Bestiality in Australia (2 Viewers)

[sam04u]

The need for love and companionship is just as important as the need for food.

If the dog fulfills this need, then so be it.

Yes, but not through sex. I'm not saying having a pet is not a good thing. It's nice and comforting. And that's all natural and fine to the point where you get ideas of FUCKING that animal.

That's just FUCKING WRONG! I'm likely getting trolled, but this is fucked up.

 

[Graney]

On the issue of disease, my understanding is bacteria and viruses can only easily jump across closely related species. For example bird flu was thought to have come from chickens to humans via pigs.

The majority of species will not easily share pandemics with humans.

Also, as NTB mentioned, new diseases are transfered just as easily (if not moreso), but human-human intercourse, than by interspecies relations.

 

[bigboyjames]

Screw all tolerance...................screwing animals should ALWAYS be thought of as perverted..........and and anyone who disagrees has psychological issues......ONLY FUCK NUTS ON BOS WHO THINK HAVING SEX WITH ANIMALS IS OK ARE FUCKING SICK AN SHOULD BE PUT DOWN LIKE DOGS.

i am all for a secular society. but sometimes i fear wtf is happening to this country when we have tards on here talking about the unimaginable. sometimes YOU JUST NEED religion.

anyways, reading through this threads it seems to me there is only 1 rational person here. and that's sam. the rest of you should just die.

PLEASE, i want all you fagots who hide behind a computer screen to post you arguments to actually discuss this face to face. i want to see you maggots actually show your face in public and then beatify such an act.


fucking fagots.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Screw all tolerance...................screwing animals should ALWAYS be thought of as perverted..........and and anyone who disagrees has psychological issues......ONLY FUCK NUTS ON BOS WHO THINK HAVING SEX WITH ANIMALS IS OK ARE FUCKING SICK AN SHOULD BE PUT DOWN LIKE DOGS.

i am all for a secular society. but sometimes i fear wtf is happening to this country when we have tards on here talking about the unimaginable. sometimes YOU JUST NEED religion. especially in this case..

anyways, reading through this threads it seems to me there is only 1 rational person here. and that's sam. the rest of you have should just die.

PLEASE, i want all you fagots who hide behind a computer screen to post you arguments to actually discuss this face to face. i want to see you maggots actually show your face in public and then beatify of such an act.


fucking fagots.

Calm the fuck down will you.

I'm just as disgusted as you, but in this forum, we sit and form logical arguments. I realise its unclear in this forum, but a lot of these threads are philosophically orientated.

This thread is only open because it became theoretically interesting to me when I was unable to logically (AS IN, IN THEORY) justify why it is wrong against the threadstarter.

EDIT: Much in the same way that many failed to justify why incest (if there was no abuse and no genetically fucked up babies as a product) was wrong. It shouldn't be encouraged, but in a previous thread, I'm pretty sure we failed to justify why it was still just wrong. But in practice, it's still disgusting.

 

[Graney]

This is definetly a fair topic for debate, and should remain open.

I think Singer, as on many other topics, expresses well why it is an unjust taboo. For those opposed to bestiality it's well worth reading the below article.
http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.asp

 

[sam04u]

This thread is only open because it became theoretically interesting to me when I was unable to logically (AS IN, IN THEORY) justify why it is wrong against the threadstarter.

Well then you obviously weren't thinking very clearly. Since when was it okay to use a living creature, incapable of understanding that you are committing an unnatural act against it, for your own sexual gratification or perversion?

The answer is never. It's like making an argument for sex with an infant.

 

[ur_inner_child]

I was unable. You might be.

 

[Graney]

But in practice, it's still disgusting.

I think the feelings of disgust on these controversial issues of sexual morality are exactly as irrational as the feelings of those in previous generations who felt disgust and outrage at the idea of homosexual relations.

 

[Iron]

Paedophilia, Bestiality, Pornography, Incest:
PROGRESS

 

[ur_inner_child]

Homosexuality's main justification is love.

I realise that opens a hole in my argument since love is abstract and subjective, but it's what seperates homosexuality from paedophilia, bestiality, incest etc.

 

[Graney]

It's like making an argument for sex with an infant.

It's nothing like that. The infant will be measurably physically and psychologically harmed. The sheep loves it.

Paedophilia, Bestiality, Pornography, Incest
PROGRESS

Now you're getting it

 

[housah0lic]

well
cbf reading this thread
but the name attracted me

bestiality..
disgusting, wrong, amoral
yet
entertaining
just like gay porn

 

[sam04u]

Actually UIC, the original argument for homosexuality was "it doesn't hurt anybody".

Fair enough, it may not hurt individuals, and that's why it's becoming more and more socially acceptable. Those arguments don't work for Bestiality, Incest, Pedophilia, etc.

As it does hurt another sentient being.

 

[Enteebee]

Yes, HUMAN diseases. Rather than new animal diseases being passed on to humans. Somewhat like bird flu, or some other fucked up disease we can avoid by not being fucking sick in the head and fucking animals.

Provide evidence that sex with animals leads to a higher likelyhood of potentially very damaging diseases than forms of accepted inter-species sex.

Well it's a fact that we eat animals to live.

Nah, we can potentially live without them...

But tell me. What the fuck do we gain in terms of life by fucking animals? Nothing. People who derive sexual gratification by the act, or by viewing the acts are sick and demented. And those performing the acts are a burdon to society. Instead of being healthy and sane, and contributing to the population... they would rather perform demented acts with animals.

What do we gain from 'fucking' period if it's not for procreation or with someone you love? It's fun, it's not up to me to tell people what's fun it's up to them to decide for themselves. As for being unable to contribute to the population, what makes you so certain that someone who screws around with animals can't also contribute? It doesn't at all follow.

They're both stupid. That's the point I was trying to make.
Not only can they not consent. They don't know what's happening to them.
It's worse than rape. It's like going to the dentist and going under anaesthesia (sp?), and then waking up covered in a sticky substance that's unaccounted for.

The point being though that we systematically slaughter animals but find such an idea of our human babies reprehensible so perhaps there's something more to it... perhaps it's that human life is more sacred to us.

I think the feelings of disgust on these controversial issues of sexual morality are exactly as irrational as the feelings of those in previous generations who felt disgust and outrage at the idea of homosexual relations.

That's the point I'm trying to make... I'm trying to highlight that our morality isn't exactly derived through rationality from some basic principles.

 

[Iron]

Homosexuality's main justification is love.

I realise that opens a hole in my argument since love is abstract and subjective, but it's what seperates homosexuality from paedophilia, bestiality, incest etc.

Dont mention the war!

 

[Enteebee]

Actually UIC, the original argument for homosexuality was "it doesn't hurt anybody".

Fair enough, it may not hurt individuals, and that's why it's becoming more and more socially acceptable. Those arguments don't work for Bestiality, Incest, Pedophilia, etc.

As it does hurt another sentient being.

Your morals are contradictory if you do not also oppose livestock farming etc etc...

The argument from 'love' is interesting. If a homosexual is having sex with someone they don't love then is that morally wrong?

 

[Graney]

if animals are good enough to eat, they're good enough to fuck.

Is the fetish for food play, specifically Meat fetishism, immoral?

If sex games involving the meat of an animal are okay, why shouldn't I just go the all the way and bring a whole carcase into the bedroom?

 

[ur_inner_child]

Your morals are contradictory if you do not also oppose livestock farming etc etc...

The argument from 'love' is interesting. If a homosexual is having sex with someone they don't love then is that morally wrong?

It has the ability to become love. Bestiality cannot... But again I've got a hole in my argument here.

 

[Enteebee]

idk if you consider the ability to become love as important then I don't see much of a problem. I just don't think love is what makes sex permissible... I mean for instance we allow people to have sex with inanimate objects such as dildos etc that cannot love them.

TBH I think it's interesting to consider, while I find beastiality quite disgusting to imagine, other disgusting things that I'm quite certain I know at least a few people have gotten up to i.e. licking each other's anuses, going down on a girl on her period etc... all these things are pretty damn disgusting and perhaps even taboo but they're not illegal.

 

[housah0lic]

in that case, why is bestiality illegal?
cbf finding out
nets capped