Should zoosexuality be legal?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well, I'm not sure if the animal has any rights that the Libertarian is obligated to respect. While one might say the animal owns itself or makes choices, most animals are not self-aware, so the animal's claim to natural rights are only slightly less tenuous than that of a fetus. This is however complicated by those animals who are self-aware, such as the dolphin.

     With that much said, animals have little or no capacity to exercise other natural rights. A lion cannot buy or sell property, & a possum cannot exercise its right to freedom of the press by publishing a book in dissent towards the government. If an entity cannot engage in those activities related to natural rights, I am not sure that the prohibition on aggression applies to it, since the prohibition against aggression is an outgrowth of the same basic fact as all other libertarian rights; that is that a person is the sole owner of his or herself.

     With that much said, I disagree with making zoophilia a crime, though I would require consent of the animal's owner if said owner happens to be any person other than the one who wishes to engage in zoophiliac relations with the animal.

     *Sits back & waits for the controversy to swell*

Couldn't you say the same things about a person with a severe mental handicap?  and who decides which animals are "sefl aware"?

If the living entity can't consent, you can't have sex with it.  Build a device that reads the thoughts of animals, get consent, then I'll let you knock your sox off and get your rocks off.

     Well Einzige has already addressed the issue of a person with a severe mental handicap.

     As for determining self-awareness, one could consider the test of an animal looking at itself in the mirror. If I look at myself in a mirror, I know that I am looking at myself. The same is true for a gorilla or a dolphin.  A bird, however, does not recognize this. It will chirp at it's reflection for hours, because it genuinely believes it to be another bird. That much indicates a lack of awareness of the individuality of oneself.

[bgwah]

We can't have sex with little kids, because they cannot consent. The same should be true for animals.

Do you ask a cow if it's alright to lock her in some factory farm for years, selling her milk, before slaughtering her for meat when she's old?

[Vepres]

     Well, I'm not sure if the animal has any rights that the Libertarian is obligated to respect. While one might say the animal owns itself or makes choices, most animals are not self-aware, so the animal's claim to natural rights are only slightly less tenuous than that of a fetus. This is however complicated by those animals who are self-aware, such as the dolphin.

     With that much said, animals have little or no capacity to exercise other natural rights. A lion cannot buy or sell property, & a possum cannot exercise its right to freedom of the press by publishing a book in dissent towards the government. If an entity cannot engage in those activities related to natural rights, I am not sure that the prohibition on aggression applies to it, since the prohibition against aggression is an outgrowth of the same basic fact as all other libertarian rights; that is that a person is the sole owner of his or herself.

     With that much said, I disagree with making zoophilia a crime, though I would require consent of the animal's owner if said owner happens to be any person other than the one who wishes to engage in zoophiliac relations with the animal.

     *Sits back & waits for the controversy to swell*

Couldn't you say the same things about a person with a severe mental handicap?  and who decides which animals are "sefl aware"?

If the living entity can't consent, you can't have sex with it.  Build a device that reads the thoughts of animals, get consent, then I'll let you knock your sox off and get your rocks off.

     Well Einzige has already addressed the issue of a person with a severe mental handicap.

     As for determining self-awareness, one could consider the test of an animal looking at itself in the mirror. If I look at myself in a mirror, I know that I am looking at myself. The same is true for a gorilla or a dolphin.  A bird, however, does not recognize this. It will chirp at it's reflection for hours, because it genuinely believes it to be another bird. That much indicates a lack of awareness of the individuality of oneself.

There are some animals that aren't "aware" of themselves as an individual that still experience emotions. Besides, if a person wants to have sex with any non-human organism it's probably a good thing they're taken off the streets

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well, I'm not sure if the animal has any rights that the Libertarian is obligated to respect. While one might say the animal owns itself or makes choices, most animals are not self-aware, so the animal's claim to natural rights are only slightly less tenuous than that of a fetus. This is however complicated by those animals who are self-aware, such as the dolphin.

     With that much said, animals have little or no capacity to exercise other natural rights. A lion cannot buy or sell property, & a possum cannot exercise its right to freedom of the press by publishing a book in dissent towards the government. If an entity cannot engage in those activities related to natural rights, I am not sure that the prohibition on aggression applies to it, since the prohibition against aggression is an outgrowth of the same basic fact as all other libertarian rights; that is that a person is the sole owner of his or herself.

     With that much said, I disagree with making zoophilia a crime, though I would require consent of the animal's owner if said owner happens to be any person other than the one who wishes to engage in zoophiliac relations with the animal.

     *Sits back & waits for the controversy to swell*

Couldn't you say the same things about a person with a severe mental handicap?  and who decides which animals are "sefl aware"?

If the living entity can't consent, you can't have sex with it.  Build a device that reads the thoughts of animals, get consent, then I'll let you knock your sox off and get your rocks off.

     Well Einzige has already addressed the issue of a person with a severe mental handicap.

     As for determining self-awareness, one could consider the test of an animal looking at itself in the mirror. If I look at myself in a mirror, I know that I am looking at myself. The same is true for a gorilla or a dolphin.  A bird, however, does not recognize this. It will chirp at its reflection for hours, because it genuinely believes it to be another bird. That much indicates a lack of awareness of the individuality of oneself.

There are some animals that aren't "aware" of themselves as an individual that still experience emotions. Besides, if a person wants to have sex with any non-human organism it's probably a good thing they're taken off the streets

     Well yes, but natural rights have to do with self-awareness, not emotions. Elephants are definitely capable of emoting, though I do not know if all elephants can be categorized as being aware of their individuality. I do know that some elephants have recognized themselves in mirrors, though.

[Vepres]

     Well, I'm not sure if the animal has any rights that the Libertarian is obligated to respect. While one might say the animal owns itself or makes choices, most animals are not self-aware, so the animal's claim to natural rights are only slightly less tenuous than that of a fetus. This is however complicated by those animals who are self-aware, such as the dolphin.

     With that much said, animals have little or no capacity to exercise other natural rights. A lion cannot buy or sell property, & a possum cannot exercise its right to freedom of the press by publishing a book in dissent towards the government. If an entity cannot engage in those activities related to natural rights, I am not sure that the prohibition on aggression applies to it, since the prohibition against aggression is an outgrowth of the same basic fact as all other libertarian rights; that is that a person is the sole owner of his or herself.

     With that much said, I disagree with making zoophilia a crime, though I would require consent of the animal's owner if said owner happens to be any person other than the one who wishes to engage in zoophiliac relations with the animal.

     *Sits back & waits for the controversy to swell*

Couldn't you say the same things about a person with a severe mental handicap?  and who decides which animals are "sefl aware"?

If the living entity can't consent, you can't have sex with it.  Build a device that reads the thoughts of animals, get consent, then I'll let you knock your sox off and get your rocks off.

     Well Einzige has already addressed the issue of a person with a severe mental handicap.

     As for determining self-awareness, one could consider the test of an animal looking at itself in the mirror. If I look at myself in a mirror, I know that I am looking at myself. The same is true for a gorilla or a dolphin.  A bird, however, does not recognize this. It will chirp at its reflection for hours, because it genuinely believes it to be another bird. That much indicates a lack of awareness of the individuality of oneself.

There are some animals that aren't "aware" of themselves as an individual that still experience emotions. Besides, if a person wants to have sex with any non-human organism it's probably a good thing they're taken off the streets

     Well yes, but natural rights have to do with self-awareness, not emotions. Elephants are definitely capable of emoting, though I do not know if all elephants can be categorized as being aware of their individuality. I do know that some elephants have recognized themselves in mirrors, though.

Even if it doesn't recognize itself as an individual, it still feels the pain, it still has consciousness, just not as advanced as ours.

[tmthforu94]

     With that much said, animals have little or no capacity to exercise other natural rights. A lion cannot buy or sell property, & a possum...blah blah blah

Thank you for using the word possum. You are helping my continuous movement to make the possum one of America's most popular animals.

[© tweed]

No. Consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with each other but if one of your interests in life is forcing yourself upon animals sexually, I do not want you to be a part of the same society as me.

moralist

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well, I'm not sure if the animal has any rights that the Libertarian is obligated to respect. While one might say the animal owns itself or makes choices, most animals are not self-aware, so the animal's claim to natural rights are only slightly less tenuous than that of a fetus. This is however complicated by those animals who are self-aware, such as the dolphin.

     With that much said, animals have little or no capacity to exercise other natural rights. A lion cannot buy or sell property, & a possum cannot exercise its right to freedom of the press by publishing a book in dissent towards the government. If an entity cannot engage in those activities related to natural rights, I am not sure that the prohibition on aggression applies to it, since the prohibition against aggression is an outgrowth of the same basic fact as all other libertarian rights; that is that a person is the sole owner of his or herself.

     With that much said, I disagree with making zoophilia a crime, though I would require consent of the animal's owner if said owner happens to be any person other than the one who wishes to engage in zoophiliac relations with the animal.

     *Sits back & waits for the controversy to swell*

Couldn't you say the same things about a person with a severe mental handicap?  and who decides which animals are "sefl aware"?

If the living entity can't consent, you can't have sex with it.  Build a device that reads the thoughts of animals, get consent, then I'll let you knock your sox off and get your rocks off.

     Well Einzige has already addressed the issue of a person with a severe mental handicap.

     As for determining self-awareness, one could consider the test of an animal looking at itself in the mirror. If I look at myself in a mirror, I know that I am looking at myself. The same is true for a gorilla or a dolphin.  A bird, however, does not recognize this. It will chirp at its reflection for hours, because it genuinely believes it to be another bird. That much indicates a lack of awareness of the individuality of oneself.

There are some animals that aren't "aware" of themselves as an individual that still experience emotions. Besides, if a person wants to have sex with any non-human organism it's probably a good thing they're taken off the streets

     Well yes, but natural rights have to do with self-awareness, not emotions. Elephants are definitely capable of emoting, though I do not know if all elephants can be categorized as being aware of their individuality. I do know that some elephants have recognized themselves in mirrors, though.

Even if it doesn't recognize itself as an individual, it still feels the pain, it still has consciousness, just not as advanced as ours.

     I see what you mean. However, the idea would be to consider such a thing immoral, but not advocate it being illegal. If a person rapes small animals, his neighbors should mete out swift condemnation of his actions, but not actually be punished legally for it.

     The reason for not wanting to make it a crime is that the libertarian, abhorring violence of aggression, wishes to make any violence or coercion against the criminal be towards the ends of making restitution to the victim.

     Furthermore here, the legal system is to serve the victim & ratify the victim's will, within reason. I do not see how a dog could communicate its will properly to determine how exactly it wishes to be restituted.

     That's basically an explanation of why the self-awareness aspect is important. Gorillas & dolphins can't really be taught to communicate with humans in advanced ways, though, so that rather precludes them from being able to be served properly as victims.

[Mechaman]

And let's be honest here: Can anybody conceivable imagine zoosexuality being in vogue?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Options 2 and 3.

[The Age Wave]

Of course not. Why are the people here so nasty with this stuff?

[Eraserhead]

No. Consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with each other but if one of your interests in life is forcing yourself upon animals sexually, I do not want you to be a part of the same society as me.

moralist

Yeah, I guess you got me there.

[Hatman 🍁]

We can't have sex with little kids, because they cannot consent. The same should be true for animals.

Do you ask a cow if it's alright to lock her in some factory farm for years, selling her milk, before slaughtering her for meat when she's old?

I don't see why you're bringing this up, especially since I've taken the animal right's stance on this issue, so this is one hell of red herring... but since you brought it up,

Humans are on top of the food chain, that's why we eat cows. There is no such thing as an animal sex chain with us on top   I definitely think cows should be treated more humanely, and nothing is more tasty than free range beef!

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

There is no such thing as an animal sex chain with us on top

Funny to imagine the picture...

[© tweed]

No. Consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with each other but if one of your interests in life is forcing yourself upon animals sexually, I do not want you to be a part of the same society as me.

moralist

Yeah, I guess you got me there.

the infinitely greater animal rights concern in the US is the food industry.  Bob down the street who f.ucks his cat nightly is not something to waste our resources (on).  give up on the offense to the collective consciousness garbage while you still can.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well Einzige has already addressed the issue of a person with a severe mental handicap.

Not in a way that anyone who likes the idea of living in a civilised society could ever find acceptable.

[© tweed]

never in a million years will the people here convince me that they have a deep and intense concern that animals will get raped.  it is just adherence to the moral norm: you are not receptive to arguments in favor of having the law condone pig-f.ucking because you think it is gross.  stop feigning this great concern for an animal's right to consent to sex.  I don't see you crying about the sh**t that goes on with cows and chickens on corporate farms, on a huge scale.  (because that's 'food'.  necessary to survival.  yawn)

[© tweed]

debate here consists of recitation of things heard, not original analysis and postulation.

[Eraserhead]

No. Consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with each other but if one of your interests in life is forcing yourself upon animals sexually, I do not want you to be a part of the same society as me.

moralist

Yeah, I guess you got me there.

the infinitely greater animal rights concern in the US is the food industry.  Bob down the street who f.ucks his cat nightly is not something to waste our resources (on).  give up on the offense to the collective consciousness garbage while you still can.

What resources? I just don't want it to become legal, really. It's obviously not something people are spending a lot of money on combating in this country because there aren't all that many people into raping animals.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

debate here consists of recitation of things heard, not original analysis and postulation.

That's pretty accurate actually (in general, not just this post).

[Eraserhead]

never in a million years will the people here convince me that they have a deep and intense concern that animals will get raped.  it is just adherence to the moral norm: you are not receptive to arguments in favor of having the law condone pig-f.ucking because you think it is gross.  stop feigning this great concern for an animal's right to consent to sex.  I don't see you crying about the sh**t that goes on with cows and chickens on corporate farms, on a huge scale.  (because that's 'food'.  necessary to survival.  yawn)

Eh, no. I could care less about people jacking off to pictures of animals in their houses if that's what they're into. And of course I have talked about my concerns related to factory farming on here several times, so yeah.

[Eraserhead]

debate here consists of recitation of things heard, not original analysis and postulation.

That's pretty accurate actually (in general, not just this post).

That is true of debate almost anywhere.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

debate here consists of recitation of things heard, not original analysis and postulation.

That's pretty accurate actually (in general, not just this post).

That is true of debate almost anywhere.

Excellent point.

[kobidobidog]

You can tell because the dog is staying with you, is not growling at you, is not showing any signs of aggression. Is not clawing or chewing you to pieces. Ever see how well padded a person has to be to train police dogs?  A zoo does not have much if anything on when they have sex. Does that tell you something?

zoosexual sex or casual sex between two different species, which is known as bestiality, zoophile net, an extremely kind, and loving thing to do, zoo’s have a deep love that many do not have. This is extremely pleasurable, positives for both species, and  helps to control population. No surgery is needed for ether species. No condoms needed. No STDs. The non humans love sex. Both species loves sex.

By all means legalize this kind of sex.  Whole planet is about sex.  Let us relax, and enjoy it. Doing unto others what you would want others to do unto you. Being wise, and harmless, Being a peacemaker, and things will be just fine.

[kobidobidog]

A resounding YES! zoo should be legal!
You can tell because the dog is staying with you, is being relaxed. Female dogs can be real hot lovers. You will know.  Dog is not growling at you, is not showing any signs of aggression, is not trying to get away from you, is not syncing her tail over her sexual organs. Is not clawing or chewing you to pieces. Ever see how well padded a person has to be to train police dogs?  A zoo does not have much if anything on when they have sex. Does that tell you something?

Zoosexual sex or casual sex which is known as bestiality, zoophile net, an extremely kind, and loving thing to do, zoo’s have a deep love that many do not have. This is extremely pleasurable. Positives for both species, and helps to  control population. No surgery is needed for ether species. No condoms needed. No STDs. The non humans love sex. Both species loves sex.  Zoo should be taught to whoever wants to learn.
 It should be a no brainier to have zoo be legal. By all mans legalize this kind of sex.  Whole planet is about sex.  Let us relax, and enjoy it. Doing unto others what you would want others to do unto you. Being wise, and harmless, Being a peacemaker, and things will be just fine.