The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
8 Points

Should Zoophiles/Zoosexuals Be Considered Apart of the LGBTQIA+ Community?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 495 times Debate No: 79148
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




Zoophiles/Zoosexuals have argued that they can consider themselves apart of the MOGAI and/or LGTBQIA+ Community. However, animals cannot consent verbally to sexual and/or romantic relationships. Just like with humans, unless there is clear consent, no matter what one person's actions say, unless they say "yes" then it is automatically not consent to sex.
Many animals do not have one set mate throughout their life and do not have sexual intercourse for their own personal enjoyment, but rather to procreate.


This debate is not whether zoophilia is legal or should be, if we are in Uganda or Saudi Arabia would we say that gays are not a part of the LGBT+ community? Of course not, the 'G' obviously stands for gay so that is an easy way to display how little legality has to do with this debate, which also means consent does as well.

Here is the fundamental issue with Con's logic; to be part of a community is not representative of if one should or shouldn't be part of it.

I'm now going to show a variety of ways that the resolution can be interpreted and/or manipulated in order to win this debate and then conclude something based on all of them.

1st interpretation: Pro = LGBTQIA+ could and logically should include any and all sexual deviance form the norm including zoophilia

Since the '+' is there and is very clearly going in sequential order of most socially accepted sexual deviance to least or at least in order of commonality, it is natural to assume that the less popular or well-known ones would be further down the line. Asexual being the A, it is natural to assume that their kind is still accepted more in the community than the zoophiles. Nowhere in the resolution is there mention of 'should be accepted' or 'will be socially integrated' in the community, it is only about if they should be considered part of an open-ended list of sexual deviancies and this is almost undeniably true. zoophilia is an extreme deviance from heterosexual attraction restricted solely to human beings.

2nd interpretation: Con = A zoophile cannot also be part of the LGBTQIA+ community.

What I am getting at with this interpretation is that the resolution isn't very clear on what 'considered part of' means and thus leaves one to wonder if the 'zoophiles' are meant to only be zoophilic. It was once thought that one is either gay/lesbian or straight. Bisexuality was totally ignored or considered a 'phase' and this is very similar to it. There is no way that one could say that all zoophiles have absolutely no attraction to humans nor sexualities within their human radar that would end them up in the LGBT community by default. In other words, 'should they be considered' read as opposite means that Con is suggesting that if one is both attracted to animals sexually and humans homosexually, the person's zoophilia should restrict their right to even be considered part of the community despite their human homosexual secondary sexuality. People can have multiple sexualities and this i a very key point. Bi sexuality and pansexuality would 100% not exist if this were untrue.

3rd interpretation: Con = Criminals or people with criminal fantasies, especially sexual ones, should not be considered part of the LGBT community.

It could be seen that what Con is suggesting, and thus arguing in support of, is the idea that breaking the law in some way such as having sexual relation with a non-human animal or even lusting after this without acting on that lust should somehow restrict one from being part of it.

Would you say that a homosexual who sometimes has rape fantasies either being the rapist or being raped by someone of their own gender is any less a gay and any less part of the community? Almost certainly not. In actual fact, I’d just as certainly say that someone who acted on these urges would still be part of the community even for the entire duration of their sentence.

There is nothing to suggest that being a criminal should restrict a sexual-deviant-form-heterosexuality to be part of the community that is supposed to include all kinds of unusual sexuality including asexuality (which is a complete lack of sexuality at all).


I have proven that there naturally should come a ‘z’ later on in the list of letters where a sexuality even less common and accepted than asexuality should appear. I have also explained why anything Con may argue that should bar a perfectly viable candidate for the LGBT who also happens to like to have sex with animals is logically flawed and additionally explained why the legality of zoophilia is totally and utterly irrelevant to this debate.

Debate Round No. 1


I do like your argument very much, showing interpretation of my question that seemed vague. It was up for interpretation based on somebody able to argue back.

Now to argue your pro argument, the LGBTQIA+ community relies solely on attraction to consenting humans. However, the community must come to accept somebody's attraction. Legality is not ever looked at as being gay was once illegal and is still illegal in countries.
But if we allow this "taboo" practice of attraction to animals, this could open doors go having pedophiles, ect want to join. Pedophilia is not only illegal, but also usually involves rape and/or molesting without consent. Children are unable to consent if they are mentally incapable or not of an age of awareness of what is happening. Animals are similar in this case. Animals cannot understand what exactly is happening if a human tries to initiate intercourse. Animals do not have the mental capability of comprehending and trying to escape. In the case of a horse, they are trained to behave. Horses may show signs of curiosity or annoyance, but will most likely stand still until they feel threatened for real.
Very few animals also have sex for enjoyance naturally, so they would in this case no have sex for enjoyance especially with somebody of another species.

Your 3rd interpretation I do not agree with, as criminals can be of all sexualities. Taboo fantasies are not at all considered a sexuality, but instead a fantasy. BDSM is a fantasy, but nobody says I'm "BDSMsexual" since that makes no sense


Con has ignored what I said about the zoophiles who also are attracted to humans of their own gender as well as transgender or gender-fluid zoophiles.

Aside from this totally ignored point, Con unsuccessfully tries to explain that BDSM fantasies are fine and that this somehow disproves my third point. If anything, it reinforces it. Many of the things most doms wish to do to people (meaning before limits are agreed and their dominance reigned din by the consent of the sub) are quite horrific. That fantasy harms no one but can make someone feel very alienated and dissatisfied as well as rejected by society for simply who they are and what they desire, which is what many zoophiles feel for animals often Far less rough and sometimes even as the sub. If you say that pedophiles or zoophiles need to actually molest physically to be classified as such then you are changing the debate. If a virgin who knows they are gay can join LGBT, then zoophiles who have never harmed or touched an animal in that way should also be able to.

You seem obsessed with this parallel between a pedophile and a zoophile. Then what is the difference between a zoophile molesting an adult animal or a young one? Is the pedophilic zoophile worse in your eyes? If so, then the adult loving zoophile must be better. On the other hand, a pedophile who attacks young animals as opposed to one who attacks young children is clearly morally superior no? The trauma a young animal gets from being molested is minuscule in comparison with that of a human child.

In conclusion, a pedophilic zoophile is worse than an adult loving zoophile but a zoophilic pedophile is better than a human lusting pedophile. Thus, pedophilia is definitely far worse and malignant than zoophilia for a zoophilic pedophile is not worse than a non-zoophilic one morally.

In further summary, there are many gays and lesbians who would happily have sex with even a 13 year old if the law of their land allowed it, stop deluding yourself. Society build a random age that the millisecond before midnight suddenly makes them able to give consent on their 18th birthday or whatever the age of that country is.

Debate Round No. 2


RaverEquestrian forfeited this round.


Victory is mine.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by robertacollier 1 year ago
This debate is queer.
Posted by RaverEquestrian 1 year ago
As far as I know, I believe this is the largest it's getting before its being shortened. But the Zoophiles want to make it "LGBTQIAZ+".
Sexuality and gender identity is endless, however the plus sign should cover the lesser known sexualities.
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
How long is that acronym going to get
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture