What other forms of relationships should be allowed?

[TheFightingPikachu]

Hm, that's a good point, it is Sci Fi, and they are both sentient humanoid species that talk. It is easier to see it as an interracial relationship than an interspecies one. I can live with that explanation.

Actually, I'm not necessarily denying that such a thing is an interspecies relationship. I'm merely pointing out that in this fictional ethics experiment, I can't see any biblical or logical reason to view such a relationship in the same way as a human-animal relationship. (See below.)

You're right, as I said earlier, I was a bit drunk at the time of writing so I wasn't really firing on full... but the point is actually little different. It's not as if two gay guys marrying is anywhere close to bestiality either. My point is that one would think that if two guys marrying offends you so much, you'd be just as disturbed by inter-species romance as well. Surely enough to protest it?

It would only be a good point if gay people turned out not to be sentient humanoids who can talk.

Here is the whole basis of your problem. You have assumed that interspecies relationship = bestiality. In our world, I would say this is true. But you have attempted to apply the same standards to fiction, where conditions are drastically different. Furthermore, the fact that these two types of beings can interbreed suggests that even your label of "interspecies" may be inaccurate.

What if the American Christian right had gotten up in arms calling the interspecies relationship in Star Trek bestiality? I find it very likely that you would have been quick to ridicule them by pointing out what I've mentioned to you.

 

[Tim the turtle]

Actually, I'm not necessarily denying that such a thing is an interspecies relationship. I'm merely pointing out that in this fictional ethics experiment, I can't see any biblical or logical reason to view such a relationship in the same way as a human-animal relationship.

And yet you manage to find a link between bestiality and same-sex marriages. You know that one of the most used arguments by the anti-gay lobby is the ludicrous idea that allowing same-sex relationships will open the door to bestiality and necrophilia endorsed by the state. It's one of the stock arguments for your side.

Furthermore, the fact that these two types of beings can interbreed suggests that even your label of "interspecies" may be inaccurate.

You know nothing of Star Trek.

What if the American Christian right had gotten up in arms calling the interspecies relationship in Star Trek bestiality? I find it very likely that you would have been quick to ridicule them by pointing out what I've mentioned to you.

I'd ridicule them for the same reason I ridicule anyone who believes that gay marriage is a sin. Because there is no moral reason to hold such a belief. What I don't get is why you didn't. I'm not saying you should.

 

[Sgeckledorf Spoongeblorb]

Why are we talking about Star Trek now? Damn, where's that madman Teshub when you need adequate amounts of non-Encyclopedia Dramatica-based lulz?

What about necrophilia? Let's start some drama on that.

So, do you think necrophiliac marriage is a good idea, as long as the corpse is presentable, and the family members are swayed by the living partner's bribes?

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Tim, the fact that some argue for one's choice of sexual partners being fundamental and absolute was my only point when I posted long ago. The fact that you and others interpreted my post through the lens of a stereotype is not my fault.

Why are we talking about Star Trek now? Damn, where's that madman Teshub when you need adequate amounts of non-Encyclopedia Dramatica-based lulz?

What about necrophilia? Let's start some drama on that.

So, do you think necrophiliac marriage is a good idea, as long as the corpse is presentable, and the family members are swayed by the living partner's bribes?

Exactly! Why don't we get Tim the turtle to start going on about how zombie marriages in fiction are the same as necrophilia?

Seriously, Tim, I know nothing of Star Trek, but you gotta stop the goalpost moving.

 

[Tim the turtle]

Tim, the fact that some argue for one's choice of sexual partners being fundamental and absolute was my only point when I posted long ago. The fact that you and others interpreted my post through the lens of a stereotype is not my fault.

What's this got to do with you? I never referenced your post.

Exactly! Why don't we get Tim the turtle to start going on about how zombie marriages in fiction are the same as necrophilia?

What has this got to do with anything? Do we know the definition of bestiality enough to say whether or not Mr. Spock is the result of it? Even if he isn't, it's far closer to bestiality than gay marriage, and as I've said, one of the most common arguments to come from the Christian right is that allowing the latter will lead inexorably towards legalised bestiality (as stupid an argument as that is). I accept that it's not a massive moral issue because it isn't ever a situation that can happen, the problem is that we're talking about this in the context of the Christian right's propensity of complaining about just about everything on TV that doesn't accord with their values. You'd think that inter-species sex, which may or may not be bestiality, is going to strike pretty high-up on that radar... but it never did. For over 40 years it never once did, instead that character is one of the most beloved characters in television history. Why didn't you guys go ape?

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Does Mars Need Moms?

What's this got to do with you? I never referenced your post.

Well you said two posts ago that I manage to find a link between bestiality and same-sex relationships. If, by the word "you" you were referring to the Christian right, well, all I can tell you is that a large and caricatured group is not the best referent for a pronoun when you are trying to debate a person.

I accept that it's not a massive moral issue because it isn't ever a situation that can happen, the problem is that we're talking about this in the context of the Christian right's propensity of complaining about just about everything on TV that doesn't accord with their values. You'd think that inter-species sex, which may or may not be bestiality, is going to strike pretty high-up on that radar... but it never did. For over 40 years it never once did, instead that character is one of the most beloved characters in television history. Why didn't you guys go ape?

As though that last sentence isn't one of the most intolerant things ever. Could it be that, as previously mentioned, they didn't view it as bestiality?

And since we're on the broad topic of people's response to media as it relates to sexuality and interest groups, here's something I meant to post earlier:

I wonder if the gay community has been (or will be) up in arms over the Disney movie Mars Needs Moms?

 

[bel9]

Mr. Spock is not bestiality [why are we even talking about this?]. The genetic material is apparently close enough with humans to produce a fertile offspring.

Also Star Trek is science-fiction. The authors/writers can write anything they desire whether or not it actually meets scientific fact.

Also I feel this argument is moot because trying to classify different organisms by our system of classification is becoming increasingly difficult as more genetic research is done. For example, Canis lupus and Canis familiaris are supposed to be two different species, yet wolves and domestic dogs can breed to produce fertile offspring which breaks one of our rules on classifying species.

 

[Tim the turtle]

As though that last sentence isn't one of the most intolerant things ever. Could it be that, as previously mentioned, they didn't view it as bestiality?

It's not intolerant. The Christian right has made a habit of getting up in arms over perceived threats to their moral decency. This is no secret. Saying it isn't bestiality is missing the point somewhat, it's probably the closest you can come. What I want to know is why two guys kissing is a moral outrage, but two people of an entirely different species doing it is not a moral outrage. Personally I don't think either one of them is, of course, but what makes one so much worse than the other.

Well you said two posts ago that I manage to find a link between bestiality and same-sex relationships.

The Christian right loves to use that as an argument and you know it. I was thinking of adding in a disclaimer stating that I didn't think you'd actually used such an argument but I though better of it.

Mr. Spock is not bestiality [why are we even talking about this?]. The genetic material is apparently close enough with humans to produce a fertile offspring.

Mr. Spock was born in a test tube.

Also Star Trek is science-fiction. The authors/writers can write anything they desire whether or not it actually meets scientific fact.

Glee is contemporary fiction, as is Brokeback Mountain for that matter.

 

[bel9]

Mr. Spock was born in a test tube.

And what does that have to do with beastiality? And my first point still stands. As more genetic research is being done, scientists are figuring out that our classification system doesn't always make sense. Sometimes what we consider different species can actually be crossed via test tube.

Glee is contemporary fiction, as is Brokeback Mountain for that matter.

Your point being?... I'm just not making the connection between Spock and beastiality.

 

[Tim the turtle]

And what does that have to do with beastiality?

It's sex with a member of another species. I don't know if that counts as full on bestiality in a strict sense, but it's pretty damn close. You have to realise that bestiality simply means sex with animals. A dog, a cat, all bestiality. Would that suddenly change if the dog started talking? Possibly, I don't know. The moral situation certainly should change, but only because then the animal can consent. So I guess what I'm saying is that the only problem morally with bestiality is the fact that the animal cannot consent and know what is going on. Otherwise there is no moral conundrum.

 

[bel9]

It's sex with a member of another species. I don't know if that counts as full on bestiality in a strict sense

It shouldn't. If the genetic material was close enough to create a fertile offspring...

Homo Sapiens neadrathalis and Homo Sapeins sapiens could interbreed. Not to mention there were other many others that could interbreed with Sapiens sapiens.

But I assume a humanoid alien and a Homo Sapiens sapiens would actually be because of convergent evolution which is a little different.

You have to realise that bestiality simply means sex with animals. A dog, a cat, all bestiality. Would that suddenly change if the dog started talking?

Dogs do talk to each other. Other animals have more complex languages than we give them credit for [crows]. I presume you mean if dogs started developing the same emotions, feelings, and intelligence of humans and began talking in one of our languages.

Possibly, I don't know. The moral situation certainly should change, but only because then the animal can consent.So I guess what I'm saying is that the only problem morally with bestiality is the fact that the animal cannot consent and know what is going on. Otherwise there is no moral conundrum.

I dunno, man. I don't think that is the only thing incorrect about bestiality.

 

[Tim the turtle]

It shouldn't. If the genetic material was close enough to create a fertile offspring...

Using the most advanced Vulkan science possible, set hundreds of years into the future. Spock himself describes his conception as 'impossible without the aid of science'. So the genetic material was not close enough.

Dogs do talk to each other. Other animals have more complex languages than we give them credit for [crows]. I presume you mean if dogs started developing the same emotions, feelings, and intelligence of humans and began talking in one of our languages.

I meant talk as an example of a gained level of sentience. But yes, you are right to correct me here.

I dunno, man. I don't think that is the only thing incorrect about bestiality.

What then?

 

[bel9]

Using the most advanced Vulkan science possible, set hundreds of years into the future. Spock himself describes his conception as 'impossible without the aid of science'. So the genetic material was not close enough.

I dunno man. It's not even beastiality if his parents aren't actually doing it.

What then?

And if we're talking about a "magical" gained level of sentience there are still many factors like:

Many animals innate desires to please the head of the pack. Having this strong desire can still have an impact on "consensual" [i.e. they can still be taken advantage of with their newfound sentience]

Wisdom of repugnance [which I would usually think is a pretty shi
tty argument]

Gophers and dogs don't do it. Dogs and cats don't do one another. Why should we go around doing them?

The whole idea just seems pretty selfish and arrogant to me. I feel like we're putting humans on this pedestal that reads "We are better than nature"

 

[Tim the turtle]

I dunno man. It's not even beastiality if his parents aren't actually doing it.

Pretty sure they did do it. But in that case, why care about gay-marriage so long as they don't have sex?

And if we're talking about a "magical" gained level of sentience

Why are you saying magical. This isn't all that improbable. It could easily have happened had a single other species become sentient through evolution, and could potentially happen at some point in the future.

Many animals innate desires to please the head of the pack. Having this strong desire can still have an impact on "consensual" [i.e. they can still be taken advantage of with their newfound sentience]

I think this is a pretty weak argument. Many animals do not do this sort of thing, and even for those that do it is a weak argument because with sentience comes the autonomy and freedom to not have to follow such a desire.

Wisdom of repugnance [which I would usually think is a pretty shi
tty argument]

You think right, it is a terrible argument.

Gophers and dogs don't do it. Dogs and cats don't do one another. Why should we go around doing them?

Appeal to nature. Also demonstrably false, as any vicar will tell you.

The whole idea just seems pretty selfish and arrogant to me. I feel like we're putting humans on this pedestal that reads "We are better than nature"

Hang on, what? I have no idea what you're on about here.

 

[bel9]

Pretty sure they did do it. But in that case, why care about gay-marriage so long as they don't have sex?

I don't care about or am against gay marriage. I just didn't think the science was correct on the Spock/beastiality topic.

Why are you saying magical. This isn't all that improbable. It could easily have happened had a single other species become sentient through evolution, and could potentially happen at some point in the future.

Because I think that would take a long *** time and there is so much more there than simply saying they'd be exactly like humans... or humanoids. Say they did evolve. We're looking at an entirely different social structure, language system, belief system.... I think that only adds more against beastiality.

I think this is a pretty weak argument. Many animals do not do this sort of thing, and even for those that do it is a weak argument because with sentience comes the autonomy and freedom to not have to follow such a desire.

Really? Then we are also assuming that all previous instincts that have been hardwired for thousands of years just magically disappear. I use the term magic because I feel the issue is being oversimplified.

You think right, it is a terrible argument.

For homosexuality, yes. Beastiality, not so much.

Appeal to nature. Also demonstrably false, as any vicar will tell you.

I appealed to nature, now prove how it's wrong in this case. Many different mammals don't go around mounting one another.

Hang on, what? I have no idea what you're on about here.

It goes with the appeal to nature, I guess. I just think we're over simplifying the issue and action and evolution.

 

[Tim the turtle]

Because I think that would take a long *** time and there is so much more there than simply saying they'd be exactly like humans... or humanoids. Say they did evolve. We're looking at an entirely different social structure, language system, belief system.... I think that only adds more against beastiality.

These are all good points but are wasted when discussing a hypothetical scenario.

eally? Then we are also assuming that all previous instincts that have been hardwired for thousands of years just magically disappear.

No, but we don't use them to evaluate our moral choices. Or what, you think that there are no dormant psychological instincts in humans either?

For homosexuality, yes. Beastiality, not so much.

What possible way could you justify such an arbitrary distinction?

I appealed to nature, now prove how it's wrong in this case

An appeal to nature is a fallacy almost by definition. Just because animals do, or do not do something, does not give us any reason to see something as moral or not. Animals do many things that are immoral, and don't do many things that are moral.

It goes with the appeal to nature, I guess. I just think we're over simplifying the issue and action and evolution.

Still having trouble understanding what your overall point is.

 

[bel9]

These are all good points but are wasted when discussing a hypothetical scenario.

I guess I don't see the value in discussing the hypothetical scenario given the dismissal of these points.

No, but we don't use them to evaluate our moral choices. Or what, you think that there are no dormant psychological instincts in humans either?

Oh there are and yes we can look into them to evaluate our moral choices.

What possible way could you justify such an arbitrary distinction?

Goes with my appeal to nature fallacy. Homosexuality is present. That bestiality is not.

An appeal to nature is a fallacy almost by definition. Just because animals do, or do not do something, does not give us any reason to see something as moral or not. Animals do many things that are immoral, and don't do many things that are moral.

I think you're putting us on a pedestal.

Still having trouble understanding what your overall point is.

I'm tired. Maybe I can PM you tomorrow or post it here tomorrow after I'm a bit more collected.

 

[Tim the turtle]

I guess I don't see the value in discussing the hypothetical scenario given the dismissal of these points.

Then why debate any hypothetical?

Oh there are and yes we can look into them to evaluate our moral choices.

Well okay, we can use them to make certain judgements about our moral choices, but we don't use them to evaluate all our moral choices, and it would likely be a terrible thing if we did. Our psychological need to foster children could be used to justify forced marriage and rape as an extreme example. In many moral scenarios we have to actively fight against our inbuilt predispositions.

Goes with my appeal to nature fallacy. Homosexuality is present. That bestiality is not.

Firstly that's wrong and you know it. Secondly, what's that got to do with anything at all? So what if bestiality is not present? That doesn't necessarily make it moral or immoral or anything. You can;t just say that appeal to repulsiveness is a bad argument for one thing but a great argument for another. That's special pleading. Bestiality is gross, sure... unless you happen to ask a furry. What is repulsive is far, far too subjective to be made the arbiter of moral decisions.

I think you're putting us on a pedestal.

What? This doesn't make sense as an argument unless you want to argue that everything that happens in nature is moral and that everything that does not is immoral, then you'll have to describe what is meant by nature... because most things could be classed as 'nature'. And to top it all off, as I've said before, some animals do engage in bestiality anyway.

 

[darkcharizard58]

Are we really still arguing about whether alien sex in Star Trek is bestiality

 

[bel9]

Are we really still arguing about whether alien sex in Star Trek is bestiality

Not really.

Then why debate any hypothetical?

Good point. I don't see any value in it because you make us assume to much in terms of evolution, culture, language, definitions of "love" all slanted in your favor.

Well okay, we can use them to make certain judgements about our moral choices, but we don't use them to evaluate all our moral choices, and it would likely be a terrible thing if we did.

But why should we ignore them on bestiality?

Our psychological need to foster children could be used to justify forced marriage and rape as an extreme example. In many moral scenarios we have to actively fight against our inbuilt predispositions.

That's about all I have to say to that.

Firstly that's wrong and you know it.

Homosexuality and Bestiality are two very separate sexualities. I'd watch what you say.

Secondly, what's that got to do with anything at all? So what if bestiality is not present? That doesn't necessarily make it moral or immoral or anything.

I don't really see it as moral or immoral but I don't condone it. I just don't see it as ever being an issue because the accounts of bestiality that are recorded now also have high rates of sadism :[

Also since a high percentage occur in rural areas there are also probably a lot that go unreported. :[

You can;t just say that appeal to repulsiveness is a bad argument for one thing but a great argument for another. That's special pleading.

They're two separate things.

Bestiality is gross, sure... unless you happen to ask a furry. What is repulsive is far, far too subjective to be made the arbiter of moral decisions.

And yet social sciences heavily rely on the "subjective". Just because something is "subjective" doesn't mean it is worthless.

What? This doesn't make sense as an argument unless you want to argue that everything that happens in nature is moral and that everything that does not is immoral, then you'll have to describe what is meant by nature... because most things could be classed as 'nature'. And to top it all off, as I've said before, some animals do engage in bestiality anyway.

Bestiality is strictly between humans and non-humans. Other animals can't practice it. You're referring to "cross species sex".

Furthermore, the animals that partake in such activity are usually domesticated. For instance, a lion and tiger in a zoo crossed at one point. OR in the case of wild species the cross species interaction is usually by similar animals. i.e. polar-brown bear hybrid. Moose and horse can sometimes engage in species cross sex. The cases of cross sex are not as wide as you claim, nor are they between that different of animals in the first place.

As I stated before early humans engaged in sexual relations with other Homo Sapiens groups [which is what resulted in evolution of new species]

All of these examples are pretty different than your hypothetical scenario of say a new species of humanoid dog [because let's face, at this point they would be considered a new species and not Canis familiaris] crossing with a Homo Sapiens sapiens.