Contemporary Moral Issues

[Qrazy]

A thread to discuss/debate our beliefs concerning abortion, the death penalty, same-sex marriage, taxes, weighing lives, etc.

Topic of the day: Bestiality. Are you for? Against? Not in public but in private life? And why?

[Spun Lepton]

Topic of the day: Bestiality. Are you for? Against? Not in public but in private life? And why?

An animal is not a consenting adult.

[Spinal]

Hope you don't mind if I throw out another topic ...

Death pools.

Harmless fun or corrosive cynicism?

[Spinal]

An animal is not a consenting adult.

That pretty much sums it up, although I would be entertained to hear the pro-bestiality argument.

[Barty]

While I'm personally against bestiality, whatever someone wants to do with their own privately owned animal is their own business.

[number8]

That pretty much sums it up, although I would be entertained to hear the pro-bestiality argument.

Fine. I'll play devil's advocate.

It's not okay for one to sodomize or fellate an animal (sheep, donkey, what-have-you) as that would be taking advantage of a lesser consciousness.

However, when the situation is reversed, the animal itself would be in a state of primal lust, and it is up to the human to consent. This would be in a situation where, say, a dog mounts a naked woman and has sex purely on the dog's initiation. It gets muddier when it is a case of animals performing oral, such as when women drip milk on their clitoris for cats to lick, or slathering peanut butter on the labia for dogs to do, as that would be the human tricking the animals, but since the animals are reciprocated with food, there's no harm done.

[Spinal]

While I'm personally against bestiality, whatever someone wants to do with their own privately owned animal is their own business.

So you're OK with dog fighting?

[Barty]

So you're OK with dog fighting?

Personally? No. As a matter of law? Yes.

[DavidSeven]

Under Barty's principle, you could mutilate/torture an animal without repercussion.

[Russ]

Personally? No. As a matter of law? Yes.

What's objectionable about outlawing dog fighting?

[Barty]

Under Barty's principle, you could mutilate/torture an animal without repercussion.

Yep, you could.

[bac0n]

I actually teach sex ed at our church, a program called Our Whole Lives, and I've actually been asked this question, and other questions like this. In response to this question, I usually fire back with the question, "so, how does this sex act stack up against the OWL Program Values?" those values being 1) Self Worth, 2) Sexual Health, 3) Responsibility and 4) Justice & Inclusivity.

When measured up against those values, sex with an animal falls pretty well short.

[Dead & Messed Up]

What's objectionable about outlawing dog fighting?

Governmental interference with private property owned by an individual.

[lovejuice]

i'm less interested in bestiality as a moral issue than how people can be turned on by bestiality.

[Spinal]

i'm less interested in bestiality as a moral issue than how people can be turned on by bestiality.

This is a very good question.

[D_Davis]

Yep, you could.

Are there any spiritual repercussions, Barty?

[Russ]

Governmental interference with private property owned by an individual.

Determining where to draw the lines is the problem. I draw the line re: the definition of private property at sentient creatures. Sure, you can own a dog, but you have a responsibility (by society's standards, at least) to establish and maintain a humane relationship with the animal.

Certainly not comparable, but how about man-boy love? That ok, too? They're not old enough to be consenting adults, so we don't have to worry about that. Age of consent argument: why should the government interfere if the lover is also the provider and caretaker?

Can't wait to hear Barty's take on this.

[EvilShoe]

i'm less interested in bestiality as a moral issue than how people can be turned on by bestiality.

I blame Disney movies.

[Barty]

Are there any spiritual repercussions, Barty?

Yep. But then we don't, or shouldn't, legislate based on a particular set of religious beliefs.

[D_Davis]

Yep. But then we don't, or shouldn't, legislate based on a particular set of religious beliefs.

I agree that we shouldn't legislate based upon a certain set of religious rules.

[DavidSeven]

Should we legislate on moral beliefs? Or should we render all criminal doctrine invalid as well?

[Duncan]

Pretty sure this thread is going to make me furious.

[D_Davis]

Should we legislate on moral beliefs? Or should we render all criminal doctrine invalid as well?

This is the question, isn't it?

Human murder is illegal, and deemed immoral by many religions. Thou shall not commit murder (kill).

So should murder be illegal? Is it not also a religious rule?

However, under Christian law, we have been granted a certain dominion over the animals, and how one interprets this dominion is the question. Personally, I eat meat, although for the past few years I've been questioning this practice. However, I believe that eating animals and not torturing them are not mutually exclusive ideas. We can treat animals with respect, and make their lives the best we can, and still use them for food. Right now, I guess my beliefs in this issue are more like the native Americans. I try to respect and honor nature, and see nature as a divine gift to use, but not abuse.

We are part of the creation, and thus we should honor everything about it.

However, certain animals need humanity to survive. We've created many different breeds of domesticated canine, and I believe that these dogs are reliant upon humankind. They are not property. They are cohabitants - they are companions, they are dumb (not being able to speak) friends, and thus any poor thing done to these animals must be treated exactly the same as if they were a human being. This is not a spiritual issue, but it is a legal one. Just like two humans can create life, a child. A child is not the property of its parents, and the parents are legally and morally bound to care for the child the best way they can. So, too, must we treat animals.

[D_Davis]

Hope you don't mind if I throw out another topic ...

Death pools.

Harmless fun or corrosive cynicism?

Vile and disgusting.

[Qrazy]

Fine. I'll play devil's advocate.

It's not okay for one to sodomize or fellate an animal (sheep, donkey, what-have-you) as that would be taking advantage of a lesser consciousness.

However, when the situation is reversed, the animal itself would be in a state of primal lust, and it is up to the human to consent. This would be in a situation where, say, a dog mounts a naked woman and has sex purely on the dog's initiation. It gets muddier when it is a case of animals performing oral, such as when women drip milk on their clitoris for cats to lick, or slathering peanut butter on the labia for dogs to do, as that would be the human tricking the animals, but since the animals are reciprocated with food, there's no harm done.

Yeah, I was in this argument recently and that was the pro-argument employed. So constraining ourselves to animals mounting people should it be allowed in the privacy of one's own home or deemed criminal? I am intuitively in favor of making it illegal but I wasn't completely satisfied with my justifications. Essentially I had to group it under animal cruelty (this did not feel entirely satisfactory) and appeal either to some minimal rights of animals themselves or to arguments that societally sex with animals is not valuable to society or that bestiality demeans human dignity (in a Kantian sense). None of these justifications seems sufficient to me though. I feel like there must be a better reason out there. Alternatively my predilections against bestiality may be too strict and perhaps they should be abandoned. But I do not feel this is the case.

Perhaps we have to fall back upon the issue of consent both for children and animals. Even when an animal wishes to procreate perhaps it is not sufficiently cognizant of it's actions (in so far as we have established the standards for consent), such that any inter-species relations (between non-consenting species) should be deemed unacceptable. Conceivably there could be consenting sexual relations between humans and dolphins someday.