Talk Elections

.

No, you can't have sex with a living thing you can't get consent from.

I already did this topic a while ago.

     Correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that you eat animal meat as part of your diet. Clearly that would indicate that you do not think they are subject to the non-aggression axiom. If aggression against animals is not wrong & killing them for food is permissible, then why would sexual activity with animals be wrong?

Killing them for food is a necessary evil.  Fu (http://)cking them for fun isn't.

I'm not putting it up there with arson or pouring your used motor oil into the creek, but it's still wrong and shouldn't be legal.

Well........ no!

     How is killing them for food a necessary evil? People are more than capable of surviving without eating animal meat. That's what vegetarians do, after all.

Absolutely not.

Furries are bad enough, though their activities should not be banned.  But to take it from fictional animals and fursuits to actual animals?  That's where the law should take over.

Who wants to bet that the "Furry rights" movement will be the big next movement?

What exactly would furries be campaigning for, the right to wed while dressed like bears?

It's no morally worse than eating animals.

Oh and *yawn* what is with you people and your obsession with what-orificies-is-it-okay-to-put-penises-into-and-which-not issues.

I put it in sarcasm quotes for a reason.  I meant the "right" to not be laughed at and ridiculed, considering that they're one of the most hilariously self-conscious groups around.

I was just joking. :)

I'm (like all humans) an omnivore.  Some humans go against nature and get by without eating meat, that doesn't mean we all should.  Until we can make meat in a factory (that will be a great day, better tasting, better for you and no animals need to die), animals will need to die.

So basically, we'll have to agree to disagree.  Like I said, it's not THAT big of a deal.  We are just talking about animals here.

     If they really have rights that needed to be respected, I'd think that consideration would override the consideration that it is part of our nature to eat animal meat. We don't allow kleptomaniacs to steal without consequences just because stealing is part of their nature.

     Anyway, I am fine with agreeing to disagree. It's not really a big deal.

Waaaait a minute.  Something is "necessary" even if you can stop with only marginal inconvenience to your personal pleasure?  How is zoosexuality different, beside it being a more intense desire shared by fewer people (and gross)?  Or is this about suffering, i.e., would it be fine if they bashed the animal over the head with a blunt object before they did them?

I'm not quite as enthusiastic about agreeing to disagree on this one. :P

Yes I would be fine with that.  Still gross, but if you want to have sex with a dead farm animal I'm not going to stop you, or even call the cops on you.  Just like I wouldn't call the cops on your for funking your sofa or your Roomba.  Yes, it is about suffering (or at least potential suffering...I have no idea if a donkey suffers when you screw it....probably not...but a chicken probably does).


(and because the desire to screw animals is held by fewer people and that it is "gross" to most people is why it is illegal and why I think it should remain that way.  If I (we/us) grew up in a culture that normally screwed sheep (or whatever) then it probably wouldn't be against the law or thought of as "gross" by most people)

That's consistent, even if I find the difference in killing vs. suffering-inflicting standards a little puzzling.  Do you avoid eating (or at least purchasing) animals that were killed in a way that inflicts suffering?

I have a choice?  I assume (hopefully correctly) that all the meat at the grocery store came from animals that didn't suffer in death.

Animal cruelty laws almost never apply to farming.  The restrictions that exist only apply during transportation, as far as I know (they have to be let out to move every two days or something), and fowl -- which can even be slaughtered while fully conscious -- are exempted.  There are no restrictions against force-feeding, unanesthetized mutilation, or anything like that.  Animals kept under these conditions have objectively much shorter lifetimes, kind of the polar opposite of, say, an indoor cat or dog.  This is obviously not without reason.

I don't see any reason to assume that the meat in the grocery store is suffering-free, or anything close to it.  Even if you assumed the laws against cruelty are applied (with no oversight) they're not even intended to fully avoid suffering -- not even on paper.

Agreed.  Farm animals don't necessarily live very well.  Especially factory farms.  And super especially factory farmed chicken.  It's freaking depressing actually.  On the other hand, chicken aren't exactly high on intelligence and it's quite likely that they don't know any better.  Beef cows don't do much better but (according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_feeding) and my own anecdotal evidence) they at least get to spend the majority of their short lives hanging out in a field doing nothing before moving inside for fattening and slaughter.
But yeah, the animals we eat certainly don't lead the greatest lives they could, but then again, what else are we going to do?  Make their lives better, the price of meat goes up, poor people can't afford as much meat anymore.  We should push hard for factory meat, not that your ignorant people won't bitch about that too like they do about genetically modified crops.

What are you going to do?  One option is pay for cruelty-free meat products; another is to stop eating them.  One costs more; the other deprives you of a sensory experience you enjoy.  Evidently, you find this an "evil" in that you find it morally objectionable somehow -- just not worth the money or the lesser pleasure to end that "evil."  There's nothing inconsistent there.

But, how can you oppose bestiality?  They (the, um, "zoophiles") want to do it because it's a sensory experience they enjoy.  Is it wrong?  I dunno, I don't see any indication that it causes any more suffering than the factory farming you're not even willing to pay more to prevent.  Do you?  If not, how can you justify criminalizing one (and calling it "wrong") and engaging in the other without any apparent remorse?

But I do have remorse (I thought that was clear).  I manage to bury it pretty well and try not to think of it too much, especially when enjoying a nice juicy chicken leg.

Like I said, it's not that big of a deal to me.  It should be a misdemeanor (as in Nebraska) not a felony (as in Washington).  I'd rather a dude have sex with a horse instead of beating it with a whip for no reason.

Time to take quotes out of context again!

Most definitely zoosexuality should be legal. Humans will be godly not persecuting humans.
 2 Timothy 3,12, Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. No one persecuting,and no one, and all will be godly.

we are animals.
The humans seeing sex with a non human animal don't have a clue that they are an animal that is born,and dies just like a cow in a field. it is just that humans are seeking vain things the non human animal does not seek,and then dies.

Have a human change places with a animal in a fair being totally naked,and or in a zoo or a horses in a field with only the amenities of those non human animals with out a bathroom,and humans will quickly see they are animals,mammals.

have humans against abuse? don't alter the non human animals,and end hatred for that abuses humans,and war for that abuses  humans mentally and physically,and kills humans ,and robs money from others that could use it. Death penalty for that kills humans is abusive  too,and jails abuse humans putting them in bondage. When we love our neighbor as our self  we do we will be preparing for eternity in heaven which is as certain as the eternity surrounding this planet sitting on nothing.

What is gross is personal opinion,and have them try it ,and they will change their option fast.
 What has sex with what should be no ones business, A donkey can kick,and whoever is in a vulnerable spot too be kicked.

It comes down to this. Humans giving accusation. accusation are not of God who is the Loving Jesus whom is Lord,and Thomas testified that Jesus is the Lord God and was praised by Jesus. An accusation is of the devil,and the devil is defiled, deviant, perverted,and an abomination before God. Therefore how could  there be any good thing in an accusation toward anyone.

The reason meat is not bad to eat is because God knew we would need it, and provided it for us. The meek animals will be saved because Jesus had to die to save lost vain humans,and not non human animals  have the same unashamed attitude about nudity Adam, and eve had in the beginning.

Matthew 15:11 :King James Bible
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.


About what oracle a human puts his penis into: Satan is behind the persecution because he through men does not want to see the innocence of men before the fall of man,and that is why public nudity is called indecent giving guilt to humans,and why the zoosexual,and others are persecuted.

Then again, the time of in vitro meat may soon be here. It would actually be a good idea if we could prove it was safe.

wow.

Ya, basically.


One could pressure for thorough regulation of the industry and state spending on development of affordable synthetic meat. It is unreasonable to expect consumers to research which goods and services they can purchase with or without financially rewarding ethically objectionable business practices. If one were fixated on the issue enough they might compile a list of foods that are okay to buy, but in terms of practicality animal rights positions often force strong proponents into inconsistent, lose-lose situations like the one you were describing where folks use the very product they are condemning. I side with dead0men here but you make a fair point, Alcon.

Of course, it's easy to oppose just about anything. It is not a matter of zoophilia being innately good or evil - merely a contest of subjective values. I consider rape immoral and I am willing to extend certain basic rights to other forms of life. If I wanted to pretend like zoophilia is immoral in an absolute sense I would invoke the harm principle, but then you could counter that it applies only to human beings or that it is not animal harm taking place that stirs up the controversy so much as people choosing to take offense to the act. Either way, it is sort of a futile debate. xD

I agree with the second quote.  

Absolutely not.

Only if we want to legalize animal abuse in general. In other words, of course not.

No.

This has grown tiresome yes.

It was my assumption that zoosexuality (sexual attraction to animals) was legal, but bestiality (sex with animals) was not.

I can understand how bestiality could be animal abuse if it's like, a guy raping a chihuahua.  But is it abuse if it's like horse-on-girl or something?

There are some pretty good-looking chickens out there, aren't there?  Deer are sexy too, but they run too fast.  And their assholes are a little too high for me.  Maybe you're taller than I.

Okay, I'm assuming, reading the first few responses, that zoosexuality is the new-and-improved, politically correct phrase for what has been heretofore called bestiality. 

But even as I digest the 12-ounce steak I had for dinner tonight, I find the idea of giving a cow the high, hard one to a disturbing thought.  Even as I drink a 750-ml bottle of Cline Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon 2009, I find the idea of sticking my dick into a bunch of grapes disturbing.  And if I were a dessert fan, I'd probably think warm, soft apple pie a poor substitute for human flesh, and pity the fool who takes comfort therein.  I won't even pretend that the argument that "if you can eat it, then you should be able to do it" is anything other than inductive reasoning, at best.  Specious, even.  And that's being very generous.

I can't vote in your poll with a clear conscience, as I think it's completely asinine, so I won't.  But if you're into doing animals, then I respectfully label you a creep.

Animal cruelty laws apply. Simply put, no way in hell should that weird crap be legal.

Umm... Hell no!

Legal.

There aren't that many people who would be willing to lay the pipe with animals in the first place so I don't see how it's a big deal.
Now if we are talking about hybridy looking animal human thingies?

()
Lean "Hell Yeah".

No.

I would have thought "Yes" would have a higher percentage.

I can't say it should implicitly be illegal. I'm certainly against animal abuse, but I suppose that in some cases it might not be considered abusive. If a woman gets on all fours and a dog decides he wants to hump her and she lets him, is that abuse? It's not like the dog is hurt in that situation. My gut says it should be legal, but specific cases could be illegal under general animal cruelty laws if it causes harm or discomfort to the animal.

As an orientation? yes. The act of bestiality? No.

Hell. No.

Of course zoosexuality should be legal. The legal system is foolish anyway. Love is not  foolish. Love save the soul when our corrupt body dies.

King James Bible1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men

1 Corinthians 3:19 ,King James Bible
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness humans think they are so smart having many laws. Humans using mans laws  did to Jesus what humans are trying  to do to the zoosexual today. 

1 Corinthians 1:20, .Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Matthew 24:12:King James Bible
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. That means  the ones with iniquity are the humans with a cold heart toward the zoosexual, not wanting to hug the zoosexual.

The ones against the zoo are unwittingly causing themselves to miss a prize of all prizes by condemning the zoo for any contrived reason. There will be no one in heaven making up contrived reasons to persecute anyone, and we should start by not condemning the zoo now so whoever will be safe to have in heaven to not condemn  anyone there. Do you agree with what I just said?

The cruelty is being done to the zoo, and unwittingly to the soul of the condemner. do unto others will apply to the one condemning. Don't want to have your body, and soul turned to ashes when God judges the living,and the dead, and you will legalize zoo, and hug instead of hate wishing ill will to your neighbor.

You registered for this site to defend zoophilia.  You have no posts in any thread except this one.  You have the word "dog" in your name.

Surely the animal is giving consent if it is a male animal entering a female (or male if you want to do that) human. In which case that should be fine, yes?

Really our laws regarding treatment of animals are contradictory, arbitrarily decided and don't really make any sense.

What's interesting, Mikado, is his email pops up a real FB page.......so he's probably not a sock.  Go figure.

Does it show him wearing a furry costume?

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Kobidobidog

It appears we have an internet star amongst us.

I don't know......the profile pic is a dog.

(Trying really hard to hijack this abortion of a discussion)

Uhh....is sex with an Alien or humainoid alien bestiality?

(/Trying really hard to hijack this abortion of a discussion)

Would you rather be killed then eaten or ph-cked in the @$$ then killed and eaten.  Obviously the being ph-cked in the @$$ thing adds a whole other dimension to the scenario.

     If I'm going to be killed & eaten, then being raped is something of a secondary concern. That aside, my point there was that if you think killing & eating an animal is alright, I find it slightly odd to take a moral stance against having sex with it. The sex part would likely cause it discomfort, but the animals that get turned into our food lead highly miserable lives.

I don't approve of their redesign.

Ugh, I wish I hadn't clicked on that.

Yes but its still a concern.

It is difficult for most omnivirous Americans to get all the nutrients they need as is.  People's knowledge of nutrition is appauling.  Do you really think the average American can properly implement a vegetarian diet?  From a public health point of view an omnivorous lifestyle is essential.  I don't think the same can be said for the alternative lifestyle you are advocating.

     It is a concern in regards to myself & other humans. To anthropomorphize does not extend my concern beyond those bounds. Earlier in this topic I made the argument against extending legal protections to animals.

     I am not advocating any alternative lifestyle, & I would prefer to not be mischaracterized in such a fashion. Rather, I am arguing against its illegality. Besides, lack of necessity is always the weakest argument against legalization, because many things are non-necessary & still legal. I suppose there is a point to make that proscription becomes an entertainable hypothesis in the case of non-necessity, but the idea that proscription being entertainable means that it should be entertained is a rather large leap. Movies are non-essential to our health, yet hardly anyone would advocate banning them.

     Even if we were to assume that it was ethically sound for the government to concern itself with any random aspect of people's lives, it is hardly worth the resources to punish all perpetrators of all things that are dictated crimes. In the grand scheme of things, I regard dog-****ing as being a rather minor issue, at least when compared to crimes perpetrated against humans.

Well you've called this lifestyle an "issue" and a "concern."  Movies are indeed for the most part nonessential.   But they are not an "issue" or "concern" and therefor not in the same category as this lifestyle.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you should get a life sentence for doing it.  A fine, probation, or brief incarceration at a minimum security facility might be enough to do the job common sense clearly didn't do for these people.  And you can escalate it.  Maybe a fine and the issue is permanently dropped from their record if they don't re-offend during the next 3yrs.  If they repeat maybe a fine and probation.  Something like that.

The other thing is the law can me enforced if the police stumble across it or you report your neighbor, but there shouldn't be millions of dollars in police resources spent chasing people all over the place.

     Some cinematic content is a concern, though. Perhaps video games, particularly violent ones, would be a better example.

     While I am reticent to enshrine any such notion as animal rights in the law, making it a minor offense would be an acceptable compromise to me. Sort of like how marijuana possession is the lowest priority offense in San Francisco.

Given our new furry friend's attempt at biblical justification, I actually can't wait for jmfcst to get here.

Well I think that's the point.  Government serves a role but obviously nowadays it is overreaching.  Government action is not currently governed by good scientific or sociological data.  Someone wakes up one day and blames everything on drugs.  We then proceed in a completely unscientific manner to wreak havoc domestically and abroad and end up with as many drug addicts as we had before.

Marijuana should be totally legal.  It should be up to schools and employers to drug test if they want to and come up with their own penalties.  But we should not me spending billions locking up nonviolent recreational pot smokers.  Its a total waste of money and an extreme overreach by federal and local government.

Is it bad that I find CitizenX nearly as weird in manner as the dogf**ker?

He has a bold fetish.

()

Delete this thread, and nothing of value would be lost.

So... peeps... the question has to be asked... what about animals having sex with other animals? As in, animals of other species?

I'd seen this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqWEQuJ--eU&feature=related) one before, as a gif and somewhat shorter IIRC, but I gotta say, I'm surprised just how effing much bun-on-kitty action there is on youtube. So... do you agree that this rabbit is indeed consenting to zoosexual acts?

Oh my. The plot thickens.

I like how one of kobi's arguments is that "if the animal doesn't fight back, it must be consenting". By that logic...

It's either consenting or dead.

Not quite what I was going for. :P

It does raise the question: what does kobidobidog think of zoonecrophilia? This is an important question.

What's weird about wanting to outlaw this zoo sex thing?  I think that's a pretty mainstream idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGEtWeXrjFw

The people looked at the Cheezburger people and decided that money was better than lulz. It's a shame.

Speaking of cheezburgers ... this totally belongs here.

()

Just use your hand, guys.

I'm pretty sure 99% of the reason zoosexuality is illegal is because people find it gross, not due to any particular ethical reasoning. This was probably the case for homosexuality, too.

zoosexuality should be legal in many ways. We are animals too. That is one reason.

We are animals that are born, and die, breathe, eat, drink, sh**t, and piss, and we are made of eukaryote cells.  We have sex like an animal too. Physiologically, biologically, scientifically, chemically, microscopically having instincts of the fight or flight response, and territorial instincts of an animal putting up fences, and no not trespass signs. Then KJV its self says we are a beast to back all of this up in Ecclesiastes 3; 18-20. How can you ignore all of this evidence?

Two;  trying to make one human that dies worse than another human that dies is imposable, but humans as stupid as a beast try to do that anyway.

Three;Humans are being unequal against the zoo. They are doing to the zoo what they would not want to be done to them. The ones complaining should stop complaining.  They should do their sex, and allow the zoo do their sex, and then there will be a thing devils hate, and that is peace.

Four;  zoosexual sex existed,  but fear was given to them. God does not give fear.  Hence the devil was after the zoo in men.  The ones after the zoo for their salvation sake need to repent.

This thread serves as a good reminder of how questionable certain users are.

Fun fact: Kobidobidog has been on this forum for several years but has never posted outside of this thread.

I just discovered and read this whole thread.

Thank you, everybody. Truly, thankful.

How does kobidobidog feel about date rape? What about necrophilia?

If it feels good, do it!

Date rape doesn't feel good for the victim, and I doubt necrophilia feels good for the bereaved family.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Discuss:What_happens_when_a_male_human_and_a_female_dog_have_sex

http://www.youtube.com/user/kobidobidog/feed

You really think I was serious?  I'm the guy encouraging date rape?  Do I look like a dancing monkey to you?

No, and I have a feeling this is where a lot of our sexually transmitted diseases had their origin...  

If we inherited small pox, chicken pox, mumps, measles, influenza, etc. from close proximity with domesticated animals during the Neolithic period, then there is a good bet that a lot of our sexually transmitted diseases like syphillis, chlamidya, gonorrhea, etc., also became endemic among humans as a result.

In short, it's been done before, and we are still living with that legacy to this very day.  

No, I don't think you were serious. I was trying to further the joke, forgetting as I sometimes do that deadpan doesn't always work over the Internet. Sorry about that.

aahhh, I run into that problem about 6 times a day.  No worries.

Obviously I would never have sex with an animal. That said...

Animals clearly do not have a protected right to demand consent before anything is done to their body. There are many species of animal that we (legally) allow to be locked in cages, made to stand in their own feces, forcefully pumped full of "food", and then slaughtered. Other animals, pets like dogs and cats, are protected to some degree by animal cruelty laws, so perhaps forcefully entering a dog or a cat should be illegal. But what if a male dog chooses, of his own volition, to mount a ready-and-willing human female (or the anus of a human male)? And then let's return to the barnyard animals that are afforded little to no protection and rights. If it's legal to lock a cow in a tiny cage for its entire life and then kill it, why is raping the cow any worse?

I wonder how the results of a poll asking if it should be legal to lock up animals in cages and force them to mechanically produce food before they are killed would compare to the results of this poll?

Obviously factory farming should be banned.

yes, but with Gingrich running for president it has become relevant again.

Well It should be illegal to rape an animal, but if your dog decides to hump you and therefore you could be reasonably said to have its consent, its your choice.
But very seriously , the idea repulses me. Eew, gosh.

We are animals.  Gods word says judge yourself to be like Jesus is. Why can't people be like that giving people peace even as Jesus gave people peace? Why do people come up with one excuse after another refusing to be like Jesus is who judged himself?

Bottom line. People are having a bloody war against a type of sex.  All of us have likes and dislikes. Live and let live,  but the motto  with people really is live but lets kill whoever we think does what we think is disgusting or jail them. That sounds demonic doesn't it?

What sounds demonic is screwing animals.

The law of men is designed to take freedoms away. That is why there are jails. All of it is there to give jobs. Jobs to figure out what they can arrest whoever for whatever.  That is why a form of sex is being squashed by people. The law needs to be eliminated. When it is People will be like Jesus is working out their own salivation. Until then opponents to zoo are only cooking their own goose come judgment day. Of course zoosexuality should be legal. When it is people will not have an excuse to be inhospitable, hostile threatening people like Sodomites outside lots door.

This disgusting thread is one that just won't ever die I see. Pity that.

How is this allowed on here?

Yes. If you can obtain consent from an animal, the state has no right to say that you can't bone it.

But how can you obtain consent from an animal? I mean, I guess you can give your consent for the animal to bone you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumclaw_horse_sex_case), but that doesn't work in reverse because we can't communicate verbally in the same language with animals.

There are some really stingy women out there who it's difficult to obtain consent from... doesn't mean that it should be illegal, if you could. Rape is already illegal, though. :P

I think the language issue here is that people don't think an animal can consent to sex so therefore they consider bestiality/zoo-sexuality to be rape. That means that to propose legalizing the practice probably sounds like legalizing rape against animals. So you'd have to explain how animals can consent to it before people will consider the idea...

This might make some amount of sense except that animals tend to "bone" rather violently; "dude gets [inks]ed by horse, dude admitted to hospital with internal bleeding" is a rather common news item.  So, it's sort of recklessly exposing oneself to the possibility of injury, the cost of which may have to be borne by others.

It makes some sense in the sense that you have the mental capacity to understand the situation and clearly give your consent for something like that to happen to you but my point was that the animal can't do that like humans can so therefore zoosexuality shouldn't be legal.

This thread makes me want to throw up.

They're ANIMALS. Their consent is irrelevant.

So you're for it?

People against the zoo are immoral. People against the zoo are the thieves in the temple. If people say they were whipped are the people Jesus should have whipped. Luke 6:45: K J B:John 10:10: The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. Those against the zoosexual do not want to give life no not any good thing.  Jesus  did not whip anyone. People whipped him.

You're back! We've missed you.

Nope. Kill animals humanely for their rescources but don't make them suffer in life.

This is a contradiction.

God no, animals should only practice sexuality with their own animal partners. So humans only with humans.

what punishment do you advocate for animals who have sex with other species of animal?

Does that even happen? If so, we obviously shouldn't punish animals, we should let them be independent. If animals have sex with other animals, that's wrong (INHO), but we shouldn't do anything about it. I just think that shouldn't happen, but I suppose it could lead to a first birth of another animal, so it could be positive I guess.

But we are also animals, and why would we have sex with a pig or a dog? Its not only weird, but I'm not sure it would even work in many cases. I believe its unheard of for different animals to have sex with humans, but for people forcing or having sex with other animals should be punished for disturbing their peace or life. We are a very intelligent species, and we should control our own actions, I don't think other animals should have that responsibility. That's basically the difference.

aren't these way greater disruptions for the animals involved than penetration?

()

()

EVERY animal needs to eat, and almost all animals eat other animals. Yes, its a disruption that's greater than zoo sexuality, but eating food is necessary, zoo sexuality is not.

Your argument is that humans are animals, therefore it's okay to eat animals.

So if animals have sex with each other, then...

Tweed, what you posted is an argument for increasing protections for farm animals; not for legalizing bestiality.

the point of it is not necessarily to advocate for either position but to destroy the logical ground upon which the bestial-criminalizers stand.  besides, it's sort of a throwaway comment, as agribusiness reform is nowhere near the top of priorities for 99% of people who argue in this manner.

I wish they'd just come out and say that dog-fcking is gross and should be illegal because dog-fckers are pervs, which is how they really feel, instead of embarking on some disingenuous animal rights refrain.

^^^^

Why does everyone insist on keeping this God-forsaken thread alive?  :P

Because it reads as "Should zoosexuality ... by [last poster]" on the main page.

This is sick.

()          ()            ()   ()             ()           ()                 ()
   ()()()()       ()()()    ()()  ()()
           ()            ()                ()              () ()       ()      ()

()()()     ()              ()     ()()()
              ()                   ()()()     ()()
              ()                   ()               ()     ()()()

()()          ()              ()             ()()()    
()                        ()()()             ()                     ()()()
()()         ()               ()             ()

()()()     ()() ()     ()()()
               ()                          ()                                          ()
()()()     ()()()                    ()

Had to get creative a bit (especially with the S), but here's my opinion of this thread.

Oh yes definitely!  Let us not having warrings on the zoo. 

No, it should not be.

Be a living breathing being, have sex. It should be up to you what eukaryote celled creature you want to have sex with. That is reasonable.  God is not unreasonable. People have been unreasonable toward people I call zoos. People want to war against everything, even against people who want to walk or run around nude. We need to consider who we have sex with as if it was our own flesh. God knows who thinks otherwise. He is who people need to fear. It is not our place to give others fear.

…Hell no.