• 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!

"Farmhand busted for 'having sex with miniature donkey named Doodle'. . .

Skwim

Veteran Member
For you what makes the seperation from an animal to a child? Or do you believe the animal should be at least 18 years old?
:facepalm:
If being selfless is a sic position to you than there is no good position to stand.
FYI
Morale:
noun emotional or mental condition with respect to cheerfulness, confidence, zeal, etc., especially in the face of opposition, hardship, etc.

Moral:
adjective of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
I used "morale," mistaken as it is, in deference to your use of it. Furthermore.
(sic):
The Latin adverb sic ("thus"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus it had been written") added immediately after a quoted word or phrase. Used within brackets to indicate that what precedes it is written intentionally or is copied verbatim from the original, even if it appears to be a mistake.
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
Thanks for your honest answers. Given that we're talking about issues of legality, what alternative do you think is there to discussing the issue other than logic?

What i mean is, in some parts we would be assessing the situation logically. Then in another part we might hit a wall (so to speak) where there is a relied upon principle that is not based in logic and as such i'm not sure how are we going to address the issue then. For example:





If on one hand people are saying that having sex with animals is immoral and should be illegal due to supposed lack of consent on the animal's part. While on the other hand saying it's fine and should continue to be legal to outright slaughter animals, despite lack of consent, while they also might be able to survive on other alternatives, and justify that by the actions of Jesus and/or stating that the sacredness of life should be left for everyone to decide for themselves, this to me looks like inconsistency both in emotions and in logic.

On the emotional level, someone would be outraged by the thought of a horse having sex with a female human, for example, even if the horse is the instigator, and feel that this is intolerable abuse towards the animal and then go on to eat a cheese burger while feeling pretty good about it. Something doesn't seem right here.

On the logical level, this possible inconsistency if true invalidates the argument of lack of consent to be the supposed basis for the illegality of sex with animals.

Now, to clarify a couple of things for the sake of my intent and position being clear:

1) I eat meat.

2) I'm not actually sure whether or not we can sustain ourselves without eating meat. Collectively, that is.

3) I'm not necessarily advocating for either side.

Rather, what i'm doing is trying to address seemingly inconsistent aspects both in the laws of many places and in the thought process of many people. Mainly to learn and be able to form a more informed opinion about the subject.



I pretty much agree with your sentiments here. Of course, the law doesn't not reflect neither of our sentiments in many places, and that is partially why there is (or at least seems to me) to be an inconsistency surrounding this whole thing. Which suggests ulterior reasons for the legal status and social view of the issue in question here.

To share another important thing which i was waiting for your answers before i address, i would like to talk about the supposed rape aspect. Here are a couple of thoughts that were already alluded to or stated by others as well as some other things i want to add for consideration:

1) Animals are frequently compared to children in that they can't give consent. I think this is an invalid argument because animals obviously can and do partake in sexual activity with each other, and seem to have the ability to refrain or engage with each other based on some criteria, as well as possibly being able to enjoy it. Children on the other hand are not ready for sex at all, of any kind or with anybody. It would damage them on account of many reasons that might not be present in an adult or grown animal.

2) I think the animal is capable of showing signs of wanting to engage or refrain from doing so in regards to the action of sex with a human being, and are usually capable of doing serious damage to defend themselves if needed. That's obviously not to say that a human can't rape an animal, but to say that there seems to be many signs to look for, obvious ones, where consent or non-consent can be detected.

3) If we discount those signs due to inferiority of thought process (to ours), IOW, say that whatever signs and/or actions they do don't matter, then we can't consider anything we do to be good for the animal, or perceived as such by it. As then we can never know whether or not anything we do is good or bad to them, or whether or not they want it. To put it differently, if we discount these signs of consent or non-consent then we essentially claim that we can't decide anything in regards to what an animal wants. I would not be able to know whether or not feeding the animal a certain type of food makes him happy, or whether playing catch is a good thing or a form of unspeakable torture.

Now, what i do think is lacking is perhaps informed consent. Animals would not be aware of the possible consequences of sex with humans. As such while i think it does not negate their consent, it does make it one that is lacking information. This makes a considerable amount of difference in m view. As then the issue seems to revolve more around the possible consequences, their likability, and what possible actions can be taken to minimize such consequences. The outcome of consideration of these aspects then seems to become the main crux of the matter as to whether sex with animals should be legal or illegal.
Using logic with me boils down to the same as your last paragraph.I think though that man would be better relying on intuitive instincs then logic. You get out of line with that nature intends then he reaps his own consequuences.I don't think mental illness just happens.Although I know many abusive situations can cause it someone can bring it on themselves as well. No justification will make this bondage go away either.I believe by conviction if you have to justify an action then it is wrong.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Using logic with me boils down to the same as your last paragraph.I think though that man would be better relying on intuitive instincs then logic. You get out of line with that nature intends then he reaps his own consequuences.I don't think mental illness just happens.Although I know many abusive situations can cause it someone can bring it on themselves as well. No justification will make this bondage go away either.
Wow!

I believe by conviction if you have to justify an action then it is wrong.
So if you're convinced that taking a boat that doesn't belong to you in order to save a drowning child in a lake is the right thing to do, it's actually wrong if you have to justify your behavior to the boat's owner. How very odd.
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
Wow!

So if you're convinced that taking a boat that doesn't belong to you in order to save a drowning child in a lake is the right thing to do, it's actually wrong if you have to justify your behavior to the boat's owner. How very odd.
It would be more wrong to allow the child to drowned.Consequence justifies itself I.No need for me to justify it.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
It would be more wrong to allow the child to drowned.Consequence justifies itself I.No need for me to justify it.
What then of your contention that, "I believe by conviction if you have to justify an action then it is wrong"? You do understand that your reply here contradicts your conviction, do you not?
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Basically, in light of the OP, you are.

Either you don´t understand me or I don´t understand you or both :shrug:

back on topic though:

If slaughter houses are legal and I assume no consent is needed from the part of the animal there, then I am astonished to read anyone supporting such establishments complains about the "consent"

Did you know chimpanzees have tried to rape human females more than once?

Let´s say they had liked it and allowed it, would that be "without" consent still?

I find the consent argument so silly :facepalm: it´s wrong to have sex with an animal, but not to torture him for his entire life and then kill him.

Damm.
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
sfl-donkey-sex-20121212-001.jpg

Small a**es usually don't make me grin like that.

[Sorry: I felt the news service made a heroic effort to resist the temptation of the dreaded headline pun, and since no good deed - especially editorial ones - go unp-...unrewarded, you have a tribute "tasteless and unfunny pun" brought to you by the committee for not being all that apologetic but having a school of study and debate/PR called as such.]
 
Last edited:

mr.guy

crapsack
Either you don´t understand me or I don´t understand you or both
In that case, forgive me for stating that it went clearly over your head.

If slaughter houses are legal and I assume no consent is needed from the part of the animal there, then I am astonished to read anyone supporting such establishments complains about the "consent"
Awesome! With that huge gulf of moral ambiguity, meat-eaters obviously have cart blanche to rape, kill and otherwise diddle with anything breathing that can't say otherwise!

By this metric, i would go just a bit further that i can justifiably rape anyone unable to express their discontent sufficiently to me because they may not speak adequate english.

Makes sense, non?

... it´s wrong to have sex with an animal, but not to torture him for his entire life and then kill him.
While i understand the sentiment, the mess here is to equate all ethical quandaries as one and the same, with all things being equal.
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
. . . claims Florida's bestiality laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL."

Carlos R. Romero, 32, was charged in September with engaging in sexual activity involving an animal and animal cruelty
His lawyers have asked a judge to declare Florida's laws involving sex with animals unconstitutional
Romero reportedly admitted to cops that he becomes aroused when he sees animals in heat.
source and more
sfl-donkey-sex-20121212-001.jpg

 Romero
doodle-print.jpg

 Doodle
So, whatda think; should bestiality laws be struck down?

Is having sex with an animal really animal cruelty?

I'm of the opinion that animals were created for the purpose of benefiting humans. I think that we have a responsibility to the animals that we share the earth with - to treat them as humanely as possible while they are in our care.

There are anmals of specific design who can be utilized for work. I don't think that this is cruel unless the animal is physically harmed.

We utilize animals for food and I do think that this is acceptable, but, while they are in our care, they should be treated kindly and when their lives are ended, it should be done as humanely as possible.

There's a psychological piece to beastiality that needs to be examined. If a person is aroused by animals and incapable of fulfililng sexual needs through self satisfaction or responsible, legal intercourse with people - the individual needs help.
'
Beastiality laws are in place for good reason, not only to shield animals from an intimate type of interaction with humans that they can't speak out against, but also to protect people from those who feel that it's okay to take advantage sexually of a living creature that can't verbally express objection.

I liken one that's into beastiality to a pedophile. There has to be comparable mental processes. These people take advantage of the innocent and vulnerable who can't object, thinking of their needs.

I'm not afraid to say that it's not okay and that it's sick as hell.
 
Last edited:

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
Think so? It appears in just about all the news articles on the story (check out Google) and on the first five lines of Google Images listed under his name. So I kind of doubt that he much cares whether a religious forum puts up his face or not.

What about Doodle maybe he doesn't like his picture posted. ;)
 

Badran

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm of the opinion that animals were created for the purpose of benefiting humans. I think that we have a responsibility to the animals that we share the earth with - to treat them as humanely as possible while they are in our care.

There are anmals of specific design who can be utilized for work. I don't think that this is cruel unless the animal is physically harmed.

We utilize animals for food and I do think that this is acceptable, but, while they are in our care, they should be treated kindly and when their lives are ended, it should be done as humanely as possible.

....

These people take advantage of the innocent and vulnerable who can't object, thinking of their needs.

You can decide how they spend their lives, what work they get used in, and decide the time and reason they die for and in, when we kill them for food, to meet our needs, essentially (and as you said in the first sentence) determine the very purpose of their existence, and you don't consider any of that cruel.

Yet having sex with them is cruel. I'm sorry, but that seems inconsistent to me.

There's a psychological piece to beastiality that needs to be examined. If a person is aroused by animals and incapable of fulfililng sexual needs through self satisfaction or responsible, legal intercourse with people - the individual needs help.

As far as i know, being a zoophile does not necessitate being exclusively so.

Beastiality laws are in place for good reason, not only to shield animals from an intimate type of interaction with humans that they can't speak out against,

Once again, they can't speak out against any of the other myriad of things that are done to them. Why use that objection here and not in other instances where the animals are flat out used? Why on one hand approve of using them to meet your needs and that of others, and on the other refuse to accept for anybody to have sex with them for needs that you don't feel personally?

but also to protect people from those who feel that it's okay to take advantage sexually of a living creature that can't verbally express objection.

1) Verbal expression is not the only type of expression.

2) Saying that zoophiles are okay with taking advantage of living creatures who supposedly can't express objection is pretty unfair. Given that at the least, some of them hold the view that animals can give consent. IOW, you're misrepresenting their mentality and generalizing against them.

I'm not afraid to say that it's not okay and that it's sick as hell.

I'm not sure there's anything to be afraid of. The majority seem to agree with what you said.
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
You can decide how they spend their lives, what work they get used in, and decide the time and reason they die for and in, when we kill them for food, to meet our needs, essentially (and as you said in the first sentence) determine the very purpose of their existence, and you don't consider any of that cruel.

I believe that animals have specific purpose and are here primarily to contribute to an ecosystem and to benefit humans, but in necessity. I'm not a fan of using animals for many recreational activities as mistreatment of the animal is par for the course.

For however long an animal has to spend on this earth, if they're being raised to benefit humans, we have an obligation to care for them and treat them kindly.

There's no inconsistency in my logic. I don't consider sex with an animal to be kind behavior.

As far as i know, being a zoophile does not necessitate being exclusively so.

Yeah. No joke. But, it still, in my opinion makes the person one sick ****.

Once again, they can't speak out against any of the other myriad of things that are done to them. Why use that objection here and not in other instances where the animals are flat out used? Why on one hand approve of using them to meet your needs and that of others, and on the other refuse to accept for anybody to have sex with them for needs that you don't feel personally?

I believe fully that there's something psychologically wrong with someone who uses an animal in such a way and I don't want that sick individual to have the legal right to carry on in such a manner.

I am wholly prejudiced against zoophiles.

1) Verbal expression is not the only type of expression.

2) Saying that zoophiles are okay with taking advantage of living creatures who supposedly can't express objection is pretty unfair. Given that at the least, some of them hold the view that animals can give consent. IOW, you're misrepresenting their mentality and generalizing against them.

I don't really care if I'm generalizing. The sick people who rape women and children can claim the same...that they've been given some sort of consent.

There's a sickness to this. If you want to make justifications for this, be my guest. This is one area where I won't show tolerance as I don't believe it's deserved.

If I caught someone screwing my cat because he claimed that my cat mewling was "consent", I'd want the sick *******'s head examined and I'd want to press charges.

Some things are just not okay.
 
Last edited:

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Interesting discussion. While the comparison of zoophilia to slaughtering animals in that the animal doesn't consent to either sometimes confuses me, I have to say that I find bestiality to be inherently sick and disgusting.

... and I realize that this is just a personal view that doesn't necessarily have to influence state laws, but it is still how I feel about this subject. I simply can't stomach the idea of having sex with an animal.
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
On a serious and hopefully succinct note, my feelings on this are..

Zoophilia should not be a law that requires prison sentence in the enforcement process, but ... therapeutic places, maybe mental institutions depending on evaluations, etc.


I agree that it's such deviant behavior that may indicate that a person may be irreparably damaged and irredeemable, but I can't bring myself to believe that in all or even most cases. And maybe there are manageable solutions that include productivity and relative status, security, etc.

We need to better control extreme deviancy somehow. It is infesting American homes, and , of course, other places. Worldwide, really.

At the root seems an extreme selfishness / lack of empathy that fails to appreciate the value or feeling of others, epecially those it interacts with as sex objects, deriving gratification from and discarding. But even if its motives were apparently more clear, it still boils down to an inability to discern lack of consent, understanding, intent and really just... basic suitability. Somehow, their physio-mental apparatus, or what-have-you, is malfunctioning. Can they be fixed? Can harm they've done be outweighed by could they can do? Especially for those who are stiil in the fantasy stage. How do you coax people out of sexual fixations?

More importantly: how can we care for the victims, without over-victimizing them in the process?

And since this is a religious forum, to throw the monkeywrench of relevancy into the mix:

How does religion play a role in mitigating the effect of such people on society, whether it's rehabilitating them, or informing our views on what to do with them?



I made a joke earlier because... this, I owuld suspect is surprisingly common place in ... many places. and that media reports like this are ... tips of icebergs. But maybe they also motivate us to really and pass laws thru outrage. Hopefully we have thought things though, and take care of the necessary. As such, it's comically tragic; as with all things of such mindboggling seriousness, it's rather a laugh or cry situation to empathize.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
What about Doodle maybe he doesn't like his picture posted. ;)
Afterwards I had the very same thought, but was distracted and never posted it. Thanks for putting it up. ;)

Badran said:
You can decide how they spend their lives, what work they get used in . . .

. . . The majority seem to agree with what you said.
Right on.

dawny0826 said:
I believe that animals have specific purpose and are here primarily to contribute to an ecosystem and to benefit humans, but in necessity.
So, should we assume that you deem yourself the arbiter of necessity?


For however long an animal has to spend on this earth, if they're being raised to benefit humans, we have an obligation to care for them and treat them kindly.
And your presumption that having sex with them is less than kind is based on what? In the case of bestiality its a sexual benefit to the human participant, as are the many other uses we make of animals.

I don't consider sex with an animal to be kind behavior.
But obviously you believe that strapping them to a plow, which is even done today in the USA, is a kindness to them.

But, it still, in my opinion makes the person one sick
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm curious as to what criteria you use to determine the mental health of others. Is it merely the rarity of a behavior, or your personal repugnance to it?

I believe fully that there's something psychologically wrong with someone who uses an animal in such a way and I don't want that sick individual to have the legal right to carry on in such a manner.
So how does a psychological predilection rise to the level of illegality. Perhaps you can take us through the process, or tell us where the harm or injustice lies in bestiality, outside of mere opinion, of course. Because we don't make reasonable laws based on opinion, but rather, facts.

I am wholly prejudiced against zoophiles.
Well, that's refreshing. An honest admittance of prejudging people. Not many would admit to such a human failing.
icon14.gif
Glad to have your number, now we can properly judge your answers here and all those to follow on RF.

I don't really care if I'm generalizing. The sick people who rape women and children can claim the same...that they've been given some sort of consent.
Nice non-inquisitor.


Some things are just not okay.
Yes, we know. And we know why you feel this way. Perhaps in time you'll come to see that reason, not personal prejudice, is a far fairer basis for judging others.
 
Last edited:

4consideration

*
Premium Member
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif[/IMG] Glad to have your number, now we can properly judge your answers here and all those to follow on RF.

I disagree with this.

An honest and open admittance to prejudice on one subject does not mean that there is any validity in judging her every subsequent answer on RF by establishing a predudice that her response must be based upon prejudice.

Even as much as we may try, in good faith, to approach and evaluate subjects fairly, it is fairly common for most people to have some predudice in some areas of life. I am far more suspicious of those that it seems would never admit it, but only accuse others of it. This admittance on her part does not reduce my opinion of Dawny, it elevates it (but I already have observed that good quality about her, anyway.) I see her often being willing to be upfront about where she is coming from on an issue.
 
Last edited:

Badran

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe that animals have specific purpose and are here primarily to contribute to an ecosystem and to benefit humans, but in necessity.

1) You had said:

There are anmals of specific design who can be utilized for work. I don't think that this is cruel unless the animal is physically harmed.

That's not necessity.

2) Even as food, like i said before one can choose to be a vegetarian.

I'm not a fan of using animals for many recreational activities as mistreatment of the animal is par for the course.

For however long an animal has to spend on this earth, if they're being raised to benefit humans, we have an obligation to care for them and treat them kindly.

Again, i don't think you can claim logically that their supposed lack of consent in sex is cruel as it's using them and so forth and at the same time claim to be okay with what i highlighted above and explained earlier. You're determining the very purpose of the their life based on a belief you have, are okay with using them for work to our benefit, and are okay with killing them for food. All disregarding their lack of consent.

The basis of your objection is ruined by the inconsistency.

There's no inconsistency in my logic.

I disagree.

I don't consider sex with an animal to be kind behavior.
I believe fully that there's something psychologically wrong with someone who uses an animal in such a way and I don't want that sick individual to have the legal right to carry on in such a manner.
I am wholly prejudiced against zoophiles.
This is one area where I won't show tolerance as I don't believe it's deserved.

You can obviously hold whatever feelings you want on the subject and the people involved. However, if you want to make something illegal, or defend it's current status of illegality, then i can't take your feelings as proper basis for an argument.

But if we want to share feelings in general besides addressing supposed arguments for the illegality in question here, then sure. I don't share any of the feelings you expressed, find them totally unjustified and unfair.

Personally, i can't imagine the feeling of being attracted to an animal. The thought of sex with an animal disgusts me. However, i also distinguish between that and between moral and/or legal arguments. The fact that i'm not "into" this thing, and struggle to imagine how can someone like to have sex with animals, is no proper basis to claim that it's immoral nor that it should be illegal.

Yeah. No joke. But, it still, in my opinion makes the person one sick ****.

You had said something about zoophiles, i clarified that according to my information that is not the case for all zoophiles, rather only a subset of them. If you're saying that you're already aware of that, or accept that but still think that the rest are.....whatever you feel like describing them, then fine. Same as above.

My comment was clarifying on something that seemed like inaccurate information.

I don't really care if I'm generalizing. The sick people who rape women and children can claim the same...that they've been given some sort of consent.

That's not a fair comparison in my view. The subject of animal consent is something that is debated regarding this subject and something that is key to whether or not the sex between humans and animals should be considered rape.

I was clarifying that you were misrepresenting them by claiming that they're okay with taking advantage of animals. That is not the case as many of them are of the side which believes that animals can give consent. Human consent is not under dispute. So the comparison fails to note the complexity of the issue.

There's a sickness to this. If you want to make justifications for this, be my guest.

I clarified earlier my personal position on this and what are the things that i think would be the crux of the matter when it comes to determining whether or not sex with animals should be illegal.

What i'm doing here is addressing seemingly inconsistencies and invalid arguments that are used to unfairly portray some people and that are used to justify the illegal status and societal view towards zoophilia.

My aim here is not to justify, but to attempt to address the issue properly. It's been something that i'm unsure about for a while and i wanted to get to the bottom of it by discussing and debating it.

If I caught someone screwing my cat because he claimed that my cat mewling was "consent", I'd want the sick *******'s head examined and I'd want to press charges.

Again, feel free to feel anyway you'd like. But understand that i can't consider that as a valid argument.

Some things are just not okay.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. I can't think of one single thing that is 'just' not okay.
 
Top