Directly Comparing Zoosexuality with being Gay

submitted by jet199 from zooey.pub

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]makesyoudownvote 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

This is exactly what the right used to say would happen, and they were profoundly made fun of for it.

I was one of the people that made fun of them. Back 15 years ago I fought hard for gay marriage. I still support it.

But the right made a valid criticism that the pro-gay arguments could easily be applied to any sexuality including marrying a toaster or your pet dog. It seemed rediculous, but we should have done a better job at fleshing out the distinction rather than just scoffing. We did flesh it out by the way which is when you started hearing the qualifier: "between two consenting adults". Unfortunately it was done sort of after the fact and is somewhat flimsy in how it's understood. Afterall two is a bit limiting, what about threesomes or polyamory? I definitely see a purpose to forbidding polygamy, but polyamory isn't inherently wrong it's just stupid (I was polyamorous for a while and let me tell you it's dumb).

I don't know though. Some of this thread and interpretation is some of the same low level scoffing. There is plenty to discuss cuss here, like how obviously animals can't consent. But the question remains, what if they could. If we could actually understand animals, and their desires and they genuinely bonded with a human, it still seems wrong, but why? What is it exactly that makes it wrong, without bringing personal faith or beliefs into it? Is it that you can't reproduce or it isn't natural? It's about as natural as homosexuality, both do happen in nature occasionally, both are biologically pointless as procreation is impossible.

I just wish we could have these discussions, not because I am giving credibility to zoophilia or anything, but because I think we should build a stronger shared moral and ideological foundation instead of constantly stacking flimsy ideologies on top of eachother, otherwise eventually (and I think imminently) there will be a moral collapse. We are no longer unified by a common faith, so it's paramount that we establish some sort of shared ethics and ideologies.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If we could be certain that animals can consent, with proper understanding, then there'd be no legitimate reason to make it criminal. But it would still give you diseases so I don't think it'd be smart. However, that will never happen because very few animals are anthropomorphic. I am but I also don't have sex, so I'm off the table.

[–]perv 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Honestly, what does consent even mean? Especially in this context. Does a dog have "proper understanding" when it mates with another dog? All that matters to me is whether the animal is willing. This is extremely easy to tell when the human is the receptive partner, but I admit it's a little tricky to discern if the animal is the one being penetrated. Even then "not trying to get away" is all the consent male animals typically ask for, so if a sheep lets you fuck it without being restrained or anything, I don't really see a problem.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Animals also eat each other alive. Does that make it right for us to do the same thing?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Animals also eat each other alive. Does that make it right for us to do the same thing?

Animals don't have sex with people.
People shouldn't have sex with animals.

[–]perv 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well that opens another can of worms, doesn't it? Why exactly do we need consent to fuck an animal but not to kill and eat it? (If you're vegan, you're clearly morally superior and can disregard this point /s) But for the most part I'm willing to just roll with this seemingly irrational standard. If sex requires a higher level of scrutiny than death for some reason, fine, I think it's still pretty easy for someone inclined to have sex with animals to beat the complete lack of consent we ask for in the meat industry.

All animals will attempt to avoid being killed, if they realize that's what you're up to, but may or may not avoid sex (or even seek it!) so compared to animal-eaters, I think any zoophile who's willing to put in a modest level of effort making sure their animal-partners are willing, can sleep easy.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Unfortunately eating them is necessary for good health, because that's the way nature works. I also don't agree that death is as bad as rape, as long as that death is peaceful. Even mass-produce meat farms give animals an easier death than they would get in nature, ie. getting ripped apart alive by predators. The worse cruelty is how they treat them during their lives.