Is beastiality immoral?

[nnmartin]

Exactly. Why should any victimless "offense" be considered "immoral"?

It's your fellow fundamentalist christians that declared gambling to be "immoral". Ask them.

since when was I a fundamentalist Christian??

that's news to me!

how did you work that one out?

 

[nnmartin]

Different issues? Only because you don't want to consider them in the same context: the abuse of animals. So while you need to dismiss them as pointless so as to justify your daily betting and meat consumption, you're not fooling anyone by your claim; your playing the hypocrite.

not at all.

My concern with bestiality has nothing to do with animal welfare.

Bestialiy is wrong because it is depraved behaviour and may lead to disease.

I doubt the animal really gives a rats anyway about being humped by a human pervert, probably even enjoys it I reckon!

 

[nnmartin]

animal abuse is merely the justification given for speaking out against this behaviour.

The real reason of course comes down to the same sex marriage debacle again.

Bestiality cannot be said to be immoral and depraved as supposedly it harms none.

the same logic used to try and allow the ridiculous notion of same sex marriage, adoption and incest.

If we were to ban bestialiy for being immoral or depraved then it's out the window with our pinko liberal gay marriage farce.

Ban the lot of it I say!

 

[Alex_G]

This thread is giving me a stroke.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

If we were to ban bestialiy for being immoral or depraved then it's out the window with our pinko liberal gay marriage farce.

Pinko? Wow, its been years since I heard anyone drag out the Communist slur. Are you that old or that clueless?

 

[no-body]

animal abuse is merely the justification given for speaking out against this behaviour.

The real reason of course comes down to the same sex marriage debacle again.

Bestiality cannot be said to be immoral and depraved as supposedly it harms none.

the same logic used to try and allow the ridiculous notion of same sex marriage, adoption and incest.

If we were to ban bestialiy for being immoral or depraved then it's out the window with our pinko liberal gay marriage farce.

Ban the lot of it I say!

So you think homosexuals are equal to animals. Nice to know what you really think.

 

[Valjean]

Does it matter? It is wrong no matter the reason.

Thanks for clarifying the fact that reason has nothing to do with your ideas of morality.

So convention trumps reason. Emotion trumps principle and consequences are of no importance. Hmmm...

why should gambling be immoral?
I'm not talking about big bucks or obsessive behaviour, but just the occasional small bet on a horse race.
what's wrong with that?

Sounds like a slippery slope, my friend..:tsk:

Exactly. Why should any victimless "offense" be considered "immoral"?

What? Moral doesn't = proper? conventional?

 

[McBell]

Are you that old or that clueless?

No idea about the former, but his posts clearly indicate the latter...

 

[Father Heathen]

What? Moral doesn't = proper? conventional?

Not sure what your little comment here has to do with what I said? He was asking why gambling should be considered immoral. And my point was that because it doesn't victimize anyone it shouldn't be considered "immoral", and I was implying that he should apply his rhetorical question to all of the other things he has deemed immoral, so that he can be consistent rather than hypocritical.

 

[Valjean]

My concern with bestiality has nothing to do with animal welfare.

Bestialiy is wrong because it is depraved behaviour and may lead to disease.

I doubt the animal really gives a rats anyway about being humped by a human pervert, probably even enjoys it I reckon!

Are you ever going to give up that disease nonsense, Martin? It's ridiculous.

And please tell us more about this "depravity" thing. How do you recognize it. Why is it undesirable. How is it harmful?

 

[Valjean]

Not sure what your little comment here has to do with what I said? He was asking why gambling should be considered immoral. And my point was that because it doesn't victimize anyone it shouldn't be considered "immoral", and I was implying that he should apply his rhetorical question to all of the other things he has deemed immoral, so that he can be consistent rather than hypocritical.

Sorry FH. It was tongue-in-cheek.
I was driven to wise-arseness by the flood of emotion being trotted out as reason.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Are you ever going to give up that disease nonsense, Martin? It's ridiculous.

I imagine he is thinking of syphilis as it is widely believed to have come from shepherds having sex with members of their flock.

 

[Valjean]

I think he previously referenced AIDS, as well, Trey.
What I find odd is that he has no objection to eating them, living with them or handling their corpses, just to shagging them.
Those maladies that have been demonstrated to have come from animal vectors are the result of our farming and eating them, not shagging them.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I think he previously referenced AIDS, as well, Trey.
What I find odd is that he has no objection to eating them, living with them or handling their corpses, just to shagging them.
Those maladies that have been demonstrated to have come from animal vectors are the result of our farming and eating them, not shagging them.

Well, there is the possiblity, however remote, that AIDS came from chimp shagging. This is probably what he is thinking of along with the sheep shagging origin of syphilis.

 

[nnmartin]

yes, that is true.

as regards to getting Aids - can you catch it off another person by touching or eating them?

hardly likely

however we all know that having sex with an infected partner is highly risky.

other diseases too of course.

so why should the rest of humanity be put at risk by a small group of neandarthals who think that bestiality is fine?

 

[Kerr]

Thanks for clarifying the fact that reason has nothing to do with your ideas of morality.

So convention trumps reason. Emotion trumps principle and consequences are of no importance. Hmmm...

In some cases, yes, reason is irrelevant. But it is not because of emotion, it is because of my principles when it comes to sex. If a sheep became sentient and could tell you what it wanted it then I would not consider it immoral, though.

 

[no-body]

yes, that is true.

as regards to getting Aids - can you catch it off another person by touching or eating them?

You can if you eat them raw or get their blood mixed in a cut while you are hunting them.

Do you really believe capturing an animal tying it up and raping it was common practice?

 

[Brian Schuh]

Let me remind y'all that the only sexual offense called an abomination in the Law of Moses was male sodomy. I got to admit, I like to watch teenage girls (over 18 of course) perform felatio on horses. I know that Moses condemned impure images and thoughts, but I console myself that male sodomy is worse than what I like to see. Besides, most of the time the horse seems to enjoy it, and the horse is only an animal, whereas to sexually violate another man and then to institutionalize it with a marriage license, hey that is a human! whereas these girls are only violating an animal who seems to enjoy it! Besides, if you believe animals always have to consent to what we do to them, we all then should be vegetarians, for what animal consents to be slaughtered?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Let me remind y'all that the only sexual offense called an abomination in the Law of Moses was male sodomy. I got to admit, I like to watch teenage girls (over 18 of course) perform felatio on horses. I know that Moses condemned impure images and thoughts, but I console myself that male sodomy is worse than what I like to see. Besides, most of the time the horse seems to enjoy it, and the horse is only an animal, whereas to sexually violate another man and then to institutionalize it with a marriage license, hey that is a human! whereas these girls are only violating an animal who seems to enjoy it! Besides, if you believe animals always have to consent to what we do to them, we all then should be vegetarians, for what animal consents to be slaughtered?

LOL

 

[dgirl1986]

Yes.

1) It can hurt the animal
2) You cannot gain consent
3) Disease