Thank you, abs, for the link. At least my state and 23 others have it right. It is a felony here. So I'm not alone in my Puritanical attitudes.

And as far as violating an animal on its way to the slaughterhouse, it would probably constitute public endangerment since humans carry various sexually transmitted diseases in their bodily fluids and there would be the potential for infecting a person who consumed the meat.

It's sad when human behavior is worse than animal behavior. Predators like lions do not violate the animal sexually; they make the kill and eat it. They have their brains wired to desire only others of their species. What does that say for humans?

For me its a busy day here

We have already gone over that animals have been found to be more then genetic robots in that regard. Humans themselves are not free from such things either. Shareing the four limbs and two eyeball design we all have things that can be looked upon with disgust, its the legal idea of where disgust has the say on why something should be a felony that puts you in prison for 15 years of your life, think about sending someone to prison for doing such a thing with a cow, then in prison that human gets raped and murdered, that in itself is grounds to argue a crime.

I dont agree overall with the practice, not to be with the common sense moral reaction or interaction of people, not even the attempt to have people think weird of me, just that for the most part, there is no real need for it.

That still does not resolve of course the legal ideas of the issue, something i do think the content of this thread was about?

The same could be applied to feeding animals genetically modified foods. There is also still the issue of domesticated animals not on their way to the slaughterhouse, and not an item on any menus of American restaurants. And of course, there is still the room for a person to get around health concerns by the practice of safe sex. I don't know of any circumstances hindering the effectiveness of a condom used with a separate species.


By the same token, a lion only kills that which it and its family needs to eat. This in contrast to the human practice of systematically slaughtering millions of animals, many of which go unconsumed daily. And of course, if we extend ourselves beyond the King of the Jungle, there are other animals which interact sexually with other species.

Now, for me, a lot of this has centered on the practice of beastiality in order to argue the legality of animal/human porn. It seemed only practical that before allowing such porn under law the act itself would have to be legal as well. After a couple interesting articles in my new Maxim magazine (arrived just this week), I'm not so sure.

In the age of Photoshop and special effects, I imagine it would be rather easy for a person to simulate acts of beastiality with a few clicks, never once having anyone actually penetrate, or be penetrated by, a separate species. In this case I definately think it should be legal, however distasteful such pornographic depictions might be.

Notice the "either with mankind'. Yes, sadly Michigan is a backwaters state that will send people to jail for up to 15 years for the act of sodomy. I am sure this makes most practicing male homosexuals guilty of a felony. Yes, is it not lovely when the state steps in and decides that detestable acts, even when they harm noone, should be punishable by severe penalties?

Thank you, abs, for the link. It demonstrates quite well the close relationship between Puritans who would outlaw beastiality and those that would outlaw homosexuality. I hope Michiganers are able to stomach a big tax increase to allow for proper enforcement of 750.158 Sec 158.

See in it what you will. I think the only people who have been jailed for sodomy (not involving innocents) were convicted because they were having sex in a rest area on the Interstate. Heteros could also be hauled into jail for the same behavior.

As far as huge tax increases go, I think it's safe to say that there are enough areas in this present economy for which we will have to be taxed more that aggressive enforcement of this particular statute is unlikely.

Be that as it may, it is apparent that the subject of THIS THREAD, bestiality, is considered against the standards of decency in this 'backwater' state. Thank God for this 'backwater' state, where dignity is something that communities aspire to! I would not want to live in a place where "anything goes."

A little info:



8% of males and 3.5% of females, hardly a miniscule amount of individuals. It looks like the moral tyrants are ready and willing to lock half of our farm boys up. Kinsey went on to report that woman preferred dogs and that men were most likely to engage in amorous activities with cows. Sadly animal lovers are forced to remain in the closet, an abhorred and discriminated minority oppressed by fascists in the name of some misguided morality.

50 years ago there were states in the union that would not have allowed myself and my wife to marry. Only now is the right of marriage beginning to become available to same sex couples. I am not asking that Rebecca be allowed to marry her Great Dane, just that she be allowed to share physical love with her Great Dane without the moral police knocking at her door. Friends of the animal lover's community have a long way to go before Rover and Rebecca can walk down that aisle.

I don't think country people on the whole appreciate being implicated when it comes to deviant acts, although some are evidently animal fornicators.

And do you think for one minute that these laws on the books preclude animal fornicators from their lewd behavior? I doubt it. Their personal gratification takes precedence over thought as to the consequences.

If this behavior has to exist, better that it be kept away from the public eye. It is shameful and as such should not be "shared" with the general populace.

And I have no pity for those "poor" animal "lovers."

Saying that it is just as much of an infringement on the rights of an animal to use it for medical testing or food than for sexual pleasure is correct. HOWEVER, food is neccesary for survival and so is animal testing (it may be cruel but what are we going to to test them on, humans?). Unlike using an animal for food and testing, sexual pleasure is not necessary for survival.

When the men in white coats come for us, I think we'll both know why, Hugo...


The country people not participating are no more implicated than any single person out of a group of 10 may be implicated as a homosexual.

In regards to the public eye, pornography is essentially a private matter. People make a personal choice to seek out and view pornography. The legalization of any pornography isn't in itself going to broadcast it across prime time television. If people don't want to see sodomy between consenting adults or with animals, they can look the other way, view more moderate websites or rent a different video.


Animal testing is not always required for human survival. When Max Factor or Maybelline find a cure for cancer, let me know. Until then, as long as we're going to allow somebody with a doctorate to dress a sheep up in lipstick and eyeliner, we'd be hypocritical not to let somebody sleep with it.

Look at the euphemisms in these postings! Animal lovers??? Sleep with sheep? And I'm the one being called a prude and a fascist?!!!

Call it what it is, fellas. It is invading the body cavity where human anatomy meets animal semen, vaginal discharge, or feces. How romantic! Oh yeah, this must be love, especially when the object of your affection can't say yes in any human language!
I'm sure the animal cares for you, too (wink, wink)!

"Misguided" morality is better than no morality at all. I think some posters in this thread are mistaking libertarian with libertine!!

Is there anything in life more important to these people than "getting off"?

Yes but then we ask why all people cant be the same "perfect" person. Regardless of how you view the act its more or less about the legality of something. In some weird dimension exists an a copy of this earth as of now, and in America the moral fabric finds the ones we use today to be the offense, to put yourself in their position for a second you can see that it sucks to be outlawed. Then their is common sense, but that two is relative.
Facts are things as a 75mph truck will most likely kill you if it hits you, if you refuse to eat you will most likely die, 40 below zero temperatures will most likely kill a nude human.

What this is all about is just that, is sex with a cow worth putting the person in prison for 15 years, is it the same crime as armed robbery. Its lewd and gross to a lot of people, but what else is lewd and gross. Does the content of it being a sexual thing in America cause the real problem?

Even in the light we have the death penalty and all the laws we do have people still brake laws. So how then should the current power subjugate such people if the practice or idea was to be banned? What penalties should be handed out, will it really solve anything?

This isn't Sunday School or a rally, Paladin. It doesn't matter if it's personally revolting or against our individual moral codes. We're discussing whether or not such activity should be allowed by law.

If we wanted to operate solely on morality we could ask the government to punish children for disobeying their parents, masturbating, having a different faith or even having desires. You can abide by your morals and reject for yourself the act of beastiality or the depiction of interspecies pornography. That does not, however, mean you should have the authority to impose your personal beliefs on your fellow citizens.

Breaking it down isn't appealing, you're right. That applies for several things allowed by law, because they simply do not pose a threat to other citizens or society at large. S&M isn't simply a fetish but the infliction of pain on a sexual partner, tearing and burning the flesh or possibly the delicate tissue of internal sexual organs. Anal and oral sex are both unnatural sex acts posing no threat to society, putting sexual organs at risk of chaffing or mastication.

When a person tattoos an image on their body they allow a person to poison their skin in what I'm told is a somewhat painful procedure. In this practice and in body piercing, people ignore their natural instinct to seek pleasure over pain. They puncture their skin at the risk of infection, nerve damage and possibly even death.

They are not illegal, though, because the government has no reason to prohibit such activities by individuals. Just as with beastiality, their actions do not pose a danger to their fellow citizens. They will not sit easy with every citizen, but disagreement alone is not reason enough for legislation.


Nobody has suggested that such people are consumed with their urges anymore than a teenager with masturbation or a heterosexual with their partner. People can live productive lives while simultaneously choosing to get off without the purpose of reproduction. If they choose to deposit or accept semen in nonreproductive venues that is their personal right, so long as it harms no other citizen.

Edited to add:Just for some additional perspective, similar statements could be applied to those who make use of dildos, vibrators, inflatable sex partners, or other inanimate sex objects. And while animals are living beings, they are considered simply as property by our courts, granted no more rights than the aforementioned products. In regards to an earlier statement about human anatomy meeting feces, the same could be applied to any homosexual or heterosexual voluntarily participating in anal sex.

Neglect or beat that animal that you own, and you will be hauled into jail, at least in this state. It often makes the six o'clock news. The animal is a living, breathing being, not at all like a dildo or inflatable doll. Inanimate is the key word; animals are animate.

If a person chooses to beat up or be beaten by a sexual partner, or chooses to get a tattoo, that person still CHOOSES. The sexual practices between consenting adults are not my concern. They can speak for themselves.

If it is consensual sex not for the purpose of having children, I don't care.

With all of the devices and diverse people in this world, I just don't see the compelling need for anyone to sexually violate an animal. And maybe a stint with "Big Fred" in a prison cell would help them understand how it feels to be a captive object of someone else's all-consuming libido.

If you read carefully, Paladin, I addressed the issue of inanimate objects in the fact that animals are still considered property. They are not people or citizens afforded the same rights that we are. And we also addressed previously the issue of animals being sexually violated. In addition to the difficulty of showing an animal was treated cruelly in such a scenario, the animal is also not always the passive participant. Much like your scenario with "Big Fred," sometimes the practitioner of beastiality is on the receiving end.

Again, perhaps you could set your emotions regarding this aside to address the legal aspects, as we are intended to do here. You are saying nothing that hasn't already been said and forcing myself and Hugo to do the same.

But it DOES matter if it is personally revolting.

I am not against pornography between consenting human adults.
I am however against pornography between under age, non consenting animals and human adults.
I was under the impression it was already illegal to have sex with an underaged minor??

Regards.......Alan

Animals aren't given a choice to consent or dissent. We have covered several times that if animals were allowed to consent how unlikely it would be that any of them find their way to animal testing labs or rural slaughterhouses.

And while you are correct that it is illegal to have sex with an underage minor, it is not illegal because people find it disgusting. It is illegal to prevent adults from taking advantage of children. Similar to driving licenses and alchohol, there are state designated age limits at which minors are allowed to consent to sex with adults.

ABS.....

No animals have a choice in this matter....Agreed which makes it even more immoral that we as a self declaired, sophisticated higher life form, should insult ourselves by doing it.
Or is it just one more dominance thing??.

NOOO.........it is NOT illegal because people find it disgusting and I don't think I said that
But it would be interesting to know the legal definition of a minor/child etc.


Regards.....Al

errr, so why is it illegal?

I don't think it is necessarily a dominance thing.

Certain people probably have chemical imbalances that may lead them to deem such action as normal. Others may have social issues which prevent them from interacting with other people the way we might expect an "average" citizen. Whether it be a result of low-self esteem or a lack of confidence, perhaps their sexual urges will be diverted to farm animals and conventional pets. Some might be dominance and fetishes.

And as sophisticated as we might like to believe ourselves, we are still animals. We still attribute a myriad of explainable events to the supernatural, we kill more than we eat and we routinely kill those of our own species. Many of us seek sexual pleasure from inanimate objects or find ourselves sexually aroused by lifeless, two dimensional images.

We want to see animals treated lovingly, but we'll sign off on cows and chickens respectively bludgeoned or scalded to death. We want to imagine our animals should be allowed to agree or disagree to certain actions, but I doubt if anyone asks permission before neutering or spading their pet(s).

Beyond such simple manipulation of genitalia, there is also the human control over the reproductive process of many animals as well. People will argue here about the choice an animal should have in sexual actions, ignoring the number of farm animals artificially inseminated for no other purpose than creating more food for the masses. A cow rarely asks a farmer or vet to manually insert large quantities of bull semen into them. And for whatever love they may show the resulting calf, they also don't ask the farmer to sell the life of that calf short to turn a profit of the sale of veal.

We're a conflicted bunch. I hate to think of animals involved in interspecies relations with humans, but I also wouldn't be willing to imprison a person for doing so. Despite our flaws, animals are still considered as lesser creatures, nothing more than personal property. I eat meat and love my pets. I cannot, however, place personal property over the personal liberties of an individual protected by our Constitution.

Read the posts then get back to me mate.Ta..

After rifting through the posts a little bit, I saw that you posted these two arguments in regards to whether an animals can be used for bestiality legally.

So, it could be that I'm really tired and missed your point, but it seems that your claim is that animals are actually minors who cannot consent to sex with adults.

Well, first, do you have any proof that the legal definition of a minor extends to an animal?

And if that is so, I'm sure that a minors are not aloud to be slaughtered, so, if the defintion does indeed extend to minors, why are they aloud to be killed?

Where is it shown that an animal, under US law, is treated more than a possesion

I'm pretty sure there are laws in existance about not shooting fawns ... and other laws protecting young animals. Perhaps those laws could be applied to the beastiality argument?

Sadly I tend to think the only laws (already in existance) that could be argued and used against beastility would be laws against animal cruelty. I think that in certain cases animal cruelty laws could be used.

When i was looking through what states have laws against at level of punishment i was amazed at some of the degrees of punishment. One state had you for a 50,000$ fine and up to thirty years in prison. That in itself i think is more of an outrage then a person having sex with an animal. Just one scenario is some farmer that’s never hurt anything or committed a crime in his/her life. One day someone sees that person having sex with an animal, then the farmer is convicted and sent to prison for thirty years? I dont want to be extreme but i thought we lived in a civil society. Not only is that level of punishment a little extreme to say the least, i don’t think such a crime that is not really defined is worth such a level of punishment. Smoking around non-smokers is a worse crime i do believe and their is no law against doing that in your home with a 2 month old baby, like a lot of things humans do this makes little to no sense, like chopping down rainforests to make crappy cheap little b-day hats. The more i get into such arguments the more flaws i see in them. I always thought it would be funny to see the ruling elite be replaced with those society has shut out or outlawed, one could only speculate on what would become a crime, then again this is just one of the simple things that is ruining America like sodomy laws, how would you even catch someone doing that unless it was in rape, are you going to police someone’s bedroom?

A cop on every nightstand or closet

Then again I guess thats why people work towards laws for all people, public to private.

I have not seen any fresh arguments on this thread for quite awhile. I think the problem here is animal lovers are so deep in the closet that those who call for their persecution do not realize they quite possibly have friends and family who practice beastiality. It might do some people some good if they went to www.zoophile.org and spent a small amount of time getting to know these individuals they are so willing to imprison. They might find that these zoophile's are human too (even if their kids are only half human).

Post #1030 on the aforementioned site was particularly heartbreaking. A young man is rejected by his girlfriend after confessing he had a fling with his pony. Women can sure be fickle at times.

Has anybody thought of the real possibilitiy of sickos buying pets soley for the reason of making them their sexual slave this isn't right.

CP

Where do you think farmers and laboratories get some of their animals? Lab technicians routinely purchase a wide array of animals for the purpose of poking and prodding them, exposing them to a host of dangerous chemicals and other experiments with the conclusion of many being the execution of the animal.

Farmers go a step above this and inseminate animals in order to turn a profit. People will argue that a person shouldn't stick a penis into the sexual orifice of an animal, but they won't defend a cow from having a farmer forcibly insert bull semen into a cow. As though that weren't enough they choose "underage minor" calves to be slaughtered for veal.

You use the term sexual slave, Conservpat. If we were to make the comparison to how we view human sex slaves it does indeed sound like a horrible thing. But in making other comparisons our farm industry would be characterized as performing forced conceptions, abortions and slave labor. They would also be guilty of infanticide. Laboratories may sometimes abuse an animal sexually in the interest of science, but the animals obtained by them are slaves regardless of what form that slavery takes.

The fact of the matter remains that animals are considered personal property. For the same reasons we don't prosecute the Future Farmers of America for their actions, we have no place to prosecute animal owners who practice beastiality. As repulsive as we may find it, we can't have our cake and eat it too. It's as simple as that.

abs said:


Au contraire, it means some people have their steak and eat it too. What a perverse way to defend "freedom"!

I hope you realize how many teens and pre-teens read what you're writing, and that while to some posters this is merely an exercise in rhetoric, others may view it as license to do some rotten things. There are impressionable people reading this stuff, and responsible adults should have a care about what they are writing.

These postings bring out the prude in some of us, but prudishness doesn't come from only what we were taught, but what the accumulated years have shown us are the consequences of licentious behavior.

Oh yes, we can push our precious freedoms to their ridiculous limits, but we shall see the results manifested in society at large. And it will continue until someone who knows how to seize power will decide to severely curtail that "freedom."

(Edited to say: At this writing, there have been 1,363 views of this topic. Can you deny that someone in that number will see this as license to do something morally reprehensible that is a crime in 24 states? Where is our sense of responsibility?)

Save the sermon, Paladin Elspeth. I'm well aware of the diversity we have here at America's Debate, but that does not come before being honest about a subject. You continue to appeal to emotions when this is about law.

Moaning about perverse behavior and teen readers does nothing to change the fact that animals are considered property. I've addressed the legal aspects of this issue while others continue to appeal to base instincts and neglect simple facts. I think it clear where the exercise in rhetoric is coming from.

Tell me which one of us is appealing to base instincts!

Yes, but is that a loop you want to get in. Each side taking turns being more brutal with each other.

Besides the outrage it is to some on the thought of such a thing, what if no damage or abuse could be found, what if the animal was the dominant. It just goes back to the only reason of it being a crime is on the base of it being ugly. I am pretty sure if you opened up American law to each individual the chaos that would reign would be amazing.

The idea of this thread was to debate the legal status of such a thing, is something worth making a crime because some view it as disgusting? what are the real reasons to make it a crime. Laws like rape are not only a law because it’s immoral, but because it causes real damage and strips liberty from people. If you allow the current moral elite to run the law system how they see fit, how many laws will come along that are truly unjust and how many people that don’t fit the norm will be punished to sometimes-harsh extremes. This is not the Tower of London taking turns between the Catholics and Protestants killing each other over Morales and power, this is the year 2003 in America.

The though of it all, i mean no one will stand up and say, hey maybe the idea to cut down a bunch of rainforest to make happy things for people is a moral outrage, where do you think that plethora of animals go, they all die or displace into harboring ecosystems causing even more duress to those. The idea of buying some shiny gas guzzling car to drive in while operating your cell phone is another stupid thing i do think, not only do the towers of such communication companies represent such harm to these animals the vehicles themselves are of no real use except making most likely making people feel better for some reason. Just remember, don’t abuse animals

It already is a crime, nileriver! While some of us pride ourselves in being scholars of the "law," are we encouraging people to break the laws in favor of their own brutish gratification?

I'm not a lawyer, just a parent. And as it is, I wouldn't let my 9-year-old view this "freedom of speech."



These are all worthy subjects, nileriver. I recommend you start some threads so we can talk about them!

Careful attention to the material provided in this debate will reveal it is only illegal in 24 of our 50 states, Paladin. That means it is legal throughout most of the country. And of those 24 states which prohibit beastiality, many of them do so alongside such acts which would imprison virtually every homosexual in their respective states.

From your own post regarding your home state:
Beastiality was condemned by law simply on the basis of sodomy, which is in the process of being dismantled for its restrictions on personal liberty. Just as homosexuals should not be incarcerated for sodomy, neither should those individuals engaging in the act of beastiality.

So let's take out the part that mentions homosexuals, abs. I'd be happy with that. I see no sense in throwing out the baby with the bathwater!

The only justification for it was sodomy, Paladin. It was a law rooted solely in morality with no societal dangers posed. It wouldn't make much sense to maintain a law against sodomy while simultaneously exempting designated acts of sodomy. And, of course, this also provides no rationale for the other 26 states across the country to write beastiality into law.

People felt a need to write those laws based on morality. While you would like to see (at least I think my perception is correct) laws based solely on public safety with no morality implied, that's not the way the country has done it. I know I am more in line with the thinking of the past, but I don't think that's so bad. I feel no compunction to license something that is disgusting, and evidently those who wrote the laws felt the same way.

And again, for the record, I don't care about what goes on sexually between (truly) consenting (as in yes) adults.

On what grounds would you propose beastiality be illegal? For a government to ban something solely on the grounds of disgust would open up a can of worms I don't think you're willing to cope with. There are enough people who find circumcisions, body piercing, tattoos, and sodomy between consenting adults disgusting. Should each of these groups be allowed to prohibit by law these activities simply because they find them disagreeable?

Why will you allow sodomy between consenting adults of our species but not interspecies sodomy?

If it's because animals can't consent, you'll pave the way for vegetarians to prohibit the slaughter or testing of animals. Pet owners will be unable to neuter or spade their pets without the expressed consent of that animal.

If it's because of cruel and unusual treatment, cases in which the animal is the dominant partner will automatically be excluded. Clearly the animal willingly engaged in such activity and the passive partner in the case, the human, has the ability to express consent to such activity.

So tell me, Paladin, how exactly would you go about rationalizing the legal prohibition of beastiality?

I don't need to. The law is already in the books in my state. Other people need to shoulder that burden and answer that question in states without the law.



Between CONSENTING ADULTS (people), not a convenient bovine or canine. Because they can articulate a choice.



Fine. Let them try.



Has a bull or a donkey ever introduced itself into a human without the human pulling it into him/her? "Dominant partner" can only be the human as the human actively, purposefully brings the animal to him or her. So the dominant partner argument is bogus. Have you ever seen a bull try to hump a cowboy?

You may not need to in your state, but you're being asked to in this topic of debate.

The argument that they should have to consent falls flat on its face. Animals are not granted the right to consent. Any legislation requiring them to will automatically prohibit their slaughter or use in animal testing. Considering the importance of meat in our food industry, and the interests of the private sector in animal testing, such legislation would never pass.

In regards to the dominant partner, you need only expand your horizons, dear Paladin. How often is it that we must entice dogs to hump our legs at a party? They seem mighty willing to do so. Dogs have been documented to willingly engage not only in humping but in sexual acts involving canine penetration of the [human] female reproductive anatomy.

So in what way can you rationalize the legal prohibition of beastiality?

Edited for female anatomy specification

Dogs did not hump my legs. If they poked their nose at me during "that time of the month," I pushed them away.

How often can they reach an unobstructed orifice at a party? Do they chew off the clothes to get to it? Who removes the clothing? Who gets down on their haunches? It has to be the active, human recipient.

It is not within my purview to legislate in other states. I defend what law is in my state, and I encourage others to either observe or enact laws in their respective states, but only people who are concerned with decency and against degradation of the human as well as the animal species as it pertains to animal/human fornication.



That's why I'm not worried about it. But faced with a choice, I would rather be vegetarian than have humans legally fornicating animals in Michigan. I can do without meat if necessary. But it isn't going to come to that, is it?

Dogs routinely hump the legs of human companions for sexual pleasure. This involves no coercion by the human participant and expresses the willingness of an animal to "introduce" itself to the human participant. This is something you previously said animals do not do.

A human participant removing their clothing and assuming a position favorable to animal penetration still leaves the choice of penetration to the animal. This is a choice animals have been known to choose. Thus, in such a situation the animal is the dominant partner while the human, through both verbal and physical methods, is capable of expressing consent to the act of beastiality.

While you choose not to speak for other states, how then would you defend retaining the beastiality laws you currently have? At present they are included under the prohibition of sodomy, yet you are in favor of allowing consentual sodomy between human partners. In order to retain prohibition of beastiality while legalizing the acts of consentual sodomy between humans you would need something to distinguish the two.

So far you have suggested the difference is that humans can consent. But, as I have pointed out, requiring animals to consent to activities has other ramifications. Were we to need consent from animals before perpetrating acts with or against them, the meat and dairy industry, as well as the scientific community, would be crippled, if not destroyed. Consent doesn't work.

So again, with a slight twist, how would you defend retaining beastiality laws currently in place (while allowing consentual sodomy between humans)?

Abs - As far as I am aware, there are plenty of people who think that female circumcision is an acceptable practice. That does not, however, prevent the "disgust" of Western society at the idea of female genital mutilation from legislating against it. We have found many other arguments (mutilation; lack of consent; impairment fo female sexual response; possible infection; etc.) as to why our "disgust" is rational.

The same arguments would also be applicable to routine male circumcision, yet we do not find it "disgusting" as a society (any more than the largely African cultures that practice female cicumcision find thatdisgusting) and so we choose to view it with indifference (in the UK, where male circumcision is uncommon) or mild approval (as in the USA, where it is common).

If a strict libertarian interpretation can find male circumcision acceptable, why does it not find female circumcision acceptable? (I am assuming that libertarians to not generally approve of clitoridectomy without anaesthesia or, often, asepis.) While one is certainly more extreme than the other, they are both similar in character, both in their effects on individuals, and in the way they are viewed by the societies that approve or dissaprove of them.

My point is that libertarianism, like all other political philosophies, is useful up to a point, but is not universally applicable. If it were, then we would judge each act of paedophilia on it's merits to establish whether the child is capable of giving consent, as we do with adult rape cases, rather than apply a blanket assumption that children below a certain age cannot ever give consent to sex.

A particularly precocious four year old might be able to initiate sexual contact with an adult, and might know perfectly well what it is doing. A purely libertarian point of view would allow such sexual contact as taking place between two sexual parties. But in reality sexual precocity in a child - "they were asking for it" - may qualify as justification within the mind of a paedophile, but it is taken to be evidence of the deviance of the "abuser" (or "child lover" if we are to stick with the "misunderstood and maligned minority" standpoint that leads us to mealy mouth our way to "animal lovers").

As you and others have frequently pointed out, children below the age of consent are assumed in law to be legally incompetent - they cannot give their consent. Animals have no minds (that we know of, and certainly not in law), and so they cannot give their consent either. In children, consent is presumed to be withheld, and (following your argument) in animals it is presumed to be given, even though neither children nor animals can give their consent in law (and usually, in both cases, in reality). The legal treatment of children and animals is not so different - children are "allocated" to divorcing parents as if they are "property" to be shared (equally or otherwise). There may be some post-justification about child welfare (which may or may not be actually at risk), but essentially the transaction is one of property.

Why, then, is a frisky terrier (considered property and considered not capable of giving legal or actual consent to sex) get to be "loved", but a flirtatious pre-pubescent confused by the divorce of their parents (who is also considered as property in the divorce transaction, and who is also legally and actually incapable of sexual consent) can only be abused? Is it a purely species-specific transaction?

NB Readers joining this thread on recent pages should be aware that I am arguing not for the legalisation of child abuse, but that pure libertarianism has useful but limited application in such areas, that if "animal love" were to be allowed in all circumstances it could be used as a precedent by campaigners for the decriminalisation of sex with children (an extrapolation I view as more concerning and less unlikely than the banning of meat eating by the likes of PETA), and that public disgust does have a role in legislature - if only to tone down it's worst excesses.

Also, I take the admonishment on the chin over "lowering the tone", which is what I read from Nighttimer's critical post a few pages ago. Sorry for any unintended offence caused. (A fine but necessary distinction, I think. I don't really care what any real life "animal lovers" thought about it. The hot shame of my ridicule is the least of their worries. Baaaa. )

To actually consider the developmental aspects and elasticity of a persons mind while growing the loss of any normal state in the persons reality can lead to shock and a plethora of different effects, just like what happened with 9-11. Children are different then animals as far as law goes because they have the rights of a human. We still are dealing with the "rights" of animal human interaction and the justification of bestiality to be legal or illegal. As far as i have been able to read the main and still staying reason of it being illegal in certain states or areas is in a base disgust with it. Such a base disgust allows for people that may have been with a "consenting" animal for what it is worth to end up in prison for 15-30 years. No person has yet to advocate animal cruelty on this debate, something that i am against. You must have read my posts and others to see what can and cannot be considered such by a giving society or states laws on what such scenarios that call for cruelty are.

My main arguments for this debate still stand on, will making it illegal have any impact on it happening? what type of punishment would you agree with? when would it be illegal and why? Also the extension or a clause to grant such rights to an animal would probably only be giving to it during the presence of sexual relations to a human, thus it would just a become a nifty rewording of the same moral law, or that their still would be no real rational base for it being illegal.

As for people using this as grounds to engage with minors in sexual relations that argument can be made. Many nations all across the earth have it at different ages when a person is considered mature enough for such, even in America i think you can still find such practices of families allowing their 15 year old daughter to get married. I think the legal age throughout the u.s is 18 and 17 in the u.k. The u.k does allow for 15 or 16 year olds regardless of sex to join a combat arms unit.

As far as I know, Julian, female circumcision is not illegal here. I also think the general distaste for it here stems from the stories of grown women forced to undergo the procedure against their will, rather than solely from disgust.


Humans are granted at birth certain rights in the United States that animals simply aren't. We recognize humans to be people with a higher conscious than other animals, but one which must develop with the years. To prevent others from possibly violating their rights through manipulation of still naive children, we have laws against pedophilia.

As animals are not granted any rights from the time they are born until the time they die, unlike humans, allowing beastiality to occur legally can not be extrapolated to eliminate charges of pedophilia. There is no process of maturation legally taken into account for animals in regards to their testing, slaughter, or perhaps sexual interaction with humans.

Even an infant is born with considerable more rights than an animal. Animals are property rather than individuals. The individual is granted certain rights -- among them protection from pedophilia -- that personal property simply isn't. Just as the right to engage sexually with inanimate objects can't be extrapolated to legalize pedophilia, neither can the right to engage sexually with animals.

We have been over this many, many times before. Animals have no rights, and therefore cannot give consent about anything. For instance, animal researches don't have to get consent from any source when they use animals for test purposes.

THEY ARE CONSIDERED POSSESSIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They have no rights... none. Which means they are subject to slaughter, testing and, lastly, bestiality. Children, on the other hand, are not considered possessions, and therefore cannot be subject to slaughter, testing or bestiality.

Also, I don't see why the acceptance of beastilality would lead to the acceptance of peudophilia. As I have explained, children aren't animals, so they WOULD be considered minors and thus criminals would be subject to legislation.

I haven't seen anything so far that convinces me that beastiliality is outlawed for any other reason because it's "weird". It obviously doesn't hurt the animals as much as testing or meat factories, so, if your looking to protect animals, they're bigger fish to fry.

Wrong! I said an animal being the dominant one is bogus. Just because Fido likes to hump your leg doesn't make him a "dominant partner." (Oh, help, I'm being dominated by my poodle--)

Men who think that having a penis makes them dominant are in a fantasy world, unless we're talking about rape. And even men can be raped by women if they are aroused while unable to resist, like being handcuffed when they are too drugged to notice. And that's what would be done with animals, by and large, a forced situation without the dubious pleasure of the drugs.

We are supposed to be the higher order of species, which is probably a joke as evidenced by the mere fact that this subject has been brought up in this forum.

I will argue against this until hell freezes over or I am told that I cannot. It is not my problem that some people don't have the mental capabilities or sufficient character to figure out that they are to consort with their own species. In my state, it is illegal. If someone wants to get the homosexual clause removed from the statute, fine.

I heard a doctor joking about Kentucky the other day, the reputation being that folks from Kentucky marry their first cousins. Although it might be legal (I don't know), I am sure Kentuckians, by and large, resent that characterization. How much worse is the stigma attached to animal fornicators!

Come visit our state--you can (enter nasty word for fornicate) animals here--is sure not to be included in those travel brochures.

Canines routinely approach humans in a sexual manner without being pulled into the act. As surely as they hump a leg, they can introduce their genitalia into the human vulva if presented the opportunity.

When I refer to the dominant parter I'm referring to the aggressive partner in the act. We are not referring simply to dominance as some kind of power trip. Whether you prefer we call them the aggressive parter, the top or the dominant partner, that is what is being addressed here.

You're welcome to argue until hell freezes over, but while you're doing it, could you possibly answer my questions in regard to beastiality and law? You want to separate sodomy laws for animals and sodomy laws for humans, yet you've consistently failed to explain how this might be done.

Do you have anything other than appeals to emotion and your personal disgust to rationalize prohibiting beastiality by law?

Incidentally, incestual marriages are legal in 26 states... and no state is likely to advertise any possibly negative attributes in a travel brochure. This has nothing, however, to do with the legality of certain things, least of all beastiality and animal/human porn.

How do you know? I've never seen it on Animal Planet or National Geographic.

It's called contacting the legislators, my friend. Apart from the State Supreme Court ruling on a test case, you contact the legislators in your state to amend the statute. That's not so tough to figure out.

Sure, we have something called "community standards," and that's why nobody is beating the state house's door down to eliminate the statute!

I've owned dogs all my life and am quite familiar with their tendency to hump. Many without dogs of their own may have seen similar canine behavior parodied in various films. I'd venture to guess you've rarely seen any homosexual behavior by animals on the Animal Planet or Discovery channel either, but that's also well documented. To help you along in canine humping though:
Canine Behavior: Humping and Mounting

Okay, you're going to contact a legislator. And you are going to rationalize it... HOW? This is what I have been asking you for repeatedly. I'm well aware that you must communicate ideas, but how are you going to rationalize legalizing consentual human sodomy while maintaining the illegal status of interspecies sodomy?

It's not that difficult a question.

I'm first going to get a local group of gays to back me up. Secondly, if the politician is reticent to keep it illegal to fornicate animals, I'm going to go to the newspapers and the Internet and reveal his opinion on the statute. If he argues against excluding the homosexual clause, the gays can go to the newspapers and the Internet and raise hell.

Public perception is everything in politics.

It's not that difficult an answer.

Community standards?

I am still haven't seen a legal reason to keep bestiality illegal (In those 24 states) other than the fact that it's "disgusting." Well, there needs to be a better reason than that. As long as animal rights remain non-existent and bestiality harms no other person, it should be legal (and when rights are given to animals, I would like to see it practiced IN FULL).