• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Meat-Eating vs. Bestiality

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm a meat eater myself. Just a preemptive clarification in case someone thinks about accusing me of repeating vegetarian propaganda (whatever that is).

So, I have been thinking about why I and many others who have no religion oppose bestiality, and one of the most common reasons given is that one can't have the consent of animals to acts of bestiality. However, we also don't have the consent of animals to use them for labor or in industrial farming. We don't have their consent to slaughter them either.

With the above in mind, what makes meat-eating acceptable and bestiality unacceptable?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Bestiality is Degenerate. Socially unacceptable.
But what is "degenerate" is a matter of fashion, and cultural norms change over time and vary between cultures. What is considered degenerate today might be the norm tomorrow.
It was once socially unacceptable to be homosexual or to marry outside your race.
 

Terese

Mangalam Pundarikakshah
Staff member
Premium Member
Yep, that's true. It's considered disgusting violating an animal like that in our society. Killing and eating something and raping an animal will give you two very different responses.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Bestiality is Degenerate. Socially unacceptable.

Social norms are subjective constructs, though. What is the objective, logical basis for considering it acceptable to slaughter animals without their consent as opposed to engaging in bestiality?
 

Terese

Mangalam Pundarikakshah
Staff member
Premium Member
Both are wrong, but it's societal which determines how bad it is. If you kill an animal, you are a hunter. No negative connotation to that word. If you rape a goddamn animal, wow.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Hunger is a more powerful desire, and starvation can kill you. That makes people think differently about food. Maybe its because of this that laws about food are weak laws. Laws can't feed people, but food can.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Both are wrong, but it's societal which determines how bad it is. If you kill an animal, you are a hunter. No negative connotation to that word. If you rape a goddamn animal, wow.
But what if you're on the receiving end, so to speak?:rolleyes:
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
With the above in mind, what makes meat-eating acceptable and bestiality unacceptable?

come to the darkside DS. unleash your inner furry!

furries.jpg

it's not a perversion. it's a preference. :D
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Social norms are subjective constructs, though. What is the objective, logical basis for considering it acceptable to slaughter animals without their consent as opposed to engaging in bestiality?

One satisfies a vital need. The other does not. Seems to me the difference is pretty clear. In environmental ethics, it is typically considered permissible for an organism to do what it wants if it is to satisfy a vital need.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
One satisfies a vital need. The other does not. Seems to me the difference is pretty clear. In environmental ethics, it is typically considered permissible for an organism to do what it wants if it is to satisfy a vital need.
Which one.....eating them, or ****ing them?
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
But what is "degenerate" is a matter of fashion, and cultural norms change over time and vary between cultures. What is considered degenerate today might be the norm tomorrow.
It was once socially unacceptable to be homosexual or to marry outside your race.

Are you saying that someday it may be acceptable to kill and eat homosexuals and those of other races?
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
We gain tangible benefits from eating meat that we do not gain from bestiality: nutrition, vitamins & minerals.

Sex with animals is immoral because:
  1. It's a good way to pick up diseases or infections
  2. It's unnecessary from a pleasure point of view. We don't need to have sex with animals for pleasure.
  3. It's unnecessary from a genetic point of view. Most children off human-animal matings would not be viable.
  4. It's seen as a sign of sexual degeneracy, lack of self-control etc.
 

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
I'm a meat eater myself. Just a preemptive clarification in case someone thinks about accusing me of repeating vegetarian propaganda (whatever that is).

So, I have been thinking about why I and many others who have no religion oppose bestiality, and one of the most common reasons given is that one can't have the consent of animals to acts of bestiality. However, we also don't have the consent of animals to use them for labor or in industrial farming. We don't have their consent to slaughter them either.

With the above in mind, what makes meat-eating acceptable and bestiality unacceptable?
good thread/question but im a vegan so my answer is its not.
 

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
One satisfies a vital need. The other does not. Seems to me the difference is pretty clear. In environmental ethics, it is typically considered permissible for an organism to do what it wants if it is to satisfy a vital need.
wants or needs?
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
One satisfies a vital need. The other does not. Seems to me the difference is pretty clear. In environmental ethics, it is typically considered permissible for an organism to do what it wants if it is to satisfy a vital need.

But it would seem that we don't need to eat meat going by the fact that millions of people are fully vegetarian.
 
Top