What other forms of relationships should be allowed?

[meteor64]

Bestiality as in sexual attraction to animals, while weird, has nothing majorly wrong with it, providing said animal is horny, I guess.
Bestiality as in marrying your guinea pig? Somewhere, the definition of love got screwed up. Its a two way thing, love is. You can't expect your pet to care for you in the same way you care for people. Sure, dogs save lives and stuff, but that doesn't mean they romantically love you, they're just protecting alpha.

My two pennies on this.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Bestiality as in sexual attraction to animals, while weird, has nothing majorly wrong with it, providing said animal is horny, I guess.

Not to mention animals don't really observe rape laws themselves and are rarely monogamous.

It's really up to the human, their nation and their god because they're the only one in the relationship with the concepts of law, romance, and fidelity. That's probably the reason beastiality is seen as unsettling.

 

[meteor64]

Not to mention animals don't really observe rape laws themselves and are rarely monogamous.

It's really up to the human, their nation and their god because they're the only one in the relationship with the concepts of law, romance, and fidelity. That's probably the reason beastiality is seen as unsettling.

Like I said- until you start having actual romantic notions for the animal, and you're not abusing it, I guess theres nothing wrong. Its just an odd taste. A VERY odd taste.

 

[Tim the turtle]

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.

How else do you want a hypothetical argument to work? Besides which, are you really arguing that sexual relationships cannot result from different languages and cultures?

But why should we ignore them on bestiality?

Why should we pay them any attention what so ever?

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

I never said they weren't. I simply said that it was flat out wrong to state that one is extant whilst the other isn't.

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

Maybe it isn't an 'issue' per se, but in case you haven't noticed it happens to conform pretty well to the topic being discussed in this thread. Where else ought this be discussed?

They're two separate things.

Yes, yes they are. Now justify why those differences ought to make any difference in working out whether or not an appeal to repulsiveness is a good argument. Because frankly I can't think of a single incident where appeal to repulsiveness might be a good argument to build a moral law.

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

Are you actually reading what I'm saying any more? You cannot create a moral law out of subjective feelings. A moral law is objective by definition, so no, subjective feelings most certainly are not worthless, but they tend to be in the context of morality unless you want to argue relativism. You're welcome to do that, but I clearly stated that I was talking about the formulation of a moral law.

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

True, even if it is horrendously pedantic and unnecessary. Bestiality is only a linguistic clarification of a certain type of cross-species sex, you have to actually justify a practical, moral difference. Also, as to your suggestion that animals can't actually practice it... that's not entirely true. There are reports of dolphins attempting to rape human beings. Thus animals in nature have actively sought to engage in bestiality.

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.

They don't have to be common, and they don't have to be between vastly different animals in order to nullify your point that since it doesn't happen in nature (when it does) then it cannot be considered good. Even if it didn't happen in nature it would make no difference, you would still be making a ridiculous argument.

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

Not sure what point you're even making now.

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.

Really? No ****. But they wouldn't be Homo Sapiens and thus it would be bestiality. Again, you're not really making much of a point here.

 

[bel9]

How else do you want a hypothetical argument to work?

I dunno, man. One that takes into account all the different aspects of what you're proposing not just: dog humanoid is a fully functional sentient being that fits perfectly into [insert culture here]'s society/culture without any trouble.

Besides which, are you really arguing that sexual relationships cannot result from different languages and cultures?

No, you misunderstand. I'm just saying your hypothetical point relies on too much "magic" [and I'm using magic because that is what is- magic]. You make some pretty big assumptions that if another humanoid species evolved there would be absolutely no barriers between ourselves and them and we could all prance along happily to our orgy of happiness and peacefulness

Futhermore, sexual relationships can result from different languages and cultures which I'm fine with. However, have you ever heard of culture shock? You can't magically expect someone to conform to another culture overnight. I obviously I don't think it should be illegal but it is rather risky for you, the spouse, and any possible children.

Why should we pay them any attention what so ever?

Because they're what keep us alive. Just because something is old doesn't mean it is irrelevant.

I never said they weren't. I simply said that it was flat out wrong to state that one is extant whilst the other isn't.

And the bestiality that currently is present is tied to zoosadism :[

Maybe it isn't an 'issue' per se, but in case you haven't noticed it happens to conform pretty well to the topic being discussed in this thread. Where else ought this be discussed?

I never said it didn't conform. Although now that you've brought that up, I would go ahead and say that this topic wasn't really made for "hypothetical scifi bestiality/zoophilia scenario"

Yes, yes they are. Now justify why those differences ought to make any difference in working out whether or not an appeal to repulsiveness is a good argument. Because frankly I can't think of a single incident where appeal to repulsiveness might be a good argument to build a moral law.

Build a moral law Or build a law? Please specify.

Are you actually reading what I'm saying any more? You cannot create a moral law out of subjective feelings. A moral law is objective by definition, so no, subjective feelings most certainly are not worthless, but they tend to be in the context of morality unless you want to argue relativism. You're welcome to do that, but I clearly stated that I was talking about the formulation of a moral law.

Before we move on specify if we are talking about the simple sexual act of bestiality or zoophilia?

Because that is going to change how I respond to a lot of your posts.

True, even if it is horrendously pedantic and unnecessary. Bestiality is only a linguistic clarification of a certain type of cross-species sex, you have to actually justify a practical, moral difference. Also, as to your suggestion that animals can't actually practice it... that's not entirely true. There are reports of dolphins attempting to rape human beings.

Thus animals in nature have actively sought to engage in bestiality.

Thank you for your horrendously pedantic and unnecessary add on to that.

U C WUT I DID THUR?

I don't think they were actively seeking to engage in bestiality the way a human zoophile would. They were just actively seeking to engage in sex.

They don't have to be common, and they don't have to be between vastly different animals in order to nullify your point that since it doesn't happen in nature (when it does) then it cannot be considered good. Even if it didn't happen in nature it would make no difference, you would still be making a ridiculous argument.

I'm not the one defending bestiality...

Really? No ****. But they wouldn't be Homo Sapiens and thus it would be bestiality. Again, you're not really making much of a point here.

No, they'd be Homo Sapiens Neandrathalis or some other sub species. Most people/scientists/researchers don't consider that bestiality at all.

Also, I would like to ask since we are talking about bestiality [only the act of sexual intercourse with an animal] are we also talking about zoophilia? Again, it will change how I respond.

 

[darkcharizard58]

This is kind of off topic, but this one guy like having intercourse with horses and filming it, and he eventually died because during intercourse the horses penis completely destroyed his internal organs.

 

[bel9]

This is kind of off topic, but this one guy like having intercourse with horses and filming it, and he eventually died because during intercourse the horses penis completely destroyed his internal organs.

I was saving this for later but since you brought it out: the pieces don't always fit.

 

[darkcharizard58]

I was saving this for later but since you brought it out: the pieces don't always fit.

Haha thats for sure

 

[Tim the turtle]

I dunno, man. One that takes into account all the different aspects of what you're proposing not just: dog humanoid is a fully functional sentient being that fits perfectly into [insert culture here]'s society/culture without any trouble.

No one said had to be perfect. It's a simple hypothetical. If a species other than humans gained sentience, would it be moral to engage in a sexual relationship? You're the one bringing all this additional baggage into the debate when it simply isn't necessary. If you don't know how to work around a hypothetical situation then I can't help you :/

No, you misunderstand. I'm just saying your hypothetical point relies on too much "magic" [and I'm using magic because that is what is- magic]. You make some pretty big assumptions that if another humanoid species evolved there would be absolutely no barriers between ourselves and them and we could all prance along happily to our orgy of happiness and peacefulness

My hypothetical point makes assumptions? Oh ****! And here I thought that was the point. None of this even has to be possible ever, that's the point of a hypothetical scenario.

Futhermore, sexual relationships can result from different languages and cultures which I'm fine with. However, have you ever heard of culture shock? You can't magically expect someone to conform to another culture overnight. I obviously I don't think it should be illegal but it is rather risky for you, the spouse, and any possible children.

So what? That doesn't and shouldn't change any moral considerations.

Because they're what keep us alive. Just because something is old doesn't mean it is irrelevant.

I fail to see how they are keeping us alive in this particular scenario.

And the bestiality that currently is present is tied to zoosadism :[

True. That's why I had to bring in the aforementioned hypothetical. Bestiality as it exists today is immoral because it is zoosadism. That's my entire point, that if you got rid of that and changed it into a mutually agreed upon relationship then there would be nothing wrong. You're the one who suggested otherwise, then when asked to reasons why you pretty much begged the question by suggesting that the only possible form of bestiality is zoosadism because of culture shock or repugnance or some other nonsense.

I never said it didn't conform. Although now that you've brought that up, I would go ahead and say that this topic wasn't really made for "hypothetical scifi bestiality/zoophilia scenario"

The topic started off discussing necrophilia... not really many places you can go after an opening like that.

Build a moral law Or build a law? Please specify.

I'm pretty sure I did specify, you know, but using the phrase moral law repeatedly in my previous posts.

Before we move on specify if we are talking about the simple sexual act of bestiality or zoophilia?

Because that is going to change how I respond to a lot of your posts.

To be honest I'm not sure how you're defining these as different. We're clearly walking into a landmine of semantics which you're willing to exploit, so why not give me the ways in which you would differentiate the two.

Thank you for your horrendously pedantic and unnecessary add on to that.

Stating the conclusion to the premises is not pedantry, but if you insist.

I don't think they were actively seeking to engage in bestiality the way a human zoophile would. They were just actively seeking to engage in sex.[/QUOTE Clearly I was being facetious.

I'm not the one defending bestiality...

So?

No, they'd be Homo Sapiens Neandrathalis or some other sub species. Most people/scientists/researchers don't consider that bestiality at all.

Okay this one was my fault. I meant that the humanoid dog species would not be anywhere near homo sapiens so saying that they are no longer Canis Familiaris makes no difference, obviously they wouldn't be, the question is whether or not it would still be immoral with a different, but sentient species.

Also, I would like to ask since we are talking about bestiality [only the act of sexual intercourse with an animal] are we also talking about zoophilia? Again, it will change how I respond.

Again, you already conflated these two terms yourself in the exact same post in which you asked this, so I'm not even sure how you're using the terms. Give me some definitions for what you're working on and we'll talk.

 

[Malanu]

No one said had to be perfect. It's a simple hypothetical. If a species other than humans gained sentience, would it be moral to engage in a sexual relationship? You're the one bringing all this additional baggage into the debate when it simply isn't necessary. If you don't know how to work around a hypothetical situation then I can't help you :/

DOes said relationship stem from a mutual feeling of affection between the respective lovers?Or is one rutting the other out of a feeling of superiority?

It was argued earlier, about a different form of relationship, and though I didn't agree with the relationship in question, It is very difficult to tell 2 people 'in love' they cannot be together. This form of relationship, however, does fit my "outside the immediate gene pool" requirement.

 

[jigsawtimes]

If a species other than humans gained sentience, then there would be SO much racism; the problem is there would probably be an actual rift in intelligence one way or another, so it would be even harder to drop your prejudices.
...or not. weren't the neanderthals a different species? and didn't they just merge with homo sapiens?