AronRa: "healthy sex should be between equals". Discuss.

[pookylies]

During a recent episode of the Magic Sandwich Show, the debate turned to bestiality. For Christians, the issue is clear. The Bible tells us that such activity is immoral and should be punished (along with homosexual sex and incestuous relations). For the non-religious, however, there are no such guidelines. So are there any secular reasons why non-traditional forms of sex should be frowned upon, or made illegal?

During the show, AronRa thought he had the answer. In his opinion, bestiality is wrong because "healthy sex should be between equals". Would did he mean, and is he right?

 

[pookylies]

*what did he mean (of course).

 

[*SD*]

My own personal views aside, as they aren't what you seem to be looking for - I don't know if there's a good secular argument against it. That's not to say that there isn't one, rather it's to say I'm not well read on bestiality. Will have a root around and see what comes up.

 

[australopithecus]

Consent. That is all.

Personally, beastiality? No. Just, no. I would assume he meant equality to mean the same species. Or we can wait and be can clarify once be sees this.

 

[pookylies]

So your reasoned argument against beastiality(sic) is "No. Just no." OK, thankyou for you response.

 

[*SD*]

So your reasoned argument against beastiality(sic) is "No. Just no." OK, thankyou for you response.

Tbh, mine is more or less the same. And I agree my objections are also that of consent, the reason I didn't present it is because my objection isn't necessarily a secular one, it's a personal one, which isn't what you asked for.

 

[Frenger]

You missed the bit where Austra said "consent, that is all".

But anyway, I don't know that bestiality is wrong. If a person, let's say, is in love with a horse, and the horse chooses to penetrate that person (sorry, graphic) then where is the harm? With the horses reputation, it would likely cause some damage to the human but that was the risk the human took in order to express their love.

I'm not saying I get it, or that there isn't problems, but in certain circumstances, I can't see any harm.

 

[Prolescum]

As already noted by austra (and ignored by you, pooks), animals cannot consent. It is a flaw in many religious arguments that atheists, humanists and secularists allow any and all activity because they do not subscribe to a greater moral authority.

It is a risibly weak attempt to grant themselves a sense of superiority which their claims in full cannot.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

So your reasoned argument against beastiality(sic) is "No. Just no." OK, thankyou for you response.

And your argument is a book write ~2,000 years ago say so. :facepalm:

 

[australopithecus]

Also ignored was the part where I specify it was a personal opinion. Pesky facts, eh?

Also also, if Christianity wants to lump homosexuality in with incest and beastiality then there is a lack of perspective evident.

 

[pookylies]

As already noted by austra (and ignored by you, pooks), animals cannot consent. It is a flaw in many religious arguments that atheists, humanists and secularists allow any and all activity because they do not subscribe to a greater moral authority.

It is a risibly weak attempt to grant themselves a sense of superiority which their claims in full cannot.

I find the idea of having sex with a man abhorrent. Does that mean I think homosexuality should be illegal? As for consent, most people on this forum probably think it's OK to kill an animal (without its consent) and stuff its flesh into one of their orifices (I think you know where I'm going with this analogy). So animals have no meaningful 'rights' in our society. But if anybody is worried about the 'consent' argument than we can simplify it by asking if it's OK to have sex with a dead animal.

 

[australopithecus]

You have a well reasoned argument, however the arrogant prick routine doesn't serve it well. If you dislike the thought of sex with another man then don't think about it.

 

[pookylies]

You have a well reasoned argument, however the arrogant prick routine doesn't serve it well. If you dislike the thought of sex with another man then don't think about it.

You're the prick. Did you purposefully misunderstand me? My point was there are a lot of things that people do that aren't to my taste. But as long as they don't harm me or anybody else, I will support them. And I hope those same people will support me if my lifestyle is non-traditional in some respect. I'm still waiting for why bestiality should be illegal in the UK or anywhere else. I can take it from AronRa (he's Texan) but you guys are supposed to be critical thinkers. So tell me why it's wrong.

 

[*SD*]

I can't help but bring my "personal" argument into this - I feel there's a distinction between eating an animal and fucking it first. Humans are omnivores, and I don't think we'd have got this far by eating nothing but carrots. As a "hunter" and fieldsportsman my self, I regularly kill and eat animals. I never feel the need to try to mate with them before eating them. To sum up, I think eating animals is normal, screwing them isn't. Is this a secular argument? No, and I'm not offering it as such. As for killing it without consent compared to shagging it without consent, I just don't see it as the same. I'm sure "shagging it is better than killing it cos then it can live on" will come next, but I guess it's down to what you consider "normal."

 

[pookylies]

I can't help but bring my "personal" argument into this - I feel there's a distinction between eating an animal and fucking it first. Humans are omnivores, and I don't think we'd have got this far by eating nothing but carrots. As a "hunter" and fieldsportsman my self, I regularly kill and eat animals. I never feel the need to try to mate with them before eating them. To sum up, I think eating animals is normal, screwing them isn't. Is this a secular argument? No, and I'm not offering it as such. As for killing it without consent compared to shagging it without consent, I just don't see it as the same. I'm sure "shagging it is better than killing it cos then it can live on" will come next, but I guess it's down to what you consider "normal."

I agree with you 100% "eating animals is normal, screwing them isn't". And for the record, I personally prefer it that way as well. But if somebody else would rather screw an animal rather than eat it, should he/she be a criminalised?

 

[*SD*]

But if somebody else would rather screw an animal rather than eat it, should he/she be a criminalised?

I can only say, yes, it should. My view is that it's without consent, as animals that can't communicate in a way sufficiently effective to consent to it cannot.... umm.. consent.

 

[australopithecus]

Laws banning bestiality seemingly do so on the inference of cruelty or abuse, so there's a definitive reason for its illegality. Before the inevitable is dragged up, yes, cruelty and abuse in the farming/meat industry should also be criminal.

 

[pookylies]

But if somebody else would rather screw an animal rather than eat it, should he/she be a criminalised?

I can only say, yes, it should. My view is that it's without consent, as animals that can't communicate in a way sufficiently effective to consent to it cannot.... umm.. consent.

So if the 'perpetrator' killed it first (humanely) and then fucked it, would that be OK?

 

[pookylies]

Laws banning bestiality seemingly do so on the inference of cruelty or abuse, so there's a definitive reason for its illegality. Before the inevitable is dragged up, yes, cruelty and abuse in the farming/meat industry should also be criminal.

So what you're saying is that if you could prove the animal was enjoying it, it would be OK?

 

[Prolescum]

As already noted by austra (and ignored by you, pooks), animals cannot consent. It is a flaw in many religious arguments that atheists, humanists and secularists allow any and all activity because they do not subscribe to a greater moral authority.

It is a risibly weak attempt to grant themselves a sense of superiority which their claims in full cannot.

I find the idea of having sex with a man abhorrent.

Then you need to spend more time witnessing it.

Does that mean I think homosexuality should be illegal?

I have no idea. Does it? You've described it as abhorent.

As for consent, most people on this forum probably think it's OK to kill an animal (without its consent) and stuff its flesh into one of their orifices (I think you know where I'm going with this analogy).

You can keep your moral equivalences to yourself, sweetheart. Logical fallacies can be discussed here if you insist on using them.