Why is zoophilia condemned and homosexuality not?

Animals can rape each other, but that isn't the point.

I fail to see how saying that a random one-off doesn't make it right as a whole is an argument.
What's wrong with that specific case?? I say nothing, and therefore if those conditions are replicated, it's okay.
Rape is wrong, and is always wrong, so cases of rape are not going to be okay. You've just got to be more knowledgeable and careful about the situation with animals than you would most humans.

The fact you're alive today is, statistically, unnatural. Modern science has, statistically, saved your life beyond what nature intended. Nature is irrelevant in ethics, **** nature.

Which I suppose is the entire point of this thread.

I've had sex with a dolphin before and it was the most wonderful and sensational experience I've ever had, but between you and me something amazing happened and now I can talk to animals! It's pretty cool and totally secret and you know what? Life will never be the same.

Rape is another legal concept, I would argue that in the animal kingdom there can be no rape, it's just how basically all sex occurs. They don't have alcohol and mood lighting to "persuade" each other into bed.



I thought it was just about humans having sex with animals. Or is that always rape, like statutory rape? Because we disregard their consent as uninformed and worthless, like that of a child or a *******, so it's always rape and is therefore always wrong, and is therefore rape, etc.



Haha, sounds EXACTLY like what people used to say about gays a few decades ago. Oh they're just confused, they don't know what they're doing. They need to be protected from themselves!

How do you know that an animal isn't in pain or in distress? You can't know. They can't tell you, and they won't sit there and cry. Having lived on a farm you will know that sometimes they will react, sometimes they won't.

And why not apply the same standard to people then? If someone has sex with a child and they don't object (perhaps because they're confused and terrified) then by your logic they've consented?

This isn't about a human raping an animal, it's about an intimate sexual relationship between an animal and a human in which both parties have consented (e.g if a dog mounted a woman.) Did you even read the OP or just start ranting?

I'm mentally disturbed at the thought of someone having sex with my dog...
Definitely not normal!!

I'm no biologists.... but couldn't viruses more easily transmit from animals to humans and create more havoc if zoophilia isn't condemned? :/

Plus, I can't really compare zoophilia and homosexuality. Zoophilia involves totally different species

What I said has nothing to do with ethics. Homophobia is a personality disorder. That is a psychological and psychosocial statement, not a moral statement.

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.

It is pretty darn obvious that an animal would 'attempt to have sex' with a human because of confusion. They do not go walking (or swimming) around thinking 'i'm so gonna find me a human today'.

The dolphin does not 'initiate sex' . It simply shows in whatever way that it is horny through it's confusion. It does not control it's emotions like a human does. The man clearly took advantage of his sexually f'ed up mind (if the case is even true) .

Got to look at Occam's Razor here.

Situation 1:
Dolphin is horny. Dolphin happens to be near Human. Dolphin responds to horniness by mating with Human. (Worth noting that Human had swam with wild dolphins, including Dolphin, for a long time, so Dolphin had become acclimatised to Human, and likely to not see Human as a threat - even would come out each evening to find Human swimming there).

Situation 2.
Dolphin is confused. Crazy Dolphin does crazy things. Crazy Dolphin shows normal horny-dolphin characteristics, Crazy Dolphin is not actually horny. Crazy Dolphin attempts to mate with Human, but this does not mean that Crazy Dolphin wants to mate with Human. According to Human, Dolphin timed it so they orgasmed at the same time, but this was not intentional by Crazy Dolphin, Crazy Dolphin was just crazy.

(The account went into waaaay too much detail, ew, but did change my views radically on bestiality).

1) Forced sex is forced sex. The title rape doesn't need to be included, but forced sex does happen in nature, although not nearly as common as in humans.

2) Bestiality is harmful and when initiated by humans is rape.

3) Gay people are human beings. That has nothing to do with the issue of sex with animals.

Try again.

I can consent to having sex with another man, animals cannot for starters

having sex with animals is wrong. Having sex with another man is not.

Literally made no sense and is essentially nothing to do with the true principle of Occams razor. Occams razor, in a simple way, is to select one of a group of theories as the 'correct one for now' if it presents less 'new ideas' and thus is a more simple option than the others. Explain how this relates to your post.

So essentially.. what?

So would you view the statement: "Homosexuality is a personality disorder" to be a moral statement?