-
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!
Should we legalise having sex with a dog?
- Thread starter Earthtank
- Start date
I actually agree with everything you said here which was why i specifically called out "this man (Lars Gule)". In any case, i also did not want to focus on the Muslim speaker just to ensure we did not go off topic however, you position imo, is valid and justified. Although, since the topic of the debate was liberalism and Islam, he was trying to show how liberalism itself cannot be justified let alone trying to talk about liberalizing Islam, from that point of view, i do agree with the Muslim speaker but, that's a different topic for a different thread.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I agree with him, except for his claims about "white men" and "liberals". Islam has their own culture. It should not be eradicated. Modified, yes, but that is true for all cultures.
Skwim
Veteran Member
..
STRICTLY from a logical point of view, and off the top of my head..
First of all, I believe that initially everything should be considered permissible unless deemed otherwise. And to be deemed otherwise, i,e. impermissible, there must be sufficient reason.
Is one's sense of ickyness reasonable? Perhaps, although one's personal feelings are hardly sufficient reasons to declare it, whatever it may be, impermissible: that is, worthy of being banned.
So, I feel there must be some overriding benefit coming from banning X---the outcome consisting of either a personal or a community benefit. To be clear, the benefit must be to more than one's senses. While it may benefit my sense of decency to prevent women from going topless in public, the fact that they do so in no way harms me. So I feel actual harm is essential to any reason for banning it. If X causes no actual harm I don't feel there's sufficient reason to ban it.
With that said, what of bestiality?
My question then is, what harm comes from engaging in bestiality? If there isn't any then why not permit it?
and just as an FYI
AND
So, although bestiality is illegal in most western areas, there are those where it is permitted, presumably because they see no harm in it.
STRICTLY from a logical point of view, and off the top of my head..
First of all, I believe that initially everything should be considered permissible unless deemed otherwise. And to be deemed otherwise, i,e. impermissible, there must be sufficient reason.
Is one's sense of ickyness reasonable? Perhaps, although one's personal feelings are hardly sufficient reasons to declare it, whatever it may be, impermissible: that is, worthy of being banned.
So, I feel there must be some overriding benefit coming from banning X---the outcome consisting of either a personal or a community benefit. To be clear, the benefit must be to more than one's senses. While it may benefit my sense of decency to prevent women from going topless in public, the fact that they do so in no way harms me. So I feel actual harm is essential to any reason for banning it. If X causes no actual harm I don't feel there's sufficient reason to ban it.
With that said, what of bestiality?
Does it harm either party? Not that I'm aware of---of course like a lot of activities done to excess or improperly it may be abusive, but I'm not talking about such cases.
My question then is, what harm comes from engaging in bestiality? If there isn't any then why not permit it?
and just as an FYI
AND
Last edited:
I watched the video, and thought it a bunch of rubbish. Islamist make a lot less sense than they think they do, and no, the debate wasn't really about having sex with dogs, but about "western liberal ideas" and why they're such anathema to Islam. (My own view, because Islam is pious but not very deep -- like most religions.)
Meantime, let me just say this. Why would it be so wrong (on the basis of harm done) to boff an animal that you are quite properly permitted to kill?
Meantime, let me just say this. Why would it be so wrong (on the basis of harm done) to boff an animal that you are quite properly permitted to kill?
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Animals can't give consent.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
There were a lot of things in the closet, that were created by various religions and cultures. Many of these things have been let out of those closets, mostly due to Progressive thinking and the concept of relative morality.
The question is why do Progressives draw an arbitrary line in the sand in terms of who can come out of the closet and who needs to stay in the closet? I am not condoning sex with animals, but many of the arguments used to justify things that have been let out of the closet, could also be used by those who the Progressive think still should remain in the closet. Maybe those arguments were not thought out properly. Or maybe they were designed to liberate the closet in a sequence.
For example, transexual is someone born with the physical body and procreative attributes of one sex, but who thinks or feels they are the other sex. Couldn't this type of argument also be applied to humans who think they relate better to another species? If you think you would have been happier as a dog, does that mean you can have sex with dogs? As ridiculous as this particulate application of argument sounds to this left, it is as ridiculous as transsexual sounds to many on the right. It is the same argument with a different application.
In terms of observable data, in child's play, many small children will pretend to be their favorite animal; dog, cat, lion. Picture if their progressive parents, with the prodding of the left wing media and progressive culture, decided to nurtured this animal play behavior into and beyond adolescence. Picture if the medical community seeing $$$ in terms of surgery and drugs and agreed to create cosmetic animal-humans. This transformation could be the new liberal policy of the day and called natural, since the children did this first. The result would be ridiculous, but ti would be called serious with anyone who speak up against called a hater. This is how the game works.
One of the original arguments for homosexuality, to open the closet door, was connected to observing nature and showing examples of animals of various species engaging in what appeared to be same sex behavior. We often see male dogs hump other male dogs. Has anyone; human, ever had their leg humped by a dog? This is fairly common. Wouldn't this type of observational data be an application of the base argument, to justify cross species sex? Again I am not condoning this, but I am showing how the line in the sand was not entirely objective. This naturalist argument was left open to other things in the closet to use, someday.
What is happening is other members of the closet, who remain, who see their former brothers and sister liberated from the closet, also wanted to be liberated by the Progressives. The Progressives appear to be sending test balloons and are doing a calculation to see whether the number of potential voters would justify the backlash within and outside their own party. They are sticking their toe in the water. Does the math add up? It is not about morality being a hindrance, since many on the left believe in relative morality, which they can define as they like, with some definitions having political consequences or advantages.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The way you described "progressives" does not sound like progress (at least not the positive kind) for the human race. IMO, these "progressives", more than anything are actually regressing in their behaviors, especially when sometimes their best argument is "my feelings" or "animals do it too". While this is not the thread for it, I do not think transsexuals are a real thing, its a made up term to make up for made up feelings or a mental disorder, a person born a man, will always be a man and will die a man no matter how many surgeries or pills they take.
Not sure this is true (any evidence for this) but we shouldn't look at Bonobo behaviour as setting an example - promiscuous to the extreme it seems, but who knows for why.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
I suppose it depends upon what type of humans we want to be - ones that have ethics and morality derived from some logic and humane considerations or those with ones that are based on expediency and exploitation. We have already gone far with the latter - battery cages, etc., but many are questioning as to whether we can continue with this. The sex thing surely is just a fetish such that why should any human be allowed to indulge this when many other fetishes might not be - and where therapy might be more appropriate.
Skwim
Veteran Member
So far as animal treatment goes our ethics and morals have been based on expediency and exploitation. Because we find it expedient to exploit animals to suit our needs we find it quite ethical and moral to make them plow our fields, ride and sometimes whip them to run faster, team them together to pull sleighs 1,000 miles through snow and bitter cold, give up their lives in bullrings (now outlawed in the USA), and to serve as targets for "sport" hunting. In all of these uses I think it's fair to say that given the choice these animals would rather not be part of our ethics and morals.
I assume by "sex thing" you're talking about bestiality. As for the rest of your sentence, you seem to be asking; as a fetish, why should bestiality be allowed when other fetishes may not be, a strange, qualified ethical stance to say the least.
From my understanding of bestiality the animals partnered with are willing or are at least passive, with no harm befalling either participant.
.
Last edited:
Well quite, and our attitudes do change when we see the suffering we cause to so many animals. The vegan uprising, if one can call it that, is an example of changing attitudes.
We, as humans, are hardly in a position to know what animals experience. And even if the animals are not obviously resisting, they are still being exploited, purely for the sexual pleasure of a human - and one who should be able to see that they are exploiting them. You seem to be making the same argument that many do that if a female doesn't shout, scream and resist as best she can then it isn't rape - when we know that individuals often just freeze in such situations. Not applicable to animals?
Skwim
Veteran Member
To a degree we certainly are. That degree being well shown by how we regard our treatment of animals. PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is predicated on the notion that to a large extent animals and humans share a common understanding of suffering.
Sometimes yes, and as I've tried to show, such exploitation is very common and even condoned, our ethics being so constructed as to deem it quite acceptable. Other times, no! Some animals, particularly dogs, if given the opportunity will readily engage in sex with humans. Ever see a dog hump someone's leg? What do you think he's seeking to do?
Really!! I know this is a neat way of disparaging my position; couching it in the most abhorrent terms possible, but as both of us know I never made any such argument or even suggested it. If you want to construct strawman arguments do it with someone else.
.
.
Last edited:
We, as humans, are hardly in a position to know what animals experience.
But many don't seem to believe this, or that some even feel pain. We are still learning about how other animals experience life.
And even if the animals are not obviously resisting, they are still being exploited, purely for the sexual pleasure of a human - and one who should be able to see that they are exploiting them.
You seem to be making the same argument that many do that if a female doesn't shout, scream and resist as best she can then it isn't rape - when we know that individuals often just freeze in such situations. Not applicable to animals?
The point was that we just don't know how animals might react, especially when they are mostly dependent upon us for most things - pets that is. Try having sex with a wild animal!
But many don't seem to believe this, or that some even feel pain. We are still learning about how other animals experience life.
And even if the animals are not obviously resisting, they are still being exploited, purely for the sexual pleasure of a human - and one who should be able to see that they are exploiting them.
How common it might be is irrelevant, or whether so many don't even recognise their behaviour as being hypocritical - treating some species as pets and others as foods for example - and based on what? The dog possibly is displaying a natural instinct - much like many other animals do. What does that tell us about volition? The differences between us and most other animals is that we have such and they mostly don't. Such that there is a disparity. And I'm sure you are bright enough to know that an animal engaging in one particular behaviour (like legging it) hardly grants one carte blanche to engage in any or every other sexual behaviour with them.
You seem to be making the same argument that many do that if a female doesn't shout, scream and resist as best she can then it isn't rape - when we know that individuals often just freeze in such situations. Not applicable to animals?
The point was that we just don't know how animals might react, especially when they are mostly dependent upon us for most things - pets that is. Try having sex with a wild animal!
Last edited: