Talk Elections

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?

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

what is this i don't even

... 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.

errrrrr, no.

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!!!!!!!

     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*

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

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.

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.

What species is the best for that kind of stuff?

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

()

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.

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.

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.

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

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

It was legal in France from 1791 till 2004.

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

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 :P

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".

If the animal is consenting only. :P

     Well Einzige has already addressed the issue of a person with a severe mental handicap.

     As for determining self-awareness, one could consider the test of an animal looking at itself in the mirror. If I look at myself in a mirror, I know that I am looking at myself. The same is true for a gorilla or a dolphin.  A bird, however, does not recognize this. It will chirp at it's reflection for hours, because it genuinely believes it to be another bird. That much indicates a lack of awareness of the individuality of oneself.

Do you ask a cow if it's alright to lock her in some factory farm for years, selling her milk, before slaughtering her for meat when she's old?

There are some animals that aren't "aware" of themselves as an individual that still experience emotions. Besides, if a person wants to have sex with any non-human organism it's probably a good thing they're taken off the streets :P

     Well yes, but natural rights have to do with self-awareness, not emotions. Elephants are definitely capable of emoting, though I do not know if all elephants can be categorized as being aware of their individuality. I do know that some elephants have recognized themselves in mirrors, though.

Even if it doesn't recognize itself as an individual, it still feels the pain, it still has consciousness, just not as advanced as ours.

Thank you for using the word possum. You are helping my continuous movement to make the possum one of America's most popular animals. :)

moralist

     I see what you mean. However, the idea would be to consider such a thing immoral, but not advocate it being illegal. If a person rapes small animals, his neighbors should mete out swift condemnation of his actions, but not actually be punished legally for it.

     The reason for not wanting to make it a crime is that the libertarian, abhorring violence of aggression, wishes to make any violence or coercion against the criminal be towards the ends of making restitution to the victim.

     Furthermore here, the legal system is to serve the victim & ratify the victim's will, within reason. I do not see how a dog could communicate its will properly to determine how exactly it wishes to be restituted.

     That's basically an explanation of why the self-awareness aspect is important. Gorillas & dolphins can't really be taught to communicate with humans in advanced ways, though, so that rather precludes them from being able to be served properly as victims.

And let's be honest here: Can anybody conceivable imagine zoosexuality being in vogue?

Options 2 and 3.

Of course not. Why are the people here so nasty with this stuff?

Yeah, I guess you got me there. :P

I don't see why you're bringing this up, especially since I've taken the animal right's stance on this issue, so this is one hell of red herring... but since you brought it up,

Humans are on top of the food chain, that's why we eat cows. There is no such thing as an animal sex chain with us on top :P  I definitely think cows should be treated more humanely, and nothing is more tasty than free range beef! ;)

Funny to imagine the picture...

the infinitely greater animal rights concern in the US is the food industry.  Bob down the street who f.ucks his cat nightly is not something to waste our resources (on).  give up on the offense to the collective consciousness garbage while you still can.

Not in a way that anyone who likes the idea of living in a civilised society could ever find acceptable.

never in a million years will the people here convince me that they have a deep and intense concern that animals will get raped.  it is just adherence to the moral norm: you are not receptive to arguments in favor of having the law condone pig-f.ucking because you think it is gross.  stop feigning this great concern for an animal's right to consent to sex.  I don't see you crying about the sh**t that goes on with cows and chickens on corporate farms, on a huge scale.  (because that's 'food'.  necessary to survival.  yawn)

debate here consists of recitation of things heard, not original analysis and postulation.

What resources? I just don't want it to become legal, really. It's obviously not something people are spending a lot of money on combating in this country because there aren't all that many people into raping animals.

That's pretty accurate actually (in general, not just this post).

Eh, no. I could care less about people jacking off to pictures of animals in their houses if that's what they're into. And of course I have talked about my concerns related to factory farming on here several times, so yeah.

That is true of debate almost anywhere.

Excellent point.

You can tell because the dog is staying with you, is not growling at you, is not showing any signs of aggression. Is not clawing or chewing you to pieces. Ever see how well padded a person has to be to train police dogs?  A zoo does not have much if anything on when they have sex. Does that tell you something?

zoosexual sex or casual sex between two different species, which is known as bestiality, zoophile net, an extremely kind, and loving thing to do, zoo’s have a deep love that many do not have. This is extremely pleasurable, positives for both species, and  helps to control population. No surgery is needed for ether species. No condoms needed. No STDs. The non humans love sex. Both species loves sex.

By all means legalize this kind of sex.  Whole planet is about sex.  Let us relax, and enjoy it. Doing unto others what you would want others to do unto you. Being wise, and harmless, Being a peacemaker, and things will be just fine.

A resounding YES! zoo should be legal!
You can tell because the dog is staying with you, is being relaxed. Female dogs can be real hot lovers. You will know.  Dog is not growling at you, is not showing any signs of aggression, is not trying to get away from you, is not syncing her tail over her sexual organs. Is not clawing or chewing you to pieces. Ever see how well padded a person has to be to train police dogs?  A zoo does not have much if anything on when they have sex. Does that tell you something?

Zoosexual sex or casual sex which is known as bestiality, zoophile net, an extremely kind, and loving thing to do, zoo’s have a deep love that many do not have. This is extremely pleasurable. Positives for both species, and helps to  control population. No surgery is needed for ether species. No condoms needed. No STDs. The non humans love sex. Both species loves sex.  Zoo should be taught to whoever wants to learn.
 It should be a no brainier to have zoo be legal. By all mans legalize this kind of sex.  Whole planet is about sex.  Let us relax, and enjoy it. Doing unto others what you would want others to do unto you. Being wise, and harmless, Being a peacemaker, and things will be just fine.

majority rule is not freedom of choice. The zoo has been persecuted for way to long.I say regardless of this vote it should still be made legal!

You can tell because the dog is staying with you, is being relaxed. Female dogs can be real hot lovers. You will know.  Dog is not growling at you, is not showing any signs of aggression, is not trying to get away from you, is not synching her tail over her sexual organs. Is not clawing or chewing you to pieces. Ever see how well padded a person has to be to train police dogs?  A zoo does not have much if anything on when they have sex. Does that tell you something?

Zoosexual sex or casual sex which is known as bestiality, zoophile net, an extremely kind, and loving thing to do, zoo’s have a deep love that many do not have. This is extremely pleasurable, positives for both species, and controls population. No surgery is needed for ether species. No condoms needed. No STDs. The non humans love sex. Both species loves sex.  Zoo should be taught to whoever wants to learn.

 It should be a no brainier to have zoo be legal. By all mans legalize this kind of sex.  Whole planet is about sex.  Let us relax, and enjoy it. Doing unto others what you would want others to do unto you. Being wise, and harmless, Being a peacemaker, and things will be just fine.

A resounding yes! The persecution of the loving zoo has  got to come to an end..You can tell because the dog is staying with you, is being relaxed. Female dogs can be real hot lovers. You will know.  Dog is not growling at you, is not showing any signs of aggression, is not trying to get away from you, is not synching her tail over her sexual organs. Is not clawing or chewing you to pieces. Ever see how well padded a person has to be to train police dogs?  A zoo does not have much if anything on when they have sex. Does that tell you something?

Zoosexual sex or casual sex which is known as bestiality, zoophile net, an extremely kind, and loving thing to do, zoo’s have a deep love that many do not have. This is extremely pleasurable, positives for both species, and controls population. No surgery is needed for ether species. No condoms needed. No STDs. The non humans love sex. Both species loves sex.  Zoo should be taught to whoever wants to learn.

 It should be a no brainier to have zoo be legal. By all mans legalize this kind of sex.  Whole planet is about sex.  Let us relax, and enjoy it. Doing unto others what you would want others to do unto you. Being wise, and harmless, Being a peacemaker, and things will be just fine.

kobidobidog, you've been here only a day and already you are the most awesome poster that I've ever seen on this forum.

SOMEBODY found this thread using Google!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Putting this post where it belongs.

NO

At least because it's hurting the animals.

Yes.

even the fact that the question is being asked is proof that the homosexual agenda is creeping into our culture so much that now people are thinking abvout sex with kids and sex with dogs.  the people who mocked santorum in 1998 or when ever he said that are being proven to be fools and santorum is proven to be right.

()

Smash degenerate race-mixers and f****ts! [/Coburn]

He's back!  ;D

what the I don't

The people against the zoosexual are unequal. They want love not wanting to give love. They want sex not letting others have it arresting them if they are caught or even suspected of having sex. All know whoever is unequal cannot stand.  What is against the zoosexual, and Pedo is war.  All need to stop warring.  War kills  People.  War needs to stop world wide.  it will be humbling to stop warring.  zoosexuality most definitely needs to be legal.  Warring is an anti Christ ungodly thing to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo

()

Rick Santorum seems to have been proven right.

Do any other furries post here? (Other than him, I mean. I'm not a furry)

I think he's more than just a furry...

Welcome back, kobidobidog. A lot has changed in your absence.

Well, animals can't give consent, so it's technically rape...

Exactly what I was thinking.

But murdering and eating some animals is perfectly legal. Surely enslaving and then murdering a cow is just as bad, if not worse, than raping it.

?! 

From what weird logic would this follow?  Eating a member of another species and having sex with it are two very different issues.  One eats to stay alive.  Tigers eat zebras to stay alive.  Tiger needs no consent.  He's hungry, so he eats.  But tigers fu()ck other tigers in order to propagate their species.  If you catch a tiger fu()cking a zebra, you have caught a seriously confused tiger.  This tiger cannot use instinct or survival or propagation of the species as a legitimate excuse.  Same goes for me and chickens, see what I mean?

I'm not taking a position one way or the other on the important legal question of interspecies copulation, except to say that it serves no biological purpose, but I am calling your post pure bullsh()it.  Some perverse foray into abject moralism, perhaps.  Mental masturbation, maybe.  More likely, an attempt to stoke the flames of illegitimate debate.

Furry-ism and Zoosexuality are quite different things.

I strongly oppose legalizing any act of bestiality in which the animal in question is unable to express consent or human beings are unable to reliably interpret the consent. This, so far as I’m aware at this time, would rule out sexual intercourse with any other species of critter currently known. Goldwater’s post here just awhile back is quite agreeable to me.

In response to Lief, ranching cattle does not necessitate putting said livestock through cruel forms of physical or emotional abuse if done in a properly compassionate, respectful manner. Likewise, the culling of livestock can be done with very little if any suffering on the part of the animal, and aside from that I’d stress that a cow does not necessarily warrant as many rights as a human being nor does it necessarily have any privilege to have its own interests always honored when they are in conflict with those of human beings. Then again, these judgments of moral value are subjective.

Still, raping an animal would almost invariably inflict physical and/or emotional traumas which cause suffering for the creature above and beyond what enslavement or execution must. And it is important to also bear in mind that I am very much in favor of criminalizing many other forms of animal abuse pertaining to the “enslaving” and “murdering” on which you posted. I'm willing to permit exceptions to a ban on bestiality only when consent can be given or it’s established that a particular species unable to consent cannot suffer from subjection to intercourse by a human being.

On a separate note, I concur with A Person. While being part of the furry subculture and having a zoosexual orientation are not mutually exclusive, having either one of these things does not imply the other. I admittedly fall somewhere on the edges of the scaly/furry subculture myself, mostly as a remnant influence from some unusual spiritual beliefs I dabbled in when a bit younger. I’m a very odd bloke but understand that I’d never echo the sentiments conveyed here by kobidobidog.

No because it's not consensual. 

again all this is circular, the point is that the food industry is the furthest thing from consensual as it is, and a few thousand fckers a year fcking Chickens and Dogs would do far less harm than Purdue and Tyson and Burger King, so let them fck the Chickens.

I'm vegetarian.

neither here nor there my man, unless you prove how it is here -- we are talking about the 'secular' position.

I'm not sure I understand.  I said, I'm vegetarian which means that I don't approve of mistreating or killing animals in any way.  I don't eat meat, I don't even wear leather shoes.
So obviously I don't approve of losers fcking animals either.  Wasn't that the question you wanted an answer to?

assuming you do not believe the production of meat for the purposes of eating should be illegal your eating habits are irrelevant to this question, however much you parade them around.

So far as I can tell, those arguing that bestiality should be totally legal are asking for a reason why it should be banned if the food industry is still be allowed to continue its current practices, which in turn I guess would only be applicable to those who are fine with current agricultural practices but merely consider bestiality unnatural, sacrilegious, or to otherwise be in some other manner impure.

How are they irrelevant?  My eating habits are a result of my morals, and my stance on the issue of bestiality is also due to those same morals.  How hard is it for you to comprehend that?

very, very difficult, this side of you arguing for the illegality of the meat industry at-present, (if not necessarily for the illegality of meat production per-se)

I am not arguing for the illegality of meat (I don't live in some fantasyland).

But what you're saying is that since we already treat animals like sh*t why not treat them as sex slaves too?  An illogical argument IMO.

well, then, go home with this.  unless you want to wage war on the production of animal meat for human-consumption, you cannot, in a neutral-liberal sense (which you are sure to self-identify), move to prohibit sexual use of animals on any grounds besides that it is "gross".  and again, that is not moral neutral.  liberals are not supposed to recognize things being 'gross', particularly since in the past 10 years they've made allies of the most powerful group of traditional sexual deviants -- the sodomites.

So first you say that my opinion doesn't matter because my opinion on the treatment of animals is not the mainstream?
And then you bring to the discussion gay sex (which I do not engage in, and have no intention to do in the future, thank you very much) which is CONSENSUAL.  Gay people don't hurt anyone, when you  goats, you're hurting a poor animal that has no choice on the matter but sit there and be ed.

You make no sense and I'm tired of arguing with you.

no, the fact that you are a vegetarian (which you mentioned unprompted multiple times) doesn't matter, the rest of it all matters.

Tweed, why on Earth do you care?

the implication being, I have to  animals to care?

About the legality of ing animals? This might actually be one of those situations where it's even stranger to care if you don't do it yourself, yes.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

I told my family about this thread

WTF is wrong with you Willis?!?!

See signature on the implications of furryism. (No fan, btw.)

Furry-ism is complex.  Zoosexuality is like the color white on a painters pallet. That color can be found all over the picture blended with many colors. That color enhances the picture not making the picture worse. People making zoo bad want to make whoever engage in it bad. In doing that they try to make themselves good. They deceve themselves.  The Fandom is like a pallet of many colors that makes a beautiful picture.  No color should be called bad.

I don't like the idea that bestiality is what you get when you mix every other 'color' of human sexuality together. I really don't.

OMG I just realized I voted yes to this poll. I just realize I was pretty f-ed up a couple years ago. :P

Having sex with something that can't consent and lacks the mental capacity to understand the ramifications of what is being done to it.

Legalizing zoosexuality is about as desirable as legalizing sex with babies or the mentally retarded.

It certainly falls under the umbrella of animal abuse.

Of course.

The reason people are at war against the zoo is because humans don't see themselves as an animal that is born naked Yes i said naked. and goes back to the dust like any animal. Don't see that refuse to be like Jesus who judged himself.  Don't judge yourself strike out at others. That is called warring if you don't know already.  zoosexuality would be legal had we not had jails that Jesus would look narrowly upon.

People against zoosexuality are like religious people Jesus faced. They thought that warring against a person was a good work. Everyone should know that warring is not a good work.

Jesus would not be mussing about in his head thinking should this be legal or should that be legal. People against him thought that way. Jesus wanted people to judge themselves. Can't people do that? Asking whether zoosexuality can be legal is asking if sex can be legal.

Haters will war. The minority does not want to war. Wouldn't it be better to have more people that are not warring? People that war have unstable minds. Stable minded people will allow zoosexuality.

Stop posting.

1611 King James Version of Matthew 15:9 - But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition. Jesus would chastised the people making laws today that break his loving laws even as he chastised the religious people of his day. Romans 13:10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. People need to keep this law refusing to work ill to the zoosexual known as zoos or interspecies people.

Animals are neighbours, too.

By the way it's great to have you back. I was worried you had been hit by a truck or fallen out of a tree onto a pile of AIDS swords.

great point brb having consensual sex with crustaceans

Does anybody call people who commit bestiality 'zoos' other than you, kobidobidog?

I can think of a lot worse things that would warrant putting someone in prison. Most of the laws against zoosexuality are impossible to enforce as is (because how many people f**king horses are doing so in broad daylight?) and putting another person engaged in sexual activity with an animal in jail is ultimately committing ourselves to maintaining another person in an overcrowded prison system that more or less turns minor criminals into major criminals. I don't think it's worth the time or effort to prosecute people for engaging in these kinds of acts, largely because the population involved is insignificant and they're not really hurting anyone.

It's still f**ked up though.

I suggest we solve this problem by summarily executing people who  animals. I don't need some kind of high-minded philosophical justification for this because ew wtf.

Man I pity the rookie cop who has to set up sting operations to catch 'zoophiles'.

Yeah, this doesn't seem like a bad idea. Just hang the sick f**ks and be done with it.

No, of course bestiality should not be legal. For all the obvious, sane reasons.

I didn't know you became a theonomist. :p

LOL!  What a coincidence that you would reverse the roles, considering it was a big story in my area when a young cop was suspended (first offense) and then fired (2nd) for banging cows on a farm near Moorestown, NJ.  Obviously, this person's mental faculties were of no concern to the well-meaning township police force of America's 2005 #1 Place To Live.

Petty tyrant.  Why don't you hang your self righteous anger where it belongs...back up your ass.  You keep this attitude up and it won't be long before you're  ing the animals to see what all the fuss is about.

I believe whether it is legal or not is irrelevant.  It's wrong.  But ToakvaleNF wants to peek through your window, see what you're doing, and enact punishment according to some rulebook that always changes cuz it doesn't exist.

Wait, so kobidobidog just posts roughly once every 6 months, and does so exclusively for the purposes of bumping this thread?

It depends on who's the "active" and who's the "passive" part.

If the animal does its "active" part voluntarily, I don't see why it should be prohibited.
If, however, the human cows the animal into its "passive" part, it ought to be considered rape and physical abuse.

Not just this thread.  He once posted this non sequitur in the "Hobo Orgy Guy & Blondie" thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=190031.msg4132797#msg4132797

Odd this thread has not been locked really. Whatever.

Thost1 is to jao in economics as kobidobidog's is to zoosexuality in political debate.

That is, if you lock the thread, the pestilence can spread. Best to keep it quarantined.

I'd rather ban that user for trolling. But as I don't really feel like dealing with it, thread locked.