it isn't unheard of for them to initiate it.

And it would also depend on the circumstances of imprisonment. What are they imprisoned in? How long are they imprisoned for? What are the conditions of their enclosure? et cetera.

That's exactly what I said earlier - that the manner of determining what falls into a morally grey area and what doesn't has been based upon your feelings i.e. whether you feel strongly about something or not.

You say I have missed your arguments by saying that the distinction is made by "gut feeling", and then tell me that you make the distinction between what is morally grey area and what isn't based on how strongly you feel about it

The OP may not have mentioned it specifically - but it's the concept itself that he has mentioned.

Namely, people are happy to do some horrible things to animals without their consent (there are countless examples of this, not limited to those the OP has mentioned), but single out sex without their consent as something they are unhappy with.

As I said, my point isn't dependent on which ones are more unacceptable and which ones are less unacceptable. I certainly agree that some are more unacceptable than others, on the basis of how much harm they cause to the animal.

However, when some actions actually become considered as acceptable (rather than merely less unacceptable), while others remain considered unacceptable, the method of distinguishing between the two types of actions seems, in real terms, to be highly arbitrary.

Let me put it like this: If person A steals $100 and person B steals $200, person B's actions are obviously worse. But it would still be hypocritical if A reprimanded B for stealing, wouldn't it? Just because A's actions aren't as bad doesn't make it acceptable.
Similarly, if person A imprisons animals without their consent, and person B has sex with them without their consent, we may say that B's actions are worse. But that's not the point. If one is considered acceptable while the other isn't, the double standards still remain.

I don't think it makes it meaningless or silly. But I think it requires acceptance that you are not universally correct.

I, like you, would feel utterly sick if I knew people were having sex with animals. Not so much if I knew they were eating animals, or locking them in cages, or doing other things to them without their consent. However, I simply accept that the only reason for this is social conditioning, and the way I've been brought up. I'm used to seeing people eat and cage animals, but not have sex with them.
But I cannot claim to be universally "right", while someone who feels differently to me is "wrong".


Unfortunately, it seems as though many of your points have relied on the Appeal to ridicule. "You'd have to be stupid/insane/ignorant to believe..."
I do hope you realise that, on their own, these are not logical arguments.

True, but I think that's exactly who the argument is aimed at - those who eat and enslave animals without their consent.



The argument here does not condemn homosexuality. Nobody is actually trying to prove that homosexuality is wrong here. Rather, the argument says: "You condemn me as a bigot for saying that homosexuality is wrong. But you're being equally bigoted by saying that bestiality is wrong". It is simply an argument of pointing out double standards.

The argument assumes that we don't need an animal's consent to do something to it for our own benefit. (Many people would find it difficult to dispute this premise, as they engage in this themselves all the time). It then suggests to those who accept homosexuality that they should also accept bestiality. They cannot cite the issue of consent, as we do not need this from animals, according to the assumption. They are finally left with the issue of explaining why they accept one but not the other - rather than accepting both, or condemning both.

Although you did make a fair point, it does not justify homophobia. Although I wouldn't like to have sex with an animal myself, you don't see me discriminating against people who do or making threads about it.



If that is the case why do you keep making threads about it?

Let gay people be gay and go and shag all the women you want. No one is stopping you.

I know this is off topic, but are saying that people make a concious descision to become homosexual? Or that it's wrong even though it's something they're born with?

Im saying that people make a conscious decision to become homosexual, no one is born with a decision implanted in them.

Im saying that people make a conscious decision to become homosexual, no one is born with a decision implanted in them.

No. Not being born as homosexual doesn't mean it's something they have control over.
My opinion that it's either something they're born with, or something that happens at a young age as they are developing, or most likely a mixture of both.
Want to prove yourself right? Choose to be gay, right now.

If people say that homosexuality is right just because they were born that way *cough* bull**** *cough* , then beastiality could be considered in the same category because they were supposedly born with the desire to have sex with animals , im not defending either one cause i think the defence for homosexuality is complete an utter bull and by extension think that beastiality is wrong

If people say that homosexuality is right just because they were born that way *cough* bull**** *cough* , then beastiality could be considered in the same category because they were supposedly born with the desire to have sex with animals , im not defending either one cause i think the defence for homosexuality is complete an utter bull and by extension think that beastiality is wrong

One can argue:
"You're being hypocritical. You're perfectly happy to condemn bestiality as immoral, but you call me a bigot for saying the same thing about homosexuality".

The rebuttal would be that homosexuality and bestiality are different. But how are they different? They're both 'alternative' forms of sexuality which might cause some of our stomachs to churn at the thought of them.

People say that it is the issue of consent which makes them different. But then the purpose of the OP's argument is to counter this claim. As he has said, it is a double-standard to require consent to have sex with an animal, but not to keep them in cages or eat them, or do many other things that most of us wouldn't think twice about doing to an animal.