The Instigator
ADreamOfLiberty
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
SalmanK
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
ADreamOfLiberty
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,096 times Debate No: 38840
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

ADreamOfLiberty

Pro

Because of the length constraints a completely specified argument is impossible, indeed it would take a small book. I will however assert some premises which I hope are self-evident to my opponent. If they are not those topics must be clarified before meaningful debate on the resolution can be had.

1. Legality and morality are inherently linked, if something is moral it should be legal and if is legal it should be moral. The difference between them is the difference between what people think and what is. Morality is that which is right, the law is that which people (a majority of) think is right (as expressed through a democratic government).

2. To make moral claims one must have moral principles, to have moral principles one must have a moral theory. That is one must be aware of the field of philosophy which is ethics and subscribe to some system of thought in that field.


3. Baring a full derivation and support of a moral theory, the relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage. For those interested I hold a more constrained view as a universal principle for human society, i.e. volition is the prerequisite of all moral interaction between humans.


From these premises I would like to preempt possible strategies of my opponent by implication.


#1 means I will not entertain the notion that even if bestiality/zoophilia is moral it is detrimental to society and that constitutes a legal basis for banning it. For those who consider this unfair I ask you to think of all those things demonstrably detrimental to society that the law does allow for on the basis of personal freedom.


#2 means that I will not entertain sentiments which associate the term morality with emotional appeals, religious dogma, or mindless. If it is not wrong and you wish to merely point out how it can sometimes be dangerous or play a negative role in someone’s life then I’ll leave you to it; that is not the resolution I wish to argue.

#2 also means that there is no such thing as ‘one case at a time’ moral judgments, nothing is good or evil in a vacuum but can only be so in the context of a mountain of previously derived facts. Identifying and challenging double standards is a key technique in discovering moral fallacies. If someone can, on whim, use one standard of moral judgment in case A and another in case B then no moral debate is possible. Therefore if you are someone who thinks comparing zoophilia to homosexuality or to the practice of eating animal meat is a red herring then you should not accept the challenge.

#3 means you are willing to debate the matter of consent, I love to debate ethics and no doubt I will on this site but if you do not believe consent is the moral principle involved here you are almost certainly going to turn this into a philosophical debate.

Some notes on terms:

I use the term Bestiality/zoophilia, some other people make distinctions between these terms; I mean the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species.


Is zoophilia a sexual orientation? I think so, as far as the word has objective meaning. Bottom line is that some people desire sexual relations with animals. I do not believe the causes of this phenomenon are relevant to the debate nor do I believe there is enough scientific ground work to attempt to answer that question. The homosexual movement has been chugging away for decades and nobody really has a clue what causes it.

Consent, and this is important, is defined as “permission for something to happen or agreement to do something” http://oxforddictionaries.com... . I am fully aware that the idea of informed consent in legal circles is different and much stricter. I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent. No one who has a pet, no one who has partook in any animal derived products has ever had informed consent from any animals. It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action. Something that requires the ability to predict the future with 100% certainty.


In practice what is meant by informed consent is that one party discloses any information about the interaction which may reasonably be expected to affect the other’s decision. If one party does not have the information it cannot be given. If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement.


For instance, you bring an unconscious stranger into a hospital, the doctor will still treat them on the presumption that they want to be healed. There is no consent informed or otherwise.

Under the constraints set out above the question is:

A.) Can an animal give permission or agreement to a member of another species for sexual interaction?


There are two possible reasons why the answer to that could be no in all cases:



1. No species is capable of communicating permission, agreement, or anything really to a member of another species implicitly or explicitly


2. No species is psychologically capable of granting consent to another species

We can knock out #2 by the mere fact that this is an issue. Humans must be capable of granting consent to another species if they pursue sexual relations with them. Surely you could say humans are an exception but that would require some explanation. Why would humans be the only species capable of accepting interspecies sex? How could you reconcile this with observed instances of interspecies sex between two non-human species?



Even if a creature is incapable of choosing between acting and not acting a certain way it cannot be said that it does not consent. Instead it is more accurate to say that consent is not conceptually applicable to that species.



If a wasp stings you, you might think it was merely the sum of stimuli up to that point that caused it. There is not enough of an independent consciousness in a wasp brain to ever decide not to sting you given the same inputs. It is incorrect to say that the wasp accepts or refuses the interaction. It does neither but if you had to choose, it would be acceptance because if it did have the ability to choose obviously its actions would reflect its choice.



#1 is a little harder but not by much. Consider the following premise



It is impossible for a creature to pursue an action to which it does not consent provided it does not fear retribution for failure to comply.



This can be established easily by looking at its negation which is “It is possible for a creature to pursue a course of action it does not consent to, even if there is no fear of retribution for failure to comply”. It’s a contradiction in terms. If it can agree with anything it must agree with itself.



Therefore even in the absence of verbal or body language, if an animal pursues a course of action where no negative consequences have ever been employed as the result of failing to pursue said course of action, then it has implicitly communicated its intention and its acceptance of the action. If that action is in fact an interaction it must also consent to the interaction.

To compound that point most animals which zoophiles are interested in mating with are quite capable of body language and vocal communication of a basic sort. Note that “Yes” and “No” are very basic communications which any higher animal owner can attest to understanding.

Whether that decision is the result of some faculty of self-determination or is pure instinct is actually irrelevant. If it is pure instinct then the creature never had any freedom to violate. If it has self-determination then it is determining things for itself.

In summation if there exists any example of an animal showing through action absent negative conditioning the acceptance of sexual relations with another species the answer to question A is Yes, at least in some cases. If in some cases an animal can consent to interspecies sex, then surely in some cases an animal can consent to sex with a human, thus on the consent principle it is moral to have sex with an animal.. in some cases.

I want to wrap up with an example question: Horseback riding. Do you believe a horse can consent to being ridden? How would you know?

SalmanK

Con

I think your first two arguments for zoophilia ( it should be legal and it isn't inherently immoral) go hand in hand, since the morals of a nation dictate its laws. My argument against it is that it cannot be legal since most of society opposes it, and considers it to be immoral. Morals are dictated by a society based on what would be in the best interests of the society at large. I think that zoophilia is inherently immoral because you are forcing an animal to do what they are not usually able to do. A counter-argument for this could say that we shouldn't ride horses, either, since they aren't conditioned to do it by nature. I think that zoophilia could only be moral if the animal was raised so that having sex with humans would be considered normal by the animal, and not strange. Domestic pets and farm animals are brought up in a similar way, therefore they do not mind staying with humans and staying in man-made environments. But even if you were to bring up an animal to be conditioned for cross-species sex, it would be a massive waste of time to do so.

To answer your second argument, your "mountain of previously derived facts" becomes a mountain of previously derived morals. No one has tried to examine the health risks or psychological risks associated with bestiality. According to your argument of "nothing is inherently moral or immoral on its own but becomes one when presented in the context of previously derived facts", bestiality would be considered inherently immoral.
Debate Round No. 1
ADreamOfLiberty

Pro

"I think your first two arguments for zoophilia ( it should be legal and it isn't inherently immoral) go hand in hand, since the morals of a nation dictate its laws. My argument against it is that it cannot be legal since most of society opposes it, and considers it to be immoral. Morals are dictated by a society based on what would be in the best interests of the society at large."

I have quite a lot to say against that, but for the sake of keeping on subject I'll limit myself to pointing out that you are attempting to use appeal to popularity fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org...

A system of ethics is not true or correct just because people believe it is, no matter how many.

Also, please note that the argument didn't start until "Under the constraints set out above the question is:" Above that was discussion of terms and premises of the debate.

"I think that zoophilia is inherently immoral because you are forcing an animal to do what they are not usually able to do."
1. Force is not necessary.
2. Most adult animals are able to have sex. Zoophiles don't try with animals who are incapable of mating with humans.

"A counter-argument for this could say that we shouldn't ride horses, either, since they aren't conditioned to do it by nature."
Yes

"I think that zoophilia could only be moral if the animal was raised so that having sex with humans would be considered normal by the animal, and not strange."

If that is not inherently impossible then zoophilia would not be inherently immoral. However I wonder what you means exactly.

It is rightly considered (by the zoophile community) cruel to subject sexually immature animals to sexual advances and indeed will confuse them more in the end.

Zoophiles have raised animals and begun interacting with them sexually very soon after they start to show interest.

Animals adapt and so do people, I don't see why it should be immoral if an old dog learns some new tricks. There is a first time for everything, including sex and being ridden. Whether it's with a human or another animal one must imagine it can be strange at first.

"Domestic pets and farm animals are brought up in a similar way, therefore they do not mind staying with humans and staying in man-made environments. But even if you were to bring up an animal to be conditioned for cross-species sex, it would be a massive waste of time to do so."
People have tamed horses and dogs who did not grow up on farms or in houses. It's more a matter of psychology. The animal in question needs to have a wide tolerance for the types of creature they may come to see as pack or herd members. That is also why domesticated animals get along with each other better than you might expect.

Again there is no need for special conditioning or training. Unlike being ridden, going to the vet, or following human rules about inside and outside behavior; sex is very natural to any relevant animal. It's more analogous to eating. You wouldn't say you need to condition an animal for years before you can give them a new kind of food. If they really don't like it they won't eat it.

Finally as to it being a waste of time, that could be said of almost all human animal interactions. Doesn't stop millions of people from keeping eating pooping machines around that do little to nothing to pay their own way.

Even most sex is a waste of time, we can use artificial insemination on humans and it's much more reliable way to make babies. People do it for the pleasure and for the relationship it often accompanies.

"To answer your second argument, your "mountain of previously derived facts" becomes a mountain of previously derived morals."
Again, not an argument a premise. and a true moral is a type of fact.

"No one has tried to examine the health risks or psychological risks associated with bestiality."
Zoophiles have, as well as some professionals. Not many I grant you but that's because it's taboo, generally illegal, and people like impossible think it's a waste of time to even examine the issue.

"According to your argument of "nothing is inherently moral or immoral on its own but becomes one when presented in the context of previously derived facts", bestiality would be considered inherently immoral."
That does not follow in the slightest.

If there were no facts, (which there are) then it would be neither moral nor immoral but unconsidered.
SalmanK

Con

Very good arguments. I might even actually reconsider my point.

As you can see, I got off to a rough start there since I wasn't very well educated when it comes to zoophilia, however your argument has helped. I also got off to a rough start because I tried answering your question with a religiously-backed argument, which doesn't work most of the time. I'll try arguing from a secular viewpoint now, so I'll be taking away the focus on the morality aspect of this (since you covered it pretty well) and more to the legal, secular aspect.

I'd like to ask you a question: What would the implications of legalizing bestiality be? Just think for a moment. What if bestiality was legalized in your country? What do you think would happen then? Surely there would be some riots or protests from religous groups taking offense at the legalization of it.

Also, think about this: Would it be inherently useful to legalise bestiality? We know that it is hard to find exact numbers of peoples with a sexual attraction to animals due to the stigma attached to it. Think about it: would legalizing bestiality help the people who are born with an attraction to animals, or would it hurt them? If it was legalized, people would still be unaccepting at first of it, and people with an attraction to animals would be outcasts. Eventually, they would be accepted, yes, but it would take a long time for people who aren't even used to the idea of people having same-sex attractions to get used to the idea of inter-species relationships. Legalizing it would cause a great deal of harm to these people.

I think that most zoophiles should adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the time being, and just patiently wait until bestiality starts to get accpeted.
Debate Round No. 2
ADreamOfLiberty

Pro

"Very good arguments. I might even actually reconsider my point."

That would be a welcome change (not from you, in general).

"I'll be taking away the focus on the morality aspect of this (since you covered it pretty well) and more to the legal, secular aspect."

*cringes* ... what I meant to say with premise 1 is that I don't think that is possible. I fully agree with you that a nation's (or smaller group) morality dictates the laws they pass. What's more I don't think the law should be based on anything but morality.

Consider this, the law is a code of behavior. It can only do two things. Specify a duty, or prohibit a behavior (or if it's a very bad law a thought).

Morality is also defined as a code of behavior.

They occupy the same conceptual space. Any discontinuity between them can and is an injustice by definition.

If the law permits something immoral it isn't doing its job.

If the law prohibits something moral it is infringing on moral liberty, which is to say rights.

If the law demands a duty that is not morally owed it is extorting the people.

If the law holds a moral duty no duty at all it is again insufficient.

You can talk about the law is without talking about morality, but what the law should be? That is morality.


Therefore we can talk about the practical implications, we can talk about animal and human psychology, biology etc... without dealing with morality but you can't continue to uphold the con position unless you want to assert that even if bestiality is moral it should still be illegal... and I specifically dealt with that in my opening argument by essentially saying that's another debate.

"What would the implications of legalizing bestiality be? Just think for a moment. What if bestiality was legalized in your country? What do you think would happen then? Surely there would be some riots or protests from religous groups taking offense at the legalization of it."

Yes some protests. I am sure many would use it as evidence of the total moral depravity society has come to, and harp for years on how they warned everyone that accepting homosexuals was a slippery slope.

"Also, think about this: Would it be inherently useful to legalise bestiality?"
Again, I don't see legal or moral questions as matters of use or disuse. Those questions belong to individuals or companies when they are deciding how they will use their own time and money.

I would advocate this change if there was only one zoophile in the world, and if I claimed something was immoral I would advocate it being illegal even if 99% of people would benefit from it.

"We know that it is hard to find exact numbers of peoples with a sexual attraction to animals due to the stigma attached to it. Think about it: would legalizing bestiality help the people who are born with an attraction to animals, or would it hurt them?"

Help them, sure some persecution would come down to the personal level but that's only because such conflicts would no longer be an instant win for the harassing party when they call PETA.

On a side note, I am not convinced people are born zoophiles (or homosexuals for that matter). It is fully possible that the time of formation was during childhood sometime, and also possible that it is reversible even if we don't know how to reverse it.

"If it was legalized, people would still be unaccepting at first of it, and people with an attraction to animals would be outcasts."

I... can't fix people hating zoophiles or what they do, just like I offer no solution to homophobia or racism except to give it no measure of validation in the law.

I believe people have the right to discriminate, with their own interactions, money, and love. I draw the line at the law because the law is force. Unless you have a right to do it yourself you don't have a right to do it through law.

If it was legal zoophiles could have a reasonable choice, they can still stay in the closet if they are afraid just as many homosexuals are in the closet (or at least low key) when they know people around them won't accept it.

However there are four cases in which legalization would have an immediate positive effect.

1. Zoophiles are losing opportunities for deep trusting relationships with other people (straight or zoophile) because of the huge risk in telling. Even if a zoophile doesn't want it public knowledge, there are people who should know. Potential spouses (especially), vets and doctors, other zoophiles, close friends, family. There are things about a person that are inexplicable unless this is known about them. While it is illegal, not only is it risky to tell anyone, but it also places that person in the position of being aware of illegal acts and possibly having to lie to the police to protect you.

2. Zoophiles are afraid to get professional medical advice, or if needed treatment relating to their activities. No it is not particularly dangerous but there are always risks.

3. Zoophiles don't like to be law breakers, who does. Even if they told no one it is easier on the self-respect to not break the law.

4. Zoophiles would be much less vulnerabe to blackmail.

5. Last but certainly not least, for those few who do want to tell the world or who are otherwise caught; they don't deserve to go to jail. Their animals don't deserve to be shipped off to strangers or worse.

"Eventually, they would be accepted, yes, but it would take a long time for people who aren't even used to the idea of people having same-sex attractions to get used to the idea of inter-species relationships."

However long that takes, the law can be just in the mean time. Furthermore I don't think that process is even occuring because of the law. Homosexuals only made significant steps after the law was changed for them. You can't expect anyone to learn about or accept people who are so deep in the closet the police can't fish them out.

Acceptance will only happen if zoophiles are free to tell people around them about this. Right now people see friends, family, coworkers. They have no idea their zoophiles so of course they aren't going to accept something that means nothing more than half a second of conjured imagary and a tiny biased news article.

"I think that most zoophiles should adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the time being, and just patiently wait until bestiality starts to get accpeted."

I am going to quote you a pinned thread from a zoophile website I am a member of, it is a public site so I don't think they'll mind.

Ramseys' 12 rules for new zoos.

1: Do NOT tell anyone you have sexual relations with animals.
2: Do NOT give out any personal info on line. (It's always a bit of a shock when you find out someone you've been seeing on line lives close to you. You wonder if you've let slip too much info that would allow them to figure out where you live. "Yea I live next to a Piggly Wiggly.")
3: Do NOT tell anyone you have sexual relations with animals.
4: Provide visual blocks to prevent people from seeing you having sexual relations with animals. Close the drapes or barn door. (Don't forget those pesky hang gliders and hot air balloons. And with cheap night vision devices, don't count on the dark either.)
5: Do NOT tell anyone you have sexual relations with animals.
6: Get a job so you can take care of your animal(s) you are having sexual relations with. And PLEASE never hurt them. (Check the 'how-to' if in doubt.)
7: Do NOT tell anyone you have sexual relations with animals.
8: Stay away from humans. (Failing this, at least make damn sure all humans you have contact with are 18+ years of age.)
9: Do NOT tell anyone you have sexual relations with animals.
10: If anyone suspects, deny, counter, disaffirm, disclaim, disprove, dispute, negate, oppose, refuse to accept, repudiate, rebut, and finally refute.
11: Do NOT tell anyone you have sexual relations with animals.
12: Don't trust ANYONE you meet on line. *

I think we have the "don't ask don't tell" policy down pat. That's not the issue here.
SalmanK

Con

Like I said in my second argument, I'm going to switch back to debating about the morality of zoophilia.

In my first argument, I said that the morals laws of a country were dictated by its populace, and even though you disagreed with me at first, you seem to have agreed with me, as per this.

"I fully agree with you that a nation's (or smaller group) morality dictates the laws they pass. What's more I don't think the law should be based on anything but morality. "

You said that the morality of a group dictated its laws, and that the law should be based only on morality. Let's take the Christian morality as an example, since it is the majority religion across North America (I'm assuming you live there.) The Bible says that a man may not lie with an animal, so according to the morality of the group, bestiality is immoral.

Another argument for zoophilia could be that animals enjoy sex, and so do humans, therefore it's OK. (I'm not saying that you said that, BTW.) It has been proven that only a tiny fraction of animals have sex for reasons other than reproduction (as in pleasure) so subjecting an animal that only has sex for reproduction to sex for pleasure seems wrong to me.
Debate Round No. 3
ADreamOfLiberty

Pro

Like I said in my second argument, I'm going to switch back to debating about the morality of zoophilia.

"In my first argument, I said that the morals laws of a country were dictated by its populace, and even though you disagreed with me at first, you seem to have agreed with me, as per this."

I see now how that is ambiguous, let me be clearer.

There is a staggering diversity in moral beliefs as there are in many fields of human thought.

A person should of course hold to what they believe to be moral, but that does not mean everyone holds the correct morals. I believe in an objective morality which follows from objective values and leads to objective laws.

A nation's laws are dictated by the morality of its people (in the case of democracy) this is a statement of fact.

What the people should believe is not necessarily what they do believe. They should believe what is correct, but may not. Regardless of whether they believe in correct morals or fallacious ones the laws of their nation will follow from their morals.

That is why I do not believe legal and moral issues can ever be completely separate, I look upon attempts to do so as misguided to say the least.

I am not saying that if something is legal it is moral, nor am I saying that if it is moral it is legal. I believe I was most clear in my opening post when I said "if something is moral it should be legal and if is legal it should be moral."

Should does not equal is.

You might say that believing in some kind of absolute or objective morality is a natural response to believing things that the large majority do not. I can assure you that is not the case. Many of my fellow zoophiles have floated to the opposite and in my opinion irrational extreme. They insist morality is a delusion invented by religion, and no one can really say what is true or not so they had best just mind their own business.

I know that is not a premise any human civilization could survive the application of, I know it is false; but it does make more sense than the middle position which attempts to compromise. The middle says "There is truth, and morality, but the only way to find it is by trusting the authority of either the mob or some wise sage leaders".

If there is a truth it is accessible by reason, if it is not accessible by reason refuse to recognize it as truth.

Therefore don't recognize more than one correct morality, I don't think two moralities can be compatible with each other unless one is a subset of the other.

"You said that the morality of a group dictated its laws, and that the law should be based only on morality."
But not that morality should be based on the moral beliefs of any person or any group of people. Such is just mindless trust in an authority.

"Let's take the Christian morality as an example, since it is the majority religion across North America (I'm assuming you live there.) The Bible says that a man may not lie with an animal, so according to the morality of the group, bestiality is immoral."

The bible is wrong, I hope you know enough to know that trying to use it as a serious authority in a debate is just kind of silly. I understand you just brought this point up because you think I implied something I didn't mean to.

However, even so I will entertain you with an observation of mine. This is not supposed to be an argument that the bible permits bestiality, such a conclusion would require that the bible was internally consistent.

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

http://www.biblegateway.com...

Now what is a suitable helper? It doesn't really say but it implies it, woman took the role; so a woman's relation to a man is the relation of the suitable helper.

That is to say a social and sexual relationship, oh yea and all that love and soul mating stuff.

Now also remember that God is all knowing, he would know who and what a suitable helper would be. If God knew that only a woman would be a suitable helper it would follow that he would create a woman at the same time he created man.

Instead it says that he brought forth 'all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky' before the man so that he might name them. Immediately afterward it says 'But for Adamno suitable helper was found.' implying that the process of bringing every animal before him was to check for suitability.

Since the unsuitability was only discovered after Adam had seen all the animals, and God is all knowing and would not need to wait till then, the only logical conclusion is that God did not think the animals were unsuitable, instead it was Adam who found none acceptable.

If then the decision to consider animals unsuitable originated from a man can we not reverse this decision? Especially since Adam screwed some other things up if I recall.

If some reader is going "ah but ADOL how come it says man shall not lay with a beast later", because it's not consistent. I've seen some tragic homosexuals try to sneak past the later condemnations with stuff a lot thinner and there are already many Christians willing to flat out ignore the stuff that calls it an abomination.

"Another argument for zoophilia could be that animals enjoy sex, and so do humans, therefore it's OK. (I'm not saying that you said that, BTW.)"
I would never claim that such is an argument (some humans and animals both enjoy killing, doesn't mean they would enjoy doing it to each other at the same time), but I do believe many animals enjoy sex and can enjoy it with humans.

"It has been proven that only a tiny fraction of animals have sex for reasons other than reproduction (as in pleasure)"
Well I got to be careful here, the animal kingdom is very wide. By species count you'd think insects were the majority of animals.

If you're saying it's been proven that only a tiny fraction of large mammals enjoy sex I would challenge that. I've seen videos of bears masturbating and giraffes trying to mate with donkeys. It takes a special kind of bias to think such behavior is best explained by instinct to reproduce.

Humans did not spring from the void, consider this. A brain that is capable of learning is useless if it is shackled by instincts which the consciousness cannot overcome. This is true to of higher mammals who like us have made a distinct advantage of intelligence and learning.

How then do you bring about sex without undermining your adaptive behavior control (i.e. volitional mind)? Simple you motivate the consciousness to take actions but leave it free to choose another course based on experience. That motivation is pleasure. That is why we don't feel an uncontrollable urge to mate, we feel sexual attraction and pleasure when we close the deal.

It only makes sense that those animals who share the traits that led to attraction and pleasure share the attraction and pleasure to some degree.

"so subjecting an animal that only has sex for reproduction to sex for pleasure seems wrong to me."
Even if an animal does not experience pleasure, that does not mean it won't consent. If it comes down to it you can just bribe the animal.


Furthermore I know this appears to be off premise, but I don't think consent is a requirement for all animals, some of them are as far below a dog as a dog is below us (if not farther). Crocodiles and fish and such, they act like computers more than volitional beings so I say treat them that way.

Zoophiles absolutely respecting the consent of their partners (pretty much all higher mammals) is already far more conservative about animal rights than human society is. By the time we eliminated all the double standards and society was as concerned about animal consent in general as zoophiles are in regards to sex: leashes would be illegal and eating meat would be banned.

That's not going to happen because even though no animals consent to being eaten they taste good, and what is that but pleasure at the expense of an animals life? If I were an animal, I should prefer sex, uninteresting or otherwise.

SalmanK

Con

SalmanK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"Also, out of curiosity, do zoophiles have interest in sexual intercourse with humans as well or is the interest exclusively animals? "
There are sub-orientations, i.e. it varies. There is the equivalent of a bisexual, someone who is attracted to both animals and humans. I am this.

I read a recent paper based on an online survey from the University of Vienna. It reports that only 12 out of 96 zoophiles (12.5%) had no attraction to humans, of those who did have attraction to humans some were bisexual or homosexual while some were heterosexual.

http://othes.univie.ac.at... (page 84 but it's in German)

"And once again, is it exclusively one animal, or would a zoophile be interested in having relations with several different animals over a course of time?"
Most animals zoophiles can keep have a much shorter lifespan than humans (less of that time being sexually active). Most have had more than one partner if only because their first died of old age.

How 'committed' or monogamous any particular relationship may be is not determined by orientation. Zoophiles are sexually attracted to animals, just as homosexuals are sexually attracted to humans of the same gender; but that does not tell you if homosexual A wants a one night stand or to get married.

The animals don't get jealous easily and aren't very 'faithful' themselves. Monogamy isn't really natural to them and their humans don't attach much more significance to it.

That said many zoophiles do only have one relationship at a time simply because they get to love one animal very much and are quite satisfied with them.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"Just to be sure, you're saying that it's okay to compare homosexuality to zoophilia?"

As far as I'm concerned it's okay to compare anything to anything else. If there are no corresponding attributes to compare nothing will come of it. You can't misrepresent something good by comparing it to something bad. IMO People who are afraid of that happening don't know or don't want to know why either thing is good or bad.

"Many a gay-marriage advocate has refused to discuss incest or bestiality because those are considered taboo in society and would reduce the veracity of their arguments."

But it wouldn't reduce the veracity of their arguments even if their arguments are applicable to bestiality and incest (and they are in some cases). They think that good logic or no they should minimize the pill potential 'converts' would need to swallow. Sometimes they are hypocrites and truly refuse to evaluate other sexual deviancy by the same rational standards they demand of the general public. Finally they fear the argument of their opponents "tolerate homosexuality and whats next?", they desperately want to name this a slippery slope fallacy.
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
"Therefore if you are someone who thinks comparing zoophilia to homosexuality or to the practice of eating animal meat is a red herring then you should not accept the challenge."

Just to be sure, you're saying that it's okay to compare homosexuality to zoophilia? That's certainly what it seems, but it also seems counterintuitive. Many a gay-marriage advocate has refused to discuss incest or bestiality because those are considered taboo in society and would reduce the veracity of their arguments. But in regards to moral principles, I think it's important to compare - not to claim that two are necessarily equal, but to provide a greater of understanding of the subject at hand and morality in general.

Also, out of curiosity, do zoophiles have interest in sexual intercourse with humans as well or is the interest exclusively animals? And once again, is it exclusively one animal, or would a zoophile be interested in having relations with several different animals over a course of time?
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 4 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
@AugustH I had trouble understanding your question. If you do not mean "am I allowed to have that opinion" do you mean "is that opinion contradictory?"

Which premise do you refer to? (look I'm all nervous cause you made it sound like an interview)
Posted by AugustH 4 years ago
AugustH
Also, how this question is answered will effect how I vote on which thesis I agree with afterward.
Posted by AugustH 4 years ago
AugustH
So after reading this debate, smoking a cigarette, and pondering, I would have to ask: Am I allowed to believe that, while a healthy sexual relationship with an animal is possible and therefore should be legal to those who choose that sexual orientation, it is mildly disturbing?

This is not a question about am I allowed to have this opinion, of course I am; however is is a question relating to the premise of your argument.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 4 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"So this is something that you think about alot? Hey, just some friendly advice, please find something else to occupy your thoughts."

I have plenty to occupy my thoughts, but this issue is not amongst them. I am generally done thinking about it, my debates here consist more of remembering and expressing answers and points which I long ago arrived at an took to heart.

If you're asking why I care, it's because I am a zoophile; although I like to think that even if I wasn't I would care enough to defend their rights.

"I would argue that part of the difference between bestiality and pet ownership, horseback riding, etc. is that animals like cats, dogs, horses, etc. are raised for such purposes, whereas (at the moment) there are no animals raised for sex with humans."
Not really, they have been bred for many generations to do many different things humans needed but the only universal trait that was favored was sociability with humans. i.e. understanding humans and seeing humans as part of the pack or herd instead of an external threat or prey.

As far as the life times of single individuals, not much is really specific. Most dogs aren't taught anything but some basic tricks and things humans would rather them not do (like biting, relieving themselves inside houses etc..). All horses still need to learn how to ride with a human, it's not instinctual for any of them.

The zoophile community would tell you that you don't raise animals for the purpose of sex, they will develop that interest all on their own at the right time in their development.

"(One might then change the example to hunting wild animals, but then I actually do believe that hunting wild animals is immoral.)"
Animals don't consent to being hunted and killled, that is only a relevant analogy when people who claim to that animal consent is inviolate turn around and slaughter them for meat and petty triumph.
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
I would argue that part of the difference between bestiality and pet ownership, horseback riding, etc. is that animals like cats, dogs, horses, etc. are raised for such purposes, whereas (at the moment) there are no animals raised for sex with humans. (One might then change the example to hunting wild animals, but then I actually do believe that hunting wild animals is immoral.)
Posted by Impossible_to_tell 4 years ago
Impossible_to_tell
So this is something that you think about alot? Hey, just some friendly advice, please find something else to occupy your thoughts.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 4 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"Talking about screwing the pooch. Say, if you and the dog have a son, is he a son of a b1tch?"

I think that would be unavoidable.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
ADreamOfLibertySalmanKTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I am simply amazed at how much thought and effort PRO has clearly put into these debates. Based on his criteria, arguing with the moral principle of consent, PRO does a fabulous job presenting his side. S&G is tied, and I saw sources in PRO's argument, but not in CON's. I don't believe that bestiality is moral and don't necessarily believe that the moral principle to be used here is that of consent, but within the bounds of the proposed criteria, PRO is clearly the winner.
Vote Placed by bsh1 4 years ago
bsh1
ADreamOfLibertySalmanKTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF