Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Should All Forms Of Bestiality Be Illegal?

gdirulez
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:55:54 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
now when I say 'forms' I mean the activities of bestiality, I've searched up several topics and found these 'forms' :

1. you perform sex with the animal where you, the human, perform penetration
2. you perform sex with the animal where the animals performs penetration
3. you 'pleasure' the animal by using your hand to stimulate their genitals
4. the animal pleasures you by licking your genital area

now these are the forms of bestiality I could find from topics about bestiality, I have not watched any bestiality videos so I'm not 100% sure if these are the only forms of bestiality.

now come the biggest arguments against bestiality:
1. it's gross.
this is merely someone's opinions and is thus irrelevant to the law.

2. claiming the human body is sacred(e.g. religious reasons) and they should not taint themselves with animals.
again this is merely a opinion, unless 100% of the world is religious this argument is irrelevant and thus does not count

3. the animals can't consent
now this is where I will write allot about.

this definitely seems like the most valid argument, since we can't properly communicate with any non human animal how can someone possibly get consent from one? I will argue about consent in accordance with the 'forms' of bestiality

1. you perform sex with the animal where you, the human, perform penetration:

this is the most clear show if lack of consent, a bark, a whimper, a happy tail wag, what could possibly come close to consent in this form? I have read about people who proclaim to perform in bestiality where they perform in penetrating sex with a female dog and they claim the dog will walk around with it's genital area 'exposed' and entice the human, I cannot argue for this nor can I argue against this since I could not find any videos of this behaviour.

so what COULD be consent when you penetrate the dog? well honestly I don't know, you could argue if you're penetrating the dog and they don't appear to be 'stressed' or 'unhappy' or whimper or anything of the sort the dog consents but that would be like suddenly having sex with someone and because they don't complain they must be consenting while in reality they are too scared to do anything.

so all in all I do not believe there could be consent if you penetrate the animal.

2. you perform sex with the animal where the animals performs penetration:

now here more arguments can be made both for and against it.

people proclaim that a dog is not consenting when it attempts to have intercourse with you because it doesn't know what it's doing, it's like a child touching your genital area, simply because it does not see the harm nor know what it's doing doesn't make it okay, however can dogs really be compared to children when it comes to 'sexual experience'? after all children do not have sex with each other within 6 months of being born where as dogs do which clearly shows dogs are aware of sexual acts.

so now the question becomes, do dogs do it out of pleasure or out of instinct, so their instinct to survive? I'd argue both, for example there are male dogs who engage in sexual acts with each other, clearly this does not increase their odds of survival yet they do engage in it, same can be said for dogs who are castrated, they have sex yet they do not increase their odds of surviving by having sexual intercourse, so the argument can be made that dogs DO experience pleasure from sexual intercourse.

so now the final question, does that mean there is consent when a animal initiates penetration on a human? after the information I have gathered I would say yes, the animal mounts the human of it's own free will, the animal has reached 'sexual maturity' which means it is not oblivious to what it is and an argument can be made that the animals derives pleasure from it, so what truly makes this form of bestiality wrong? I honestly cannot come up with a valid reason as to why it is.

3. you 'pleasure' the animal by using your hand to stimulate their genitals:

this I appear to be more 'forgiving' so to say, as in it is easier for the animal to simply walk away, where as that would be near impossible when you are penetrating the animal, however consent DOES still play a role, just as how it is sexual assault if you fondle a strangers genital areas without their consent so this still cannot be justified though it does appear to be the lesser of the 'evil'.

4. the animal pleasures you by licking your genital area:

if the animal is not enticed by say, smearing peanut butter on or near your genital area, and are of sexual maturity then I do not see what could be wrong with this, after all they are aware of what genitals are and you can simply walk away and that's that.

now there is the biggest argument as to why bestiality should be legal, MEAT AND FUR, we murder and torture animals every.single.day by the MILLIONS, I have seen videos of rabbits being skinned alive, bleeding to death, I have seen videos of animals being brutally murdered for the sake of taste buds, if 1 can rationalise murder of these animals how can you not rationalise sex with them? it seems hypocritical to me, people proclaim it is cruel to animals to have sex with them because they suffer yet animals are raped, tortured and murdered every day for the sake of their taste buds.

I'm truly curious to hear people their opinions as to whether some or all forms of bestiality should be illegal or legal.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 7:23:10 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:55:54 PM, gdirulez wrote:
now when I say 'forms' I mean the activities of bestiality, I've searched up several topics and found these 'forms' :

1. you perform sex with the animal where you, the human, perform penetration
2. you perform sex with the animal where the animals performs penetration
3. you 'pleasure' the animal by using your hand to stimulate their genitals
4. the animal pleasures you by licking your genital area

now these are the forms of bestiality I could find from topics about bestiality, I have not watched any bestiality videos so I'm not 100% sure if these are the only forms of bestiality.

now come the biggest arguments against bestiality:
1. it's gross.
this is merely someone's opinions and is thus irrelevant to the law.

2. claiming the human body is sacred(e.g. religious reasons) and they should not taint themselves with animals.
again this is merely a opinion, unless 100% of the world is religious this argument is irrelevant and thus does not count

3. the animals can't consent
now this is where I will write allot about.

this definitely seems like the most valid argument, since we can't properly communicate with any non human animal how can someone possibly get consent from one? I will argue about consent in accordance with the 'forms' of bestiality

1. you perform sex with the animal where you, the human, perform penetration:

this is the most clear show if lack of consent, a bark, a whimper, a happy tail wag, what could possibly come close to consent in this form? I have read about people who proclaim to perform in bestiality where they perform in penetrating sex with a female dog and they claim the dog will walk around with it's genital area 'exposed' and entice the human, I cannot argue for this nor can I argue against this since I could not find any videos of this behaviour.

so what COULD be consent when you penetrate the dog? well honestly I don't know, you could argue if you're penetrating the dog and they don't appear to be 'stressed' or 'unhappy' or whimper or anything of the sort the dog consents but that would be like suddenly having sex with someone and because they don't complain they must be consenting while in reality they are too scared to do anything.

so all in all I do not believe there could be consent if you penetrate the animal.

2. you perform sex with the animal where the animals performs penetration:

now here more arguments can be made both for and against it.

people proclaim that a dog is not consenting when it attempts to have intercourse with you because it doesn't know what it's doing, it's like a child touching your genital area, simply because it does not see the harm nor know what it's doing doesn't make it okay, however can dogs really be compared to children when it comes to 'sexual experience'? after all children do not have sex with each other within 6 months of being born where as dogs do which clearly shows dogs are aware of sexual acts.

so now the question becomes, do dogs do it out of pleasure or out of instinct, so their instinct to survive? I'd argue both, for example there are male dogs who engage in sexual acts with each other, clearly this does not increase their odds of survival yet they do engage in it, same can be said for dogs who are castrated, they have sex yet they do not increase their odds of surviving by having sexual intercourse, so the argument can be made that dogs DO experience pleasure from sexual intercourse.

so now the final question, does that mean there is consent when a animal initiates penetration on a human? after the information I have gathered I would say yes, the animal mounts the human of it's own free will, the animal has reached 'sexual maturity' which means it is not oblivious to what it is and an argument can be made that the animals derives pleasure from it, so what truly makes this form of bestiality wrong? I honestly cannot come up with a valid reason as to why it is.

3. you 'pleasure' the animal by using your hand to stimulate their genitals:

this I appear to be more 'forgiving' so to say, as in it is easier for the animal to simply walk away, where as that would be near impossible when you are penetrating the animal, however consent DOES still play a role, just as how it is sexual assault if you fondle a strangers genital areas without their consent so this still cannot be justified though it does appear to be the lesser of the 'evil'.

4. the animal pleasures you by licking your genital area:

if the animal is not enticed by say, smearing peanut butter on or near your genital area, and are of sexual maturity then I do not see what could be wrong with this, after all they are aware of what genitals are and you can simply walk away and that's that.



now there is the biggest argument as to why bestiality should be legal, MEAT AND FUR, we murder and torture animals every.single.day by the MILLIONS, I have seen videos of rabbits being skinned alive, bleeding to death, I have seen videos of animals being brutally murdered for the sake of taste buds, if 1 can rationalise murder of these animals how can you not rationalise sex with them? it seems hypocritical to me, people proclaim it is cruel to animals to have sex with them because they suffer yet animals are raped, tortured and murdered every day for the sake of their taste buds.

I'm truly curious to hear people their opinions as to whether some or all forms of bestiality should be illegal or legal.

Anything that is not specifically prohibited is technically "legal".

What would the effective difference be if we passed laws making bestiality illegal? Do people engage in bestiality because it was not made illegal? That would presuppose that they would stop if the legality changed.

So, in answer to your question - No, I see no reason why we need to pass laws addressing this specifically.
Peepette
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 11:02:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Ebola, marburg, hepatitis B and 13 other transferable diseases are reason enough not to allow bestiality. I"m sure ancient man made a connection long ago, it"s not good to play unnaturally with Mother Nature.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 9:28:26 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:55:54 PM, gdirulez wrote:
now when I say 'forms' I mean the activities of bestiality, I've searched up several topics and found these 'forms' :

1. you perform sex with the animal where you, the human, perform penetration
2. you perform sex with the animal where the animals performs penetration
3. you 'pleasure' the animal by using your hand to stimulate their genitals
4. the animal pleasures you by licking your genital area

now these are the forms of bestiality I could find from topics about bestiality, I have not watched any bestiality videos so I'm not 100% sure if these are the only forms of bestiality.

now come the biggest arguments against bestiality:
1. it's gross.
this is merely someone's opinions and is thus irrelevant to the law.

2. claiming the human body is sacred(e.g. religious reasons) and they should not taint themselves with animals.
again this is merely a opinion, unless 100% of the world is religious this argument is irrelevant and thus does not count

3. the animals can't consent
now this is where I will write allot about.

this definitely seems like the most valid argument, since we can't properly communicate with any non human animal how can someone possibly get consent from one? I will argue about consent in accordance with the 'forms' of bestiality

1. you perform sex with the animal where you, the human, perform penetration:

this is the most clear show if lack of consent, a bark, a whimper, a happy tail wag, what could possibly come close to consent in this form? I have read about people who proclaim to perform in bestiality where they perform in penetrating sex with a female dog and they claim the dog will walk around with it's genital area 'exposed' and entice the human, I cannot argue for this nor can I argue against this since I could not find any videos of this behaviour.

so what COULD be consent when you penetrate the dog? well honestly I don't know, you could argue if you're penetrating the dog and they don't appear to be 'stressed' or 'unhappy' or whimper or anything of the sort the dog consents but that would be like suddenly having sex with someone and because they don't complain they must be consenting while in reality they are too scared to do anything.

so all in all I do not believe there could be consent if you penetrate the animal.

2. you perform sex with the animal where the animals performs penetration:

now here more arguments can be made both for and against it.

people proclaim that a dog is not consenting when it attempts to have intercourse with you because it doesn't know what it's doing, it's like a child touching your genital area, simply because it does not see the harm nor know what it's doing doesn't make it okay, however can dogs really be compared to children when it comes to 'sexual experience'? after all children do not have sex with each other within 6 months of being born where as dogs do which clearly shows dogs are aware of sexual acts.

so now the question becomes, do dogs do it out of pleasure or out of instinct, so their instinct to survive? I'd argue both, for example there are male dogs who engage in sexual acts with each other, clearly this does not increase their odds of survival yet they do engage in it, same can be said for dogs who are castrated, they have sex yet they do not increase their odds of surviving by having sexual intercourse, so the argument can be made that dogs DO experience pleasure from sexual intercourse.

so now the final question, does that mean there is consent when a animal initiates penetration on a human? after the information I have gathered I would say yes, the animal mounts the human of it's own free will, the animal has reached 'sexual maturity' which means it is not oblivious to what it is and an argument can be made that the animals derives pleasure from it, so what truly makes this form of bestiality wrong? I honestly cannot come up with a valid reason as to why it is.

3. you 'pleasure' the animal by using your hand to stimulate their genitals:

this I appear to be more 'forgiving' so to say, as in it is easier for the animal to simply walk away, where as that would be near impossible when you are penetrating the animal, however consent DOES still play a role, just as how it is sexual assault if you fondle a strangers genital areas without their consent so this still cannot be justified though it does appear to be the lesser of the 'evil'.

4. the animal pleasures you by licking your genital area:

if the animal is not enticed by say, smearing peanut butter on or near your genital area, and are of sexual maturity then I do not see what could be wrong with this, after all they are aware of what genitals are and you can simply walk away and that's that.



now there is the biggest argument as to why bestiality should be legal, MEAT AND FUR, we murder and torture animals every.single.day by the MILLIONS, I have seen videos of rabbits being skinned alive, bleeding to death, I have seen videos of animals being brutally murdered for the sake of taste buds, if 1 can rationalise murder of these animals how can you not rationalise sex with them? it seems hypocritical to me, people proclaim it is cruel to animals to have sex with them because they suffer yet animals are raped, tortured and murdered every day for the sake of their taste buds.

I'm truly curious to hear people their opinions as to whether some or all forms of bestiality should be illegal or legal.

The biggest argument against the legalization of bestiality is the potential to pick up disease from engaging in it. In my opinion animals do not have sufficient intelligence to be emotionally damaged by engaging in sexual acts with humans and even if they did is that sufficient reasoning to ban bestiality when animals are killed for human consumption on a daily basis?

The reality is most people (including me) find bestiality disgusting and this is the reason why it's prohibited. I don't think most people finding it disgusting is a justifiable reason though to outlaw bestiality.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 2:01:39 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 11:02:09 PM, Peepette wrote:
Ebola, marburg, hepatitis B and 13 other transferable diseases are reason enough not to allow bestiality. I"m sure ancient man made a connection long ago, it"s not good to play unnaturally with Mother Nature.

So why wasn't AIDS a good enough reason to outlaw homosexuality?
Peepette
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 2:39:37 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 2:01:39 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:02:09 PM, Peepette wrote:
Ebola, marburg, hepatitis B and 13 other transferable diseases are reason enough not to allow bestiality. I"m sure ancient man made a connection long ago, it"s not good to play unnaturally with Mother Nature.

So why wasn't AIDS a good enough reason to outlaw homosexuality?

To follow that reasoning all sex should have been outlawed since AIDS in not only confined to homosexuals. AIDS is rampant in African countries where homosexuality is outlawed, hasn't help much, has it?
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:23:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 2:39:37 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/25/2016 2:01:39 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:02:09 PM, Peepette wrote:
Ebola, marburg, hepatitis B and 13 other transferable diseases are reason enough not to allow bestiality. I"m sure ancient man made a connection long ago, it"s not good to play unnaturally with Mother Nature.

So why wasn't AIDS a good enough reason to outlaw homosexuality?

To follow that reasoning all sex should have been outlawed since AIDS in not only confined to homosexuals. AIDS is rampant in African countries where homosexuality is outlawed, hasn't help much, has it?

AIDS in the US was initially mostly contained to the gay population. Outlawing it then and there could have prevented its spread to the general population.

In any event, I'm not arguing that AIDS should have been cause for outlawing homosexuality in the US. But in that case, it's logically inconsistent to outlaw bestiality to prevent the spread of diseases.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 2:24:25 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 4:23:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/25/2016 2:39:37 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/25/2016 2:01:39 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:02:09 PM, Peepette wrote:
Ebola, marburg, hepatitis B and 13 other transferable diseases are reason enough not to allow bestiality. I"m sure ancient man made a connection long ago, it"s not good to play unnaturally with Mother Nature.

So why wasn't AIDS a good enough reason to outlaw homosexuality?

To follow that reasoning all sex should have been outlawed since AIDS in not only confined to homosexuals. AIDS is rampant in African countries where homosexuality is outlawed, hasn't help much, has it?

AIDS in the US was initially mostly contained to the gay population. Outlawing it then and there could have prevented its spread to the general population.

In any event, I'm not arguing that AIDS should have been cause for outlawing homosexuality in the US. But in that case, it's logically inconsistent to outlaw bestiality to prevent the spread of diseases.

AIDS is different, epidemiologically, than a zoonotic disease. When a human contracts a dangerous disease from an animal, it often doesn't really hurt the animal very much, but when it jumps to a new species it will cause disparate harm. With human-to-human transmission, it's easier to control because the people usually know they have the disease, and can communicate to one another. With zoonotic diseases, because the symptoms can differ radically from species to species, and because animals can't really communicate with people, it's almost impossible to know so every instance is basically a game of Russian roulette.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 3:35:21 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 2:24:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/25/2016 4:23:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/25/2016 2:39:37 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/25/2016 2:01:39 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:02:09 PM, Peepette wrote:
Ebola, marburg, hepatitis B and 13 other transferable diseases are reason enough not to allow bestiality. I"m sure ancient man made a connection long ago, it"s not good to play unnaturally with Mother Nature.

So why wasn't AIDS a good enough reason to outlaw homosexuality?

To follow that reasoning all sex should have been outlawed since AIDS in not only confined to homosexuals. AIDS is rampant in African countries where homosexuality is outlawed, hasn't help much, has it?

AIDS in the US was initially mostly contained to the gay population. Outlawing it then and there could have prevented its spread to the general population.

In any event, I'm not arguing that AIDS should have been cause for outlawing homosexuality in the US. But in that case, it's logically inconsistent to outlaw bestiality to prevent the spread of diseases.

AIDS is different, epidemiologically, than a zoonotic disease. When a human contracts a dangerous disease from an animal, it often doesn't really hurt the animal very much, but when it jumps to a new species it will cause disparate harm. With human-to-human transmission, it's easier to control because the people usually know they have the disease, and can communicate to one another. With zoonotic diseases, because the symptoms can differ radically from species to species, and because animals can't really communicate with people, it's almost impossible to know so every instance is basically a game of Russian roulette.

If this is true, that could be a valid reason to treat the two cases differently. However, I would still argue that the "playing unnaturally with mother nature" argument hasn't been used to outlaw all cases of humans using plants or animals for unintended purposes. For example, smoking tobacco or drinking fermented grain have clear, negative effects and they contribute to various diseases among humans, yet the USA doesn't prohibit them. If ebola and hepatitis B are enough reason to ban bestiality, then lung cancer and liver failure are enough reason to ban smoking and drinking.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 3:43:01 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 3:35:21 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/26/2016 2:24:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/25/2016 4:23:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/25/2016 2:39:37 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/25/2016 2:01:39 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:02:09 PM, Peepette wrote:
Ebola, marburg, hepatitis B and 13 other transferable diseases are reason enough not to allow bestiality. I"m sure ancient man made a connection long ago, it"s not good to play unnaturally with Mother Nature.

So why wasn't AIDS a good enough reason to outlaw homosexuality?

To follow that reasoning all sex should have been outlawed since AIDS in not only confined to homosexuals. AIDS is rampant in African countries where homosexuality is outlawed, hasn't help much, has it?

AIDS in the US was initially mostly contained to the gay population. Outlawing it then and there could have prevented its spread to the general population.

In any event, I'm not arguing that AIDS should have been cause for outlawing homosexuality in the US. But in that case, it's logically inconsistent to outlaw bestiality to prevent the spread of diseases.

AIDS is different, epidemiologically, than a zoonotic disease. When a human contracts a dangerous disease from an animal, it often doesn't really hurt the animal very much, but when it jumps to a new species it will cause disparate harm. With human-to-human transmission, it's easier to control because the people usually know they have the disease, and can communicate to one another. With zoonotic diseases, because the symptoms can differ radically from species to species, and because animals can't really communicate with people, it's almost impossible to know so every instance is basically a game of Russian roulette.

If this is true, that could be a valid reason to treat the two cases differently. However, I would still argue that the "playing unnaturally with mother nature" argument hasn't been used to outlaw all cases of humans using plants or animals for unintended purposes. For example, smoking tobacco or drinking fermented grain have clear, negative effects and they contribute to various diseases among humans, yet the USA doesn't prohibit them. If ebola and hepatitis B are enough reason to ban bestiality, then lung cancer and liver failure are enough reason to ban smoking and drinking.

The main difference is that those diseases aren't just self-harm; they're contagious with severe social consequences, and one of the ways that they first enter the human population is through bestiality. It's not so much that it's 'unnatural', more that it has a specific consequence that society has a vested interest to prevent. It's a case of 'shitting in the well'.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 5:17:01 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/26/2016 3:43:01 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/26/2016 3:35:21 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/26/2016 2:24:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/25/2016 4:23:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/25/2016 2:39:37 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 8/25/2016 2:01:39 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/22/2016 11:02:09 PM, Peepette wrote:
Ebola, marburg, hepatitis B and 13 other transferable diseases are reason enough not to allow bestiality. I"m sure ancient man made a connection long ago, it"s not good to play unnaturally with Mother Nature.

So why wasn't AIDS a good enough reason to outlaw homosexuality?

To follow that reasoning all sex should have been outlawed since AIDS in not only confined to homosexuals. AIDS is rampant in African countries where homosexuality is outlawed, hasn't help much, has it?

AIDS in the US was initially mostly contained to the gay population. Outlawing it then and there could have prevented its spread to the general population.

In any event, I'm not arguing that AIDS should have been cause for outlawing homosexuality in the US. But in that case, it's logically inconsistent to outlaw bestiality to prevent the spread of diseases.

AIDS is different, epidemiologically, than a zoonotic disease. When a human contracts a dangerous disease from an animal, it often doesn't really hurt the animal very much, but when it jumps to a new species it will cause disparate harm. With human-to-human transmission, it's easier to control because the people usually know they have the disease, and can communicate to one another. With zoonotic diseases, because the symptoms can differ radically from species to species, and because animals can't really communicate with people, it's almost impossible to know so every instance is basically a game of Russian roulette.

If this is true, that could be a valid reason to treat the two cases differently. However, I would still argue that the "playing unnaturally with mother nature" argument hasn't been used to outlaw all cases of humans using plants or animals for unintended purposes. For example, smoking tobacco or drinking fermented grain have clear, negative effects and they contribute to various diseases among humans, yet the USA doesn't prohibit them. If ebola and hepatitis B are enough reason to ban bestiality, then lung cancer and liver failure are enough reason to ban smoking and drinking.

The main difference is that those diseases aren't just self-harm; they're contagious with severe social consequences, and one of the ways that they first enter the human population is through bestiality. It's not so much that it's 'unnatural', more that it has a specific consequence that society has a vested interest to prevent. It's a case of 'shitting in the well'.

Ok, but secondhand smoke affects those who don't smoke, like children at home for example. And alcohol causes drunk driving accidents that kill people who weren't drinking, plus it contributes tremendously to sexual assault and domestic violence. I'd argue those are severe social consequences as well. Does society not have a vested interest to prevent them? Additionally, in the case of AIDS, it too is contagious, and the way it entered the US was from gay people having unprotected sex. So it seems fairly analogous, even if there are some differences. Sure, animals can't tell you what diseases they have, but it's not like people are knowledgeable or open about having AIDS, otherwise it wouldn't spread like wildfire.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 6:14:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/22/2016 7:23:10 PM, matt8800 wrote:
Anything that is not specifically prohibited is technically "legal".

What would the effective difference be if we passed laws making bestiality illegal? Do people engage in bestiality because it was not made illegal? That would presuppose that they would stop if the legality changed.

So, in answer to your question - No, I see no reason why we need to pass laws addressing this specifically.

Well Washington State held that view to until Mr. Hands that is:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

See specifically the section "Aftermath".