Should zoosexuality be legal?

[Redalgo]

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.

[justfollowingtheelections]

No because it's not consensual. 

[© tweed]

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.

[justfollowingtheelections]

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.

[© tweed]

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

[justfollowingtheelections]

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?

[© tweed]

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.

[Redalgo]

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.

[justfollowingtheelections]

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.

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?

[© tweed]

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)

[justfollowingtheelections]

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.

[© tweed]

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

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.

[justfollowingtheelections]

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.

[© tweed]

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

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Tweed, why on Earth do you care?

[© tweed]

the implication being, I have to  animals to care?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

[Joe Republic]

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

[© tweed]

I told my family about this thread

[CountryRoads]

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,an Pedo is war. All need to stop warring. War kills  People.  World wide need to stop warring. it will be humbling to stop waring. zoosexuality most definitely needs to be legal.

WTF is wrong with you Willis?!?!

[minionofmidas]

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

Furry-ism and Zoosexuality are quite different things.

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

[kobidobidog]

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.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

[Indy Texas]

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.