Wertz is pretty much spot on I think. His point leads to an observation based not on human squeamishness, nor on constitutional arguments of legality, but animal behaviours.

Most of the animal species with which human deviants (I can't think of a better word - whatever the rights and wrongs, bestiality certainly deviates from the norm far more than homosexuality or any other human-to-human behaviour, including ones we generally diapprove of like incest, child abuse, rape, murder, etc) attempt or succeed in having sex with, either as, um, giver or receiver, are social species. Most social species use sex as a means of interaction as much, if no more, than humans do. Anybody that has visited a farm will know that cattle, horses and sheep will mount and sometimes penetrate one another, regardless of gender, as an expression of social dominance. Dogs will behave in much the same way.

Domestic animals have been domesticated successfully largely by taking advantage of their natural social heirarchies and making us the pack or herd leader. In that context, and if we imagine that the animals are sentient beings for a moment, they would most likely be more surprised and their dignity more insulted if the senior member of their pack or herd did not make or accept the occasional sexual advance.

The only solitary animal that we have successfully domesticated is the cat, and while my knowledge of bestiality is (thankfully) extremely limited, I'm not aware that they are an object of human lust - those claws are to sharp, those tongues are too rough, and there is too much size difference.

So I don't see, aside from the chihuahua problem already mentioned, that the animals themselves are likely to feel slighted or abused by sexual encounters with humans.

Nor, on this point, do I see that if they were sentients, they would view being eaten as any special indignity - it's an occupational hazard for herbivores and omnivores, which is what most of our meat-producing species are, even the exotic ones (like dogs in Korea). Almost nowhere do people eat exclusive carnivores with any culinary relish. If it happens at all it's normally for some cultural or medicinal significance, rather than because it tastes good.

However, I am not such a libertarian that I think bestiality is a simple matter of personal choice and privacy. I am quite comfortable for it to be illegal, and I don't think that there has to be any special argument for it to remain so. I guess that makes me somewhat conservative - I think the "Animal Lovers" (what a euphemism!) should justify to the rest of us why their "hobby" should be legal. And in the meantime, I think it should be legal to speak out and even discriminate against them.

Julian:
in the colonial period at least I have read reports of the following animals being involved:
sheep, cattle, horses, dogs, chickens, turkeys, pigs, goats

I can not remember whether or not cats were mentioned but I know that the above were. I think the most suprising is chickens and turkeys.


I'm having trouble making finding where I stand exactly on the issue I can see both sides (reasons to restrict and not to). I think with regards to pornography I would support restrictions and regulation of such an industry much as I would support restriction and regulation of animal slaughter farms. After some thought I don't think I would support outright banning.

*I'm sort of suprised at my own conclusions in that generally speaking I tend to come up on the side of individual freedom and smaller government...

Abs: The main problem I have with it is it is that animals may not [and probably don't] consent to what is done to them. It technically is rape, now, I don't care whether we're talking about an animal or a human, rape is rape. There is absolutely no reason why we should decriminalize this, why decriminalize it if it's already illeagal, there would have to be an incredibly strong reason to do this, and I see none.

CP

Just a quick post to admit that I was wrong in my statement that Colorado has a law against bestiality. Evidently I live in a state that has little to no issue with having sex of any kind with an animal. Jeez, even Arkansas has a law against bestiality. I guess I just assumed that I lived in a state that was above such disturbing acts.

-Kisov

I don't believe that there is a legal definition for penetration of an animal as rape. There are numerous definitions of rape (which vary from state to state) for humans, usually involving nonconcentual penetration with some object. By this definition, female animals as routinely 'raped' as a fertilization method.

FYI Julian: the Inuit and other "Eskimo's" eat seal routinely, seals are a carnivore. I would, however, place them as the "exception that proves the rule" regarding your perspective on herbivores and omnivores.

The case "favoring" the decriminaliztion of bestiality and bestial pornography illustrates just how weak the intellectual respect is today for the accumulated wisdom billions of people over thousands of years. Rather than those who advocate change having to prove the worthiness of their position, the advocates of community standards and tradition have to prove the strength of their position.

This approach is wrong, and our society's flirtation with it is going to come back to bite us in the keester.

I'm with Paladin and Conservapat on this one. There is absolutely no good reason to legalize bestiality or bestial porn, nor is there any reason to even grant it "tolerance."

Animals aren't recognized as having the right to consent or dissent, Conservpat. It is also only illegal in 24 of our 50 states, with many of those laws pertaining to bestiality coming as a side note to other sodomy laws rarely enforced. As I mentioned before, some of them come as an afterthought to laws against consentual blowjobs and anal sex, something I'm sure many residents of such states get away with on a regular basis. To say that rape is rape and such applies to an animal would leave the door wide open for PETA to say murder is murder and such should apply to animals as well, in spite of our rich omnivorous history.

Even then, as Wertz mentioned earlier, the animals involved in bestiality and animal porn are not always the passive partner. When the animal makes a choice to mount a man or a woman it could be argued in court, however distasteful, that the animal was thereby giving consent by choosing to mount its human counterpart.

For all the objection I may personally have, like others here, I am having difficulty in finding a reason for such practice or pornography to be illegal. Like erratic energy I would like to see the some restrictions, but to ban it outright seems unjustified except by our base reactions to the issue.

The difference is, when we kill animals, we use them whereas bestiality has no direct purpose.

Just a question, but if this is already illeagal, why make it leagal, I mean, it wouldn't improve anything, why not just leave as is, or should we just sucumb to the how many sickos out there who like to mess around with cows?

CP

By a slim margin it is actually legal in most states, Conservpat. By your reasoning then there doesn't seem any reason to make it illegal. It isn't really harming anything in regards to the human society we establish laws to protect.


Side note: Before anybody argues that sex with an animal harms the animal, bear in mind again that they are not always the passive partner in a case of beastiality. They are also being harmed no more than they may be in laboratory experiments, genetic engineering and slaughterhouses.

Just because it is leagal in most states doesn't make it right, nor does it mean a lot of people do it. So why make something like this leagal?

CP

It already is legal in most places, Conservpat. It doesn't matter how many people do it or whether or not you view it to be right or wrong. It doesn't harm society at large and animals aren't granted rights beyond being the personal property of a human owner. Those places which do prohibit beastiality, and by association beastial porn, do so in accordance with sodomy laws involving prohibition of seemingly unnatural sex acts like oral and anal sex between two consenting persons. In light of recent happenings within the United States Supreme Court, these laws which are currently in place could face possible challenges in the near future.

Short of personal objections resulting from taste there appears to be no conclusive legal basis for making such behavior or manner of pornography illegal in the 26 states it is allowed in.

Because it restricts individual freeedom. Because it imposes the majority will on an issue that the majority should have no say in, an individuals sex life. If these laws were challenged the USSC would quite possibly make the same decision as they did, for the same basic reasons, with the Texas Sodomy Law case.

It is no skin off my nose if someone is sexually attracted to animals and acts on that attraction. You don't like beastiality? Stick to humans. You don't like porn? Don't look at it.

So you figure that because this is a "free" country, people should be able to do "anything they want" without the requisite responsibility. Whatta concept. Gee, I can't wait to tell my 9 1/2 year old daughter that people can watch animals having sex with humans and vice versa because somebody wanted that freedom.
Gee, maybe I should tell her right after telling her the Golden Rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or maybe I could talk to her about personal responsibility then. Yeah, that would make the perfect postscript.

And maybe somebody would consider it an abridgement of his/her freedom to not be allowed to kill somebody--after all, it would bring pleasure to one of the participants in the scenario, maybe even sexual pleasure, and in the future some lawyer might be able to make the case that the defendant's need for sexual gratification superceded the victim's right to live. Or the arsonist who ejaculates while watching the building burn, it's his sexual "freedom." Or what about a person who relieves himself in a public place because he likes being watched? Freedom! That's right! Watching films of people having bowel movements! I'll bet that turns somebody on! Does it matter if the person doesn't know that someone has installed a camera in that little hole in the stall? No, they'll never even see it! Just the pleasure of the viewer and the monetary gratification of the filmer matter. Freedom!

Hey, look! The animal seems to like it. BONUS FOR "ME"!

Yep, America. The place where you can do anything you want without fear of retribution as long as you say it's for your sexual gratification, because it's not the government's business.

So is decency now discouraged because it's not in the Constitution? I guess so.

(edited)

When government represses liberty, farther than is necessary to secure liberty, they endanger the freedoms of us all. The same arguments against beastiality are made against homosexuality.

It is quite absurd to equate beastiality with murder, murder is an agressive act against another human being, it is the proper role of government to defend it's citizens against internal and external aggressors.

It is quite clear us friends of the animal lover's community have a lot of work to do. It looks like it will be awhile before Mary can bring her Great Dane to the prom. Animal lovers are human beings who simply want others to stop infringing on what they do in the bedroom or the barnyard.

Please read George's quote in it's entirety and tell me what is wrong with it.

I would draw a distinction between acts which cause harm to others (both physically or psychologically), and those which don't. Then, I would measure the costs to society in general and consider whether an action warrants illegality. In the case of an odd and completely private proclivity towards animals, although I personally believe that is repugnant (as are many other bizarre proclivities) it is not necessarily harmful to anyone.

Every society must have standards for conduct. Those who argue that morals are completely relative must accept that, for such logic to hold true, all actions are reasonable even if they cause another's harm....Why is stealing illegal? Because it causes someone harm. But it also helps someone. Therefore, from now on, everyone should do whatever is best for them because morality is relative. Clearly a society would not last long on such a premise.

We are left to draw the subtle distinctions between what actions warrant illegality and which don't. Which types of conduct have a negative enough impact on society to pose a more compelling interest than personal freedom. I don't particularly believe this warrants illegality. Just my opinion. I certainly wouldn't want to associate with an animal fornicator.

Yeah, it pretty much says it all, doesn't it?


There's nothing wrong with the quote--it's trying to defend animal "lovers" (Please--there's a more accurate and descriptive word for it than that!) that is wrong.

I also have a quote:


I have given objections on the basis of decency and personal responsibility, and now I will let it go. Sometimes the worst thing we can do to a person is to give him what he wants.

Protecting the fool from his folly is the the common justification for all vice crimes. These are labeled victimless crimes for a reason. An individual should have sovereignty over his own body, provided he does not harm others. A simple principle, that if adhered to would rid the world of much tyranny.

Come on Hugo, just because it restricts freedom doesn't mean anything. Not allowing someone to steal something restricts that person's freedom, that is no reason to make something leagal that is illeagal.

CP

Stealing violates another citizen granted rights by the Constitution and protected by the laws of our society. Beastiality, on the other hand, does not. And again, Conservpat, it isn't illegal in even most of our 50 states. There is no legal reason for any of the 26 states which allow it to make it illegal, and there is no reason for those who do ban it do maintain such laws. As I have pointed out several times now, those laws against beastiality refer primarily to it as an afterthought shortly after imposing restrictions on such common American activities as a #######.


Laws shouldn't be made simply in the interest of decency. That would lead us back to the days of such laws forbidding children jump in rain puddles, people wearing white after Labor Day, etc. Beastiality doesn't pose a danger to society at large for there to be laws forbidding it or the depiction of it in pornography, no matter how distasteful we may find it.

Conservpat,

What part of, An individual should have soveriegnty over his own body, providing he does not harm others, did you not understand? Stealing harms others. Libertarian philosophy strongly supports private property rights. It also strongly supports individual soveriegnty in all actions where others are not inherently harmed. There is no difference, in principle, between opposing homosexuality, or for that matter heterosexuality, and opposing beastiality. Just because people find something disgusting is not a good reason to fine and imprison individuals who enjoy these "disgusting" acts.

I seem to be reiterating points, let me summarize

1)Animals have few rights. There is some protection under animal cruelty laws which should be utilized under such atrocities as a man sodomizing a chihauhau. Animal cruelty laws do not prevent activities such as experimentation, branding, forced sterilization, etc. Under few circumstances would beastiality be prosecutable under animal cruelty laws. Even under these few cases there is no need for an extra-charge of beastiality.

2) Henry George's quote a great enunciation of libertarian principles. The function of government is to preserve liberty. Government's function is to protect us from agressors from within and from without. (Yes, no one should be allowed to rob and murder). A man should be soveriegn over his own body providing he inherently harms NO OTHERS. When government steps over its proper duties all of our freedoms are in jeopardy.

3) It's disgusting. I think it is wrong. It's indecent. It's immoral. Execute them. Well guess what don't participate and don't watch.

I must confess that I find the pet swapping parties, held by a small remnant of the animal lover's community, disturbing.

I understand the thought behind your position, but if the only reason to make it leagal is "why not?" I'm not buying it, this is a sick thing, and other than the personal liberties arguement, which can be used to overturn any law is not going to do it.

CP

The reason to make it legal is it not anyone elses business what someones sexual activities are. I find the personal liberties argument much more solid than the "It's disgusting" argument.

I realize people no longer recognize the principles of individual freedom, or inalienable rights, or limitations on government, in our lives. I realize the tyranny of the majority has taken hold of this country and a man is not soveriegn over his own body. That does not mean us proponents of individual freedom will not continue to trump the idea of individual liberty,or the concept that every man should make up a majority of one when it comes to his private life.

There's an obvious solution. Leave the legal status as it is, and then laugh at all the goatf***ers. Not because we are afraid or threatened by them, but because we find them pathetic. They'll hate being personally ostracised and made a target of mirth more than they'll hate being legally ostracised and being made a target of hatred - in the latter case, they have something to struggle and unite against, where in the former they just get to be suitably embarrassed. It's human nature.

(Maybe that's just a British thing; Americans seem relatively uncomfortable laughing at or making fun of anyone else, whereas it's almost the defining feature of our humour over here. Even our famed self-deprecation is driven mostly by the desire to make people laugh at us for the reasons we ourselves choose - it gives us an element of control over the inevitable. But that's another thread... anyone?)

But I find that some of the arguments in favour of decriminalisation have distrubing parallels with some of the arguments put forward in favour of lowering the age of consent in humans. Many paedophiles will argue that they do not rape, they seduce. That they children they are attracted to are naturally sexual beings (as are domestic animals), and that they are not always the passive partner (as with animals).

The counter arguments - as with animal sex (i.e sex with animals, rather than like animals ), that it is illegal, or that the objects of adult sexual desire cannot give legal consent - can be made by NAMBLA (that's the pro-child sex group, right?) as easily as by "animal lovers". And if the case has already been made and won by "animal lovers", it will be a potentially useful precedent for "children lovers".

I can see that the arguments for legalisation and even destigmatisation of bestiality are consistent and sound from a libertarian perspective, but to me at least, this just indicates that libertarian principles do not have unlimited applications, not that bestiality should be permitted.

Julian, as much as i have grown to respect you i am let down by your ability to debate this issue. This has more to do then your ability to see something that you do not think is kosher, i do not regard chewing tobacco as kosher, will you be vulgar and brutal with that. It is not the same thing, but being brutal is no way to reach a somewhat civil regard to an issue. I do not ask that you accept such a practice, but i would like for all people involved to bring a civil approach to why something like this should be illegal. I believe religion is the main cause of death and war in the world, should i walk around with a shirt that says F**K C****T. I don’t think that really solves anything.

I think that common sense and ethics have to come into play somewhere, and where better than this? Have we lost all morality?


CP

Julian, I found your post to be very civil. I'm not sure what nileriver was referring to.

I personally would not equate legality with destigmatization. I'm all for chastising animal/ human interrelationships. The line is drawn when private affairs become public. There should absolutely be anti- obscenity laws regarding public conduct, as there are for other relationships. That is the point at which the interests of society would outweigh 'personal freedoms'.

I would also not equate child molestation with bestiality, but I can see how others might arrive at a relationship. Children have been determined to be less responsible than adults, and as therefore a protected group of people. They are not entitled to the same liberties as adults, nor are they subject to the same responsibilities. Animals have no rights to speak of, except protection from abuse- defined as tangible physical harm, rather than emotional in their case.

*** I think your sidenote about humor (American style) versus humor (British style) would be an extremely interesting thread. I believe that many forms of British humor are a bit more evolved than the American variety. There's a subtle distinction between crass and funny which the Brits are able to accomplish more effectively than the average American. Party games such as average banter don't sell very well here. I might add I hold my own very well in that game ****

Edited to add: Here's a topic related joke (speaking of humor and bestiality)
The commander of a division in the French foreign legion was stationed somewhere in the desert. He inspected the troops, and noticed that there was a lonely camel.
He asked one of the men,"What is the camel for?"
The soldier explained, "Well, we are out here for many months, so occasionally the men have urges".
The commander said,"Well I can't condone that, but I'll let the matter rest as long as I never see it"
Several months later, the commander started to have urges too. He asked his assistant to bring in the camel. He told the assistant to hold the bridle while he went in back of the camel and did his thing.
Afterwards, he told the assistant that it was nice they kept a camel for such urges. The assistant explained,"Yes, but usually the men ride the camel to the brothel in town."

Hmmm... sounds like one hump too many for that camel, Mrs. P


Neither common sense or morality is universal. The odds are that if somebody is inclined to have sex with an animal, they don't share the same chemical balances in their body that most of society does. Even if it isn't so much a chemical imbalance as a rural past time, there are different morals for different people. We can't legislate simply based on morality. If a person's moral code also applies to actions which endanger other citizens then we can legislate it. That does not, however, apply to beastiality or other similar, immoral acts like masturbation, work on Sunday, "God" used in vain, etc.


The passive/aggressive angle comes in to play, I think, when discussing the liklihood of a person being prosecuted for animal cruelty. Ultimately, I think the problem with trying to forbid beastiality comes from the fact that they are viewed by the government as nothing more than personal property. They aren't recognized as being able to consent or dissent to begin with, unlike a child approached by a pedophile. We recognize the development of mental faculties in humans from birth to senior age in contrast to the objectification of other animals.

I'm also not sure what nileriver was referring to.

Let me cite J.S. Mill, an excerpt from "On Liberty" a must read for anyone who wishes to understand the principles of libertarianism.



Yes, Julian, nothing prevents public opinion from ostracizing the members of the animal lover's community. There should be no laws preventing individuals from discriminating against other individuals.

Abs, I think that most people frown on having sex with a cow, don't you think that's a safe assumption? This is ridiculous, there are absolutely no values anymore, is that a good thing?

CP

Simply because many people frown on it isn't a reason to make laws against it. Most people frowned on oral and anal sex at the times those laws against beastiality were written, too, hence the inclusion of beastiality laws with laws against sodomy between consenting adults. Many people also frowned on blacks riding buses or using public restrooms; they frowned on interracial relationships, especially when considering marriage; many people still today frown on the idea of openly homosexual couples or the marriage of homosexual couples.

Your values are not the same as Jim-Bob's and you should be given no more power to establish his values than he yours. As long as his interests and actions do no harm to you or society at large, it's really none of your business. If you don't like it, look the other way. It isn't reason enough for legislation against it.

I think that you'd agree with me if I said sick people mess around with animals, right? That said, should we just make everything that sick people do leagal, why not, it's a free country right? This law would in no way make this country better off because it would lead to other sickos calling for similar laws protecting their sick acts.

CP

Nobody has suggested we make everything "sick" people do legal. If it doesn't harm other people, namely society at large, there is no reason for it to be illegal. Simply disagreeing with something or finding it distasteful simply isn't reason enough for legislation banning it. Your argument was likely used by the very people who had it written into law that blowjobs and sexual positions other than missionary be illegal. A woman on top or a couple engaging in oral sex doesn't harm anybody else but possibly those involved in the act. The same applies for those participating in beastiality, viewing animal porn, pleasuring themselves with kitchen appliances, asphyxiating themselves during self gratification, engaging in S&M, having sex with polyester blow-up dolls, etc.

Do we have to discuss this repulsive topic?

For me, as long as sex is done by consenting adults it is fine. Animals don’t give “consent” and thus it should be illegal.

No, a ######, and a blowup doll are completely different, they are consenting, and a blowup doll is not ALIVE. Wouldn't you say that normal people find bestiality wrong? Only sick people do it, it amazes me that common morality wouldn't dictate this as a ridiculous arguement to have anyway, I mean, should someone be able to have sex with animals, this is disgusting to think that this arguement is even occuring, what happened to morality, what happen to the good ol' days where people understood what was right and wrong. No common morality, come on, this is sex with animals, I think we can agree that it is wrong, or do we not know how to figure out what is right and wrong anymore, good God, common sense, where are you?

CP

Well said: a breath of fresh air and common sence! I'm amazed that certain people could even consider justifying having sex with animals.

We've been through the rights of animals pretty thoroughly. It comes down to some people would like to instill their values on others. I see nothing Conserv Pat and Thomas have brought up in the last couple posts that has not already been addressed.

No, you don't have to discuss the topic. You can easily move on and read another topic, or simply view the debate while refraining from participating. And to repeat myself, yet again, animals are not in a position to give consent. They are not granted the rights to consent to an act. If they were it is unlikely they would find themselves on the receiving end of interspecies relations, laboratory testing, genetic engineering or the blade of a butcher. When they are granted rights enabling them to consent to actions performed on them, perhaps then the argument of consent will be valid to a debate about beastiality and animal porn. Until then, it's not.

Conservpat, a blow-up doll is an inanimate object uncapable of giving consent. And while animals are animate beings capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, they are again not granted the right to consent. Like the blow-up doll or the tie-dyed vibrator, animals are considered personal property. For those who are still unaware of this simple fact, personal property isn't asked for or granted the ability to consent to an act perpetrated by its owner.


Nobody is suggesting we teach people that beastiality or animal porn is moral. However, as I've already stated before (again), morality alone is not reason enough for declaring something to be illegal. I've already discussed why, but I won't be surprised if anybody insist on me spelling it out again. As long as animals are not afforded the rights to give consent, actions perpetrated against animals don't harm society at large, and animal porn in particular does not harm society at large, there is no reason for such things to be made illegal, no matter how distasteful we may consider them to be.

Instill their values? This is common sense and morality! It is ridiculous to have a countries moral fabric to lower to allowing this sick act to happen. Sick people have sex with animals, we don't need to allow sick people to have their way with animals. Common sense, it's all I'm looking for.

Abs: A blow-up doll is not ALIVE it doesn't matter in this conversation. And I don't know what to tell you, I don't want to live in a country that throws common morality out the door, and that is what we'd be doing if we make this disgusting, immoral act nationally leagal.

CP

This isn't a debate about common sense, Conservpat, and anyone else wishing to argue this simply out of an emotional response. This is about the legal aspect of allowing beastiality and animal porn to exist within our country. Rather than making appeals to emotion and arguing on the basis of individual morality, why not try and present an argument with foundations in law as to why such actions or pornography should be illegal?

Edited to add: As long as animals are considered property, it makes no difference in this debate whether they are alive or not. Just as slaughterhouses aren't going to be held accountable for murder, beastiality can't be rationalized as rape. They aren't afforded the same rights as humans simply because they are alive.

I have to agree with Abs.
I personally think bestiality is disgusting, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Heck, if personal distaste is enough to make something illegal does that mean I can outlaw action movies now?
We cannot expect our own rights to be defended by those who may not like what we do unless we are willing to defend the rights of those we find distasteful.

Abs: As I've said, if this isn't already nationally leagal coupled with the fact that it would allow sick people to do sick things to defenseless animals, there is absolutely no reason to make it leagal, if we aren't going to use common sense to make laws, than, I don't know what to tell you. That's my point, the only way you don't make this illeagal is if you throw common sense out the window. And I'm not throwing common sense out the window. Sick people do some pretty messed up things, that is no reason to make their sick acts leagal.

CP

Sex outside the species isn't about common sense. We don't look lustfully at a sheep and change our minds because it's common sense not to pork a walking sweater. We don't get turned on and fornicate with sheep because of genetic hard wiring. Not all people, however, are wired the same way. Some people can be turned on by a member of another species, and they be tempted to act on such attraction. While there are undoubtedly those who sexually engage with animals because of other disorders, there are also those who may in large part be unable to refrain from doing so.

Common sense alone tells us we should avoid pain, yet it's a national trend to tattoo our bodies with pictures, pierce our skin, jump from buildings and airplanes, put penises in mouths rather than vaginas (as reproduction requires), and various other activities. Were we to legislate simply on the basis of common sense we would make tattoos, body piercing, skydiving, bungee jumping and oral sex illegal. It goes beyond "common sense" for a reason. These activities, like beastiality, pose no danger to other citizens. A lot of people disagree with or fear these activities, much as many of us disagree with beastiality. That is simply not reason enough for it to be deemed illegal.

Normal people have common morality and have a good sense of what is just horribly wrong and what is right, this is one of those obviously wrong things, I really don't understand any reason for making this nationally leagal, except for the, "why is it illeagal" arguement. If we really want our country to de-evolove down to cavemen in terms of moral standards, fine, I'm moving to Mexico . But I think that our gov't should have higher standards for its people.

CP

Slippery slope, anyone? It's already legal in the majority of states and we haven't "de-evolved down to cavemen." There is no basis what-so-ever for that leap, Conservpat. Just because it's legal doesn't mean people are going to make a mad dash to the pet shop for a weiner dog or a blowfish. Making or retaining such behavior as illegal, however, does punish those who engage in beastiality for victimless crimes which pose no threat to society. There appears to be no reason for it to remain illegal or be made illegal in the 26 states which presently allow it. If there is, perhaps the opposing argument could abandon the appeals to emotion and provide legal reasoning for making such acts illegal.

Here is another person who cries out for common sense

From Bibletruths



Common sense usually means, this is my opinion anyone who doesn't like it is wrong.

I think I'm done with this thread, it's too frustrating [And not because of any one person]. There is not law or constitutional excerpt that I can give to explain why I feel the way I do. To act without emotion in this, a most extreme case, would reduce one to a robot. A gov't cannot be a robot, it must use some morality in its decisions. If common sense is abandoned here, and replace with politcal correctness, their is nothing I can say, I think that's about it.

CP

The argument against bestiality (let along bestial pornography ) can be made on about a dozen levels.

The argument FOR bestiality can be made on one (possibly two): hedonism and libertarianism.

But the (social) laissez-faire libertarian argument has been rejected in America. We legislate drug use, we legislate private gambling, we legislate a slew of other issues on simple common sense community standards.

Bestiality is

A. a health risk.
B. potentially abusive to the animal
C. potentially damaging to the self-worth of the human participant
D. against most moral/religious codes

While I personally disagree with beastiality, I'll continue on in this debate in favor of the legal practice of such behavior:

A. Done with the right animal in a safe manner, beastiality is no more a health risk than same species sex between people. The risks of unprotected sex with an animal are probably very comparable to our STD filled sex lives among homo sapien populations.
B. We've covered this one a number of times.
C. If the human participant chooses to participate in such an action, they are responsible for any possible damage to their self-worth incurred in the act.
D. Doesn't mean it should necessarily be illegal. The Vatican would prefer there be no premarital sex, no masturbation and a slew of other perceived immoral acts. That is not reason enough for such acts to be made illegal.

Alphabetical statements in response to Amlord

Because this is a site that is frequented by minors, please keep your terminology "official" by using words like your doctor would.

If you study America's past you will find that what you described was/is merely an illusion. People have been engaging in acts as the aforementioned for a long time, even before the US existed. I would even be willing to bet that it was as common then as it is now possibly more. It simply was not as out in the open. I think if you picked up a book on American Sexuality (such as the ones I linked earlier in this debate) and began to read you would be shocked.

the question here really becomes can animals be protected sufficiently under current animal protection laws against cruelty? If not then perhaps a few restrictions aught to be explicitly made regarding the use of animals for sexual gratification. Outright banning would have far too many implications. (as Abs has pointed out).