Should zoosexuality be legal?

[k-onmmunist]

I'm not sure myself. I guess it would be little different from rape if the animal didn't enjoy it, but then again, how do you tell?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Ummm... No. But it isn't something I would be particularly bothered about persecuting.

[Sewer]

what is this i don't even

[Vepres]

... this is what the libertarians have to offer.

[Mechaman]

... this is what the libertarians have to offer.

Yes,

and we are not ashamed of it. If everyone was truly as openminded as us they would welcome the legalization of sexual congress between man and beast.

Also, intercourse is a very natural occurence for animals, they don't really get that much pleasure as we do out of it.

[dead0man]

errrrrr, no.

[Vepres]

... this is what the libertarians have to offer.

Yes,

and we are not ashamed of it. If everyone was truly as openminded as us they would welcome the legalization of sexual congress between man and beast.

Also, intercourse is a very natural occurence for animals, they don't really get that much pleasure as we do out of it.

Yeah, right... 

[Mechaman]

... this is what the libertarians have to offer.

Yes,

and we are not ashamed of it. If everyone was truly as openminded as us they would welcome the legalization of sexual congress between man and beast.

Also, intercourse is a very natural occurence for animals, they don't really get that much pleasure as we do out of it.

Yeah, right... 

How can you guys possibly be against the right of people to have sexual relations with animals? The gift of intimate intercourse is the greatest gift man can give to animal, who shalt experience no passionate love otherwise!

You guys are fascists ONEONEONEELEVENTY1111!!!!!!!

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well, I'm not sure if the animal has any rights that the Libertarian is obligated to respect. While one might say the animal owns itself or makes choices, most animals are not self-aware, so the animal's claim to natural rights are only slightly less tenuous than that of a fetus. This is however complicated by those animals who are self-aware, such as the dolphin.

     With that much said, animals have little or no capacity to exercise other natural rights. A lion cannot buy or sell property, & a possum cannot exercise its right to freedom of the press by publishing a book in dissent towards the government. If an entity cannot engage in those activities related to natural rights, I am not sure that the prohibition on aggression applies to it, since the prohibition against aggression is an outgrowth of the same basic fact as all other libertarian rights; that is that a person is the sole owner of his or herself.

     With that much said, I disagree with making zoophilia a crime, though I would require consent of the animal's owner if said owner happens to be any person other than the one who wishes to engage in zoophiliac relations with the animal.

     *Sits back & waits for the controversy to swell*

[Earth]

Um.... No.

You do know agreeing with it's legality or illegality is not the same as condoning it, right?

[Ebowed]

By definition, a sexual orientation cannot be criminalized.

However, I would assume that acts of bestiality are covered by animal cruelty laws, and if not, they should be.

[Earth]

By definition, a sexual orientation cannot be criminalized.

Of course it could. Look at homosexuality up to the mid twentieth century in the first world.

[Associate Justice PiT]

By definition, a sexual orientation cannot be criminalized.

Of course it could. Look at homosexuality up to the mid twentieth century in the first world.

     Though I suspect that in practice, the homosexual acts would be outlawed by such laws rather than the actual state of one being a homosexual.

[Governor PiT]

... this is what the libertarians have to offer.

Yes,

and we are not ashamed of it. If everyone was truly as openminded as us they would welcome the legalization of sexual congress between man and beast.

Also, intercourse is a very natural occurence for animals, they don't really get that much pleasure as we do out of it.

Yeah, right... 

How can you guys possibly be against the right of people to have sexual relations with animals? The gift of intimate intercourse is the greatest gift man can give to animal, who shalt experience no passionate love otherwise!

You guys are fascists ONEONEONEELEVENTY1111!!!!!!!

What species is the best for that kind of stuff?

[opebo]

By definition, a sexual orientation cannot be criminalized.

Of course it could. Look at homosexuality up to the mid twentieth century in the first world.

     Though I suspect that in practice, the homosexual acts would be outlawed by such laws rather than the actual state of one being a homosexual.

Does that mean only buggery and sword-swallowing, or does it include subtleties like this:

[dead0man]

     Well, I'm not sure if the animal has any rights that the Libertarian is obligated to respect. While one might say the animal owns itself or makes choices, most animals are not self-aware, so the animal's claim to natural rights are only slightly less tenuous than that of a fetus. This is however complicated by those animals who are self-aware, such as the dolphin.

     With that much said, animals have little or no capacity to exercise other natural rights. A lion cannot buy or sell property, & a possum cannot exercise its right to freedom of the press by publishing a book in dissent towards the government. If an entity cannot engage in those activities related to natural rights, I am not sure that the prohibition on aggression applies to it, since the prohibition against aggression is an outgrowth of the same basic fact as all other libertarian rights; that is that a person is the sole owner of his or herself.

     With that much said, I disagree with making zoophilia a crime, though I would require consent of the animal's owner if said owner happens to be any person other than the one who wishes to engage in zoophiliac relations with the animal.

     *Sits back & waits for the controversy to swell*

Couldn't you say the same things about a person with a severe mental handicap?  and who decides which animals are "sefl aware"?

If the living entity can't consent, you can't have sex with it.  Build a device that reads the thoughts of animals, get consent, then I'll let you knock your sox off and get your rocks off.

[Scam of God]

     Well, I'm not sure if the animal has any rights that the Libertarian is obligated to respect. While one might say the animal owns itself or makes choices, most animals are not self-aware, so the animal's claim to natural rights are only slightly less tenuous than that of a fetus. This is however complicated by those animals who are self-aware, such as the dolphin.

     With that much said, animals have little or no capacity to exercise other natural rights. A lion cannot buy or sell property, & a possum cannot exercise its right to freedom of the press by publishing a book in dissent towards the government. If an entity cannot engage in those activities related to natural rights, I am not sure that the prohibition on aggression applies to it, since the prohibition against aggression is an outgrowth of the same basic fact as all other libertarian rights; that is that a person is the sole owner of his or herself.

     With that much said, I disagree with making zoophilia a crime, though I would require consent of the animal's owner if said owner happens to be any person other than the one who wishes to engage in zoophiliac relations with the animal.

     *Sits back & waits for the controversy to swell*

Couldn't you say the same things about a person with a severe mental handicap?  and who decides which animals are "sefl aware"?

I repeat: libertarian/classical liberal political philosophy is grounded in the Lockean paradigm of human rights derived from self-reflective consciousness (your lack of understanding of which is probably why you've always displayed a hilarious incomprehension of your own political philosophy). A mentally handicapped/vegetative person already has no rights, as evinced by the fact that they are remanded over into the possessorship of their next-of-kin.

[Eraserhead]

No. Consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with each other but if one of your interests in life is forcing yourself upon animals sexually, I do not want you to be a part of the same society as me.

[Earth]

By definition, a sexual orientation cannot be criminalized.

Of course it could. Look at homosexuality up to the mid twentieth century in the first world.

     Though I suspect that in practice, the homosexual acts would be outlawed by such laws rather than the actual state of one being a homosexual.

One would still be branded legally, so in effect, the state of being homosexual is outlawed by the response.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No. Consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with each other but if one of your interests in life is forcing yourself upon animals sexually, I do not want you to be a part of the same society as me.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

It was legal in France from 1791 till 2004.

Well, personally I'd forbid it too I guess.

[Ebowed]

By definition, a sexual orientation cannot be criminalized.

Of course it could. Look at homosexuality up to the mid twentieth century in the first world.

     Though I suspect that in practice, the homosexual acts would be outlawed by such laws rather than the actual state of one being a homosexual.

Right.  That's what I was getting at.

'Zoosexuality' to me suggests an orientation, rather than a type of sexual act.  Of course I guess this mostly boils down to semantics

[Hatman 🍁]

We can't have sex with little kids, because they cannot consent. The same should be true for animals.

[Mechaman]

We can't have sex with little kids, because they cannot consent. The same should be true for animals.

Actually little kids can give consent, it's just easier to get it from them than adults. That is why we have something called "parents".

[Antonio the Sixth]

If the animal is consenting only.