If humans and animals are related, is bestiality wrong?

mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
If humans and animals are related, is bestiality wrong?

Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?


Truth Can Be Controversial (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 It makes sense for him to

 It makes sense for him to purpose this question to atheists. We have a different way of determining immorality. Contending that bestiality is not immoral does not insinuate anything about the mental health of those who engage in it. In that long response of yours you failed to give any reason why bestiality is immoral. 

 


Truth Can Be Controversial (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Bestiality, Animal Rights,

 Bestiality, Animal Rights, and Veganism

Is bestiality wrong? If so, based on what reasoning? Something cannot be wrong just because it is wrong, there must be reasoning behind it. One might say, “It is wrong because it hurts the animals.” But surely there can be sexual interaction between people and animals that animals enjoy. For example: dogs often enjoy humping people (or anything really); if a person allowed dog to hump them, would this not be bestiality? If it is bestiality, yet the dog is enjoying it, doesn’t this mean that not all bestiality is harmful to animals? And thus, bestiality is only wrong when it is harmful to animals? One might argue, bestiality is still wrong even when it is not harmful to animals. However, there must still be reasoning to back up the wrongness of something. One might say, “It is wrong because you are taking advantage of them.” Or, “You are betraying their trust. The animal depends on you, it trusts that will do what’s in its best interest.”  But this argument relies on the premise that bestiality is wrong, which is exactly what it is supposed to be arguing for. It is circular logic. A dog doesn’t have the same dogma we do. It sees nothing wrong with humping anything, and has no shame or hesitation in doing it. It is our own sexual taboo, and if there is no argument against bestiality that is not harmful to animals, then the taboo is baseless and bestiality would thereby not be wrong. One might say, “It is wrong because it exploits the innocence and ignorance of the animals.” One might worry that the animals involved in bestiality are being objectified. Is this necessarily true? If so, is this necessarily wrong?

An issue directly related to this would be the treatment of animals used for food and for scientific testing (especially in America). If one is concerned about the safety and well-being of animals, these would be the first things needing to be examined. If one believed bestiality was wrong because of the betrayal of trust of the animals, or the exploitation of their innocence and ignorance, then one should consider the betrayal of trust and exploitation of trust and innocence involved in killing animals for food. Someone might argue, “No, it is not the same because there is more trust between an owner and a pet, than an owner and a farm-animal.” But what if the owner had a close and trusting relationship with a farm-animal? Would it then be wrong to kill the animal? Following this logic would have you conclude that it is immoral to have a close relationship with a farm animal; however, having a close relationship is with a person is something that many animals enjoy; it would be something that would improve the quality of life of the animal, so doesn’t that make it a positive and moral thing? So that argument about trust does not seem very strong.

Note: I am not here to debate the morality of eating or testing on animals. Most people believe it is morally acceptable to kill animals for food, although it is unnecessary. Most people also believe bestiality is immoral. What I attempted to do here was to show that those two views are inconsistent with each other.

Relevant info about me: Atheist, vegan. I do not find bestiality appealing; I have no desire to engage in it. 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: If humans and

mythrys wrote:
If humans and animals are related, is bestiality wrong?

If the animal orgasms? Then the answer is no.

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
bible black belt

If I recall correctly, when I read a catholic bible (which has some apocryphas) I did not found a constraint on father-daughter intercourse. There is a page completely dedicated to this, maybe it's at the end of old testament, I don't remember.
It's a little different from what is being discussed here, because it's not a more generic man-little girl intercourse, but it's related.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Truth Can Be Controversial

Truth Can Be Controversial wrote:

 It makes sense for him to purpose this question to atheists. We have a different way of determining immorality. Contending that bestiality is not immoral does not insinuate anything about the mental health of those who engage in it. In that long response of yours you failed to give any reason why bestiality is immoral. 

 

You certainly do have a different way of determining morality. As long as you ask Jesus to forgive you after each immoral act you perform, you and the OP can pretty much do whatever you want

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:If I recall

luca wrote:
If I recall correctly, when I read a catholic bible (which has some apocryphas) I did not found a constraint on father-daughter intercourse. There is a page completely dedicated to this, maybe it's at the end of old testament, I don't remember. It's a little different from what is being discussed here, because it's not a more generic man-little girl intercourse, but it's related.

 

Well, Leviticus 18:6rules out all close relations.  Then the rest of the chapter is a list.  Is that what you had in mind?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lot banged his daughters and

Lot banged his daughters and got no punishment...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well yes but he was drunk

Well yes but he was drunk into unconsciousness at the time.  If we are going to nail him on anything it would have to be offering his two virgin daughters for a potential gang rape.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I don't know if it is

I don't know if it is possible to be so drunk as to not notice someone screwing you. Even if you assume that Lot was that drunk, that level of inebriation is not conducive to an erection (let alone conception).

There is a reason why they call it being "dead drunk".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If a potential sex partner

If a potential sex partner is of the opposite sex and is very closely related, it is mainly justifiably considered wrong because of an increased risk of giving birth to a child with a defect from a recessive gene. So close relationship is a negative. It should not be relevant in homosexual sex.

Evolution has arguably given us an inhibition against sex with close relatives because it does not promote diversity, and genetic diversity is an advantage to a species that has not become maximally adapted to a stable environment, or has an opportunity to expand into new environments.

With other than close relatives, relationship is not really an issue as such. We are left with the basic default principle that sex, or any act with another, is wrong if it involves coercion to any degree, ie, the partner should be informed and willing. Extending this principle would pose problems in the case of sex with an animal. How can you be sure the animal is aware of and meaningfully willing to participate in the act?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well yes but he was drunk into unconsciousness at the time.  If we are going to nail him on anything it would have to be offering his two virgin daughters for a potential gang rape.

 

Hey - drunk into unconsciousness and rape / sex /  intercourse usually can not happen.  Been there, done that, been real disappointed.

So the Lot story always was a crock in my book.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:If a

BobSpence1 wrote:

If a potential sex partner is of the opposite sex and is very closely related, it is mainly justifiably considered wrong because of an increased risk of giving birth to a child with a defect from a recessive gene. So close relationship is a negative. It should not be relevant in homosexual sex.

Evolution has arguably given us an inhibition against sex with close relatives because it does not promote diversity, and genetic diversity is an advantage to a species that has not become maximally adapted to a stable environment, or has an opportunity to expand into new environments.

With other than close relatives, relationship is not really an issue as such. We are left with the basic default principle that sex, or any act with another, is wrong if it involves coercion to any degree, ie, the partner should be informed and willing. Extending this principle would pose problems in the case of sex with an animal. How can you be sure the animal is aware of and meaningfully willing to participate in the act?

 

There is also the "ick" factor.  (You haven't met my brother.)  (For that matter, I haven't met your sister.  May not be ick, but any hoo, moving along.....)

 

I agree - sex between consenting adults is never a problem for me.  If everyone is over the legal age of consent, is capable of understanding and responsibly dealing with any consequences, is physically and sexually mature, and they all consent, it is none of my business if they are/are not related or what sex everyone is/is not or how many join the party.

Note - this leaves out all bestiality since animals are incapable of legal consent.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
oh

AiGS wrote:
Well, Leviticus 18:6rules out all close relations. Then the rest of the chapter is a list. Is that what you had in mind?
It should be, yes, but I'm not sure.
cj wrote:
Hey - drunk into unconsciousness and rape / sex / intercourse usually can not happen. Been there, done that, been real disappointed.
Jawdropping!
bob wrote:
How can you be sure the animal is aware of and meaningfully willing to participate in the act?
Hormones?


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

BobSpence1 wrote:
Extending this principle would pose problems in the case of sex with an animal. How can you be sure the animal is aware of and meaningfully willing to participate in the act?

 

I am not even sure if it would be possible to define animal consent, at least in some cases. For example, the artificial breeding industry uses chemicals to force females into accepting the old turkey baster. Spray the stuff in their snout and they will go tail in the air immediately.

 

If some perv got access to that stuff, the animal on some level would be willing but artificially so.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

BobSpence1 wrote:
Extending this principle would pose problems in the case of sex with an animal. How can you be sure the animal is aware of and meaningfully willing to participate in the act?

 

I am not even sure if it would be possible to define animal consent, at least in some cases. For example, the artificial breeding industry uses chemicals to force females into accepting the old turkey baster. Spray the stuff in their snout and they will go tail in the air immediately.

 

If some perv got access to that stuff, the animal on some level would be willing but artificially so.

 

Which reminds me of the "Date rape" drugs used to achieve the same sort of thing in human "partners"...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


GeraldC
GeraldC's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2011-08-03
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: It has

StMichael wrote:
 It has nothing to do with myths. Just from the fact that, if you reject free will, you cannot maintain a moral system. If everything is just a matter of neurons firing, no moral value can be assigned, as everyone just does what their biology does and no action is either bad or good. In this case, this is the pinnacle of immorality, because you deny the possibility for any moral action. Explain, then, how you can have a moral outlook.

 

Honestly, the free will argument has to die. You're idea of free will rests on a flawed dichotomous concept. One can argue for a deterministic reality and human consciousness but that person forgets one thing; that in order for determinism to have any meaning you have to actually produce a way to calculate/predict a conscious being's every move. I'm fairly confident that will never happen even in our deterministic universe. Do you know why? Because the orders of magnitude of computing power you'd need to simulate not just a human mind, but every interaction it has with the world around it and the human minds it interacts with as well and so on... You'd end up needing more energy to run the simulation then what the actual 'real' world contains.

You're concept of free-will vs determinism is essentially similar to The Dichotomy Paradox. You believe that determinism is like dissecting everything into halves of halves of halves etc... to the point of where conscious decisions are no longer a choice and movement is not possible all the while we're all walking right over those entire lengths. It doesn't necessarily prove the opposite (free will) is true either. Only your mode of thinking is outdated. You can roll on into semantics about what's choice in a deterministic world, but what's choice in a world where determinism is only approximately true and not provable on a scale of our consciousness?

The rest of your reasoning about things being contrary to nature is flawed as well. Can you even define what it means to be a human being? I'm sorry but you can't use faith and reason in the same sentence, one is the absence of the other. It's painfully obvious that it's the faith part that offends you and your definition of what's natural has a religious context, The barriers associated with homosexual bigotry are almost always along religious lines. It all boils down to a few lines of text you just can't let go of. As many have pointed out, there are MANY things that are "unnatural" that we utilize every day; an argument from what ought to be natural just doesn't work. Non-culpable actions only exist outside of societies, how is this not obvious?

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Another point about a

Another point about a deterministic scenario is that it precisely the fact that people's behavior is affected by what happens to them, ie being to that extent determined, that makes it worth applying punishment, ie 'negative reinforcement', to modify behavior.

And a secular morality only requires the existence of pain and distress, which clearly and demonstrably involve 'neurons firing', and strategies to minimize such things.

Without ideas such as minimizing suffering, which by definition we find unpleasant, we have no basis for a moral system. Instead just the 'might makes right' scenario of obedience to the wishes of an authority figure, which is itself an immoral system.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


joak
atheist
Posts: 9
Joined: 2011-03-04
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote:Now, I'm not

mythrys wrote:

Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

 

wtf?!?!  youre not serious. are you serious?

 

 

.... is this guy serious?

 

 

"The rules of logic dictate that the burden of proof falls upon the affirmative position: that god DOES exist. Atheists have no obligation to prove or disprove anything."


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
joak wrote:.... is this guy

joak wrote:
.... is this guy serious?

It's what they're taught, that without a god, there are no 'absolute' right or wrongs.

So, ya, the ones who are teaching it, are plenty serious.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in;

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }a:link { }

BobSpence1 wrote:
If a potential sex partner is of the opposite sex and is very closely related, it is mainly justifiably considered wrong because of an increased risk of giving birth to a child with a defect from a recessive gene. So close relationship is a negative. It should not be relevant in homosexual sex.

 

Evolution has arguably given us an inhibition against sex with close relatives because it does not promote diversity, and genetic diversity is an advantage to a species that has not become maximally adapted to a stable environment, or has an opportunity to expand into new environments.

 

OK, I got curious and did some googling on the matter of incest avoidance in animals. Apparently the situation id actually fairly complicated.

 

Apparently, the rate of incest is greatest in isolated populations such as mountain tops or small islands. No big surprise there. I suppose that would account for some of the issues that are found in isolated groups of humans.

 

Also, at least in mammals, most species have some type of mechanism where one sex leaves the family group on maturity.

 

That considered as background, I did find several examples of animal incest where options exist and that can work out.

 

One example is that gorillas will mate with pretty much any available female, close relatives included. As it turns out, that can work for a species as long as there is out of group breeding going on. From what I gather, most of the inbred offspring that have serious genetic issues die before they can pass along those genes. So the individuals that do survive to breeding age are more likely to be genetically robust.

 

Now in humans, the avoidance mechanism seems to be dominated by a psychological factor. Apparently the “community” of adopted people are aware of several examples of siblings who never met as kids who ended up marrying as adults and some of them even have kids. I don't know how healthy those kids are but from what I see, it happens often enough to merit a wikipedia page on the matter.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction

 

Then there is something called the Westermarck effect. Apparently, children who are raised together don't interbreed much at all even though there is no actual relationship. It has been studied in a few places. One of note is the communal living in Israel (kibbutz). The wikipedia link for that goes to a book that one would have to buy but apparently, being raised in the same social group is a large factor in sexual avoidance.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }a:link { }

BobSpence1 wrote:
If a potential sex partner is of the opposite sex and is very closely related, it is mainly justifiably considered wrong because of an increased risk of giving birth to a child with a defect from a recessive gene. So close relationship is a negative. It should not be relevant in homosexual sex.

 

Evolution has arguably given us an inhibition against sex with close relatives because it does not promote diversity, and genetic diversity is an advantage to a species that has not become maximally adapted to a stable environment, or has an opportunity to expand into new environments.

 

OK, I got curious and did some googling on the matter of incest avoidance in animals. Apparently the situation id actually fairly complicated.

 

Apparently, the rate of incest is greatest in isolated populations such as mountain tops or small islands. No big surprise there. I suppose that would account for some of the issues that are found in isolated groups of humans.

 

Any purebred dog - any - has brother/sister, mother/son and father/daughter crosses in their lineage.  When dog breeding was for functionality - herding, hunting, etc - the crosses were deliberate so as to breed two great working dogs together.  Didn't matter to the breeders if they were related or not.  There was some restraint as working ability was of prime importance, and an unsound dog was worthless.  So regular out crossing happened as it didn't take long for the breeders to realize too much "line" breeding led to unsound dogs.

Now, it is to breed two great looking dogs together and the "standard" has drifted from functionality to something else.

http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/44215931

But dogs don't care - if the bitch is in heat, mating will occur.  She'll stand for him, he'll help her out.

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

OK, I made almost a minute into that video cj. But I don't really want to spend an hour looking at animals who are that sick.

 

Even so, in the cat market, there is a significant interest in deliberate outcrossing. To the point that it tells how the concept of a clade is more useful that that of a species.

 

If you cross a domestic cat with an Asian snow leopard, you will get lots of sterile males but the females can breed with other domestic cats. After four or so generations, you will get cats who are domestic enough for most people and they appear to be resistant to many of the diseases that are important to bred lines of domestic cats.

 

Actually, I had one of those for 18 years. Kitty damned near had superpowers. When I came home at the end of the day, he would run to my feet and leap to my shoulder in a single bound. That is not a trivial thing for regular cats.

 

There are other deliberate interspecies crosses as well. I don't know much about them, if for no better reason than the fact that I refuse to pay thousands of bucks for a kitty. However, they are, from what I gather, showing the results of genetic variability as far as their health is concerned.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK, I made almost a minute into that video cj. But I don't really want to spend an hour looking at animals who are that sick.

 

I can't fault you - or anyone else who can't make it through the video.  It is pretty nasty.

 

And when the old man kicks the bucket and all the dogs go to the rainbow bridge, I will own cats again.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey OPIE

Hey OPIE,

I laughed for 5 minutes straight when i read your post. It's hillarious. Um, atheism has no ethics. Since there is no means for the know then this is impossible. I mean, the amatuers on here say there is, but that's why they're called amatures. Professional college professors who are atheists admit this is impossible.

So no, as an atheist you can have sex with a monkey. And pray Our Father to monkeys. You can boink and elephant if you want. Or my would have been mother in law. haha

Look. You can do anything in atheism. You can kill your family and screw a monkey immediately afterwards. Atheistm is extremely evil.

So within atheism, since there are no means of logic and ethics, then you can jack off with Kangeroo jack. What will your kids look like? lol. probably like Sapient.

Oh Come on, that's a joke - kind of.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
guyon

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Hey OPIE,

I laughed for 5 minutes straight when i read your post. It's hillarious. Um, atheism has no ethics. Since there is no means for the know then this is impossible. I mean, the amatuers on here say there is, but that's why they're called amatures. Professional college professors who are atheists admit this is impossible.

So no, as an atheist you can have sex with a monkey. And pray Our Father to monkeys. You can boink and elephant if you want. Or my would have been mother in law. haha

Look. You can do anything in atheism. You can kill your family and screw a monkey immediately afterwards. Atheistm is extremely evil.

So within atheism, since there are no means of logic and ethics, then you can jack off with Kangeroo jack. What will your kids look like? lol. probably like Sapient.

Oh Come on, that's a joke - kind of.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Maybe you forget your christianity is a ripoff, exactly like you accuse others to inspire to the christian ethics. Which is false, because I for example don't follow it and I find it pretty prejudicial and primitive, too.

 

One would think a rational christian of rare intelligence such yours would come with arguments that are not barren polemic.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hey

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey OPIE,

I laughed for 5 minutes straight when i read your post. It's hillarious. Um, atheism has no ethics. Since there is no means for the know then this is impossible. I mean, the amatuers on here say there is, but that's why they're called amatures. Professional college professors who are atheists admit this is impossible.

So no, as an atheist you can have sex with a monkey. And pray Our Father to monkeys. You can boink and elephant if you want. Or my would have been mother in law. haha

Look. You can do anything in atheism. You can kill your family and screw a monkey immediately afterwards. Atheistm is extremely evil.

So within atheism, since there are no means of logic and ethics, then you can jack off with Kangeroo jack. What will your kids look like? lol. probably like Sapient.

Oh Come on, that's a joke - kind of.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You likely wouldn't know a college professor (atheist or otherwise) if he bit you.

You can do more in Christianity. Rape, kill, pillage - doesn't matter. AS long as you remember to ask forgiveness after it's OK. If you believe that God told you to rape, kill and pillage you can even skip that step.

If atheism is evil why are all atheists more moral than God?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Thorne (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
....what?

StMichael wrote:
So personal action is just fine? So, why again can't someone have sex with animals if there is not a reason to consider an animal able to either consent or not to consent? Or, what compromises "personal action?" Can someone cut themself for fun, like a masochist? Or, can someone morally commit suicide? Or, can someone have sex with a dead person?

You truly must be under the influence of some powerful drug, to come up with an argument as incoherent and utterly nonsensical as that. I really do not know any better way to say this than: THAT JUST F***ING DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! You seem to defy all logic, your arguments go off on random tangents, and you draw strange conclusions from completely unrelated statements. I don't even think you understand the meaning of words. Your second sentence just confuses me. Also, you use vocabulary in entirely incorrect context.

"...what compromises 'personal action?'"  What are you even asking?? Because you follow it with another statement that does not at all support whatever deluded point you are trying to make.

But all that idiocy aside, the main point of this rant is to address the overall points (as I perceived them) of your farcical argument. If I'm not mistaken, you just drew a comparison between masturbation and necrophilia. Necrophilia! Having sex with dead people! Someone please, for the love of sanity, please explain to me how they relate in any way?! Nor does it relate to cutting, plenty of people cut themselves, a majority aren't masochists. I'm sure plenty of them are "good Christ loving people" just like yourself...  

StMichael wrote:
I think more needs to be said here, and I don't think you understand the implications of what you're saying. Are things determined merely on the basis of attraction? If someone is attracted to goats, or little children, what makes that action wrong? What determines the normative in an evolutionary model of humanity? Maybe your biological screw is loose when you choose to have sexual relations with women. What determines the normative/moral sexual conduct in a human being? What makes pederasty or beastiality or necrophilia wrong?

 

Please tell me you are joking on that one. Please? BECAUSE I REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND HOW A PERSON CAN BE AS DENSE AND BLIND AS YOU SEEM TO BE! If someone is sexually attracted to goats, then there is certainly a biological screw loose. Goats and humans are two different species, to name the first issue. The second issue is that unless you're some sort of goat expert, and can precisely understand and read goat noises and body language, then every time you have sex with said goat, it is RAPE. Because animals are not capable of consenting to sexual intercourse, it is rape, and it is a crime. Think in terms of another human; If I go and simply have sex with another person without asking them, then obviously, there is something wrong with that. And you ask what makes attraction to little children wrong? I'm not going to dignify that with a response. I'm sure you can figure it out on your own. Lastly, mutual attraction between males and females of any species is biologically normal, for the obvious reason that there is a basic need for reproduction, which, in many animals, cannot occur without both sexes. 

StMichael wrote:
Why is homosexuality normal, however? You claim above, "homosexuality is quite normal for gay people." Why is beastiality any different? Maybe beastiality is quite normal for beastial people. Maybe pederasty is quite normal for pederasts. Why are these last two any different from the above? I see no good reason to draw this divide at all, from an atheists' point of view. I am not denigrating homosexuals; I am asking why you draw the line at gay people? Why not admit zoophiliacs into the realm of entirely acceptable atheistic behaviour?

 Homosexuality is very normal, but entirely different than bestiality and pederasty. I will again stress the fact that animals, and children as well, are not capable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Homosexuality is a feeling of attraction by a person towards another of the same gender. Sex in a homosexual relationship is between two consenting adults. Pederasty involves sex with small boys. If you can't see that there is an issue with that, you need psychological treatment. A child may say yes, thereby "consenting", but being a child he is not matured enough to truly understand the weight of such a situation. To put it simply; no matter what you say, getting fucked by an grown man when you are a child in mentally and potentially physically damaging. It's also illegal. One last overshadowing point, is that our culture has decided that activities such as raping little boys and animals are a disgusting and wrong, and are therefore not tolerated in this society.    Before I end though, I would like to ask you a few questions. Why are you, a theist, arguing with us about OUR point of view? Who are you to tell us what we do or do not believe? You have just proved yourself an know-nothing idiot, with a talent for digging himself into holes. 

 

 


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Throne Dude

lol, rofl this thread is hysterical. Really, comedy big time here.

You really have to tell me though how you did that? With a billion comments or whatever the number was.

Please tell me, it's kind of my birthday.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

institutio@gmail.com

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Anonymous34254325 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
You can't really say all

You can't really say all atheists are more moral than god. It's hard to prove such sweeping generalizations.

 

As an atheist, I cannot personally come up with a logical argument against zoophilia. Provided the animal is not being raped, it is not inherently wrong. There's no way to prove it. I've heard the consent argument before but even that makes no sense. There are 2 problems with the consent argument:

 

1) Most people who make this argument eat meat/wear fur/have pets/etc. As such, they couldn't care less about consent and are simply playing the higher than thou card.

2) Male mating behavior exists in virtually all mammals.

 

The fact that mating behavior has evolved proves that there is a decision making process for an animal when it comes to mating. Therefore, it is theoretically possible for an animal to communicate consent to a human.

I am not trying to prove it's right. I'm just admitting that there is no inherent reason that it's wrong, provided it is not rape.

 

Now you must answer to me why, as a christian, you don't think stoning your rebellious son is wrong. It's in the bible, after all. You have to prove that it's not wrong, just like I had to admit that bestiality is not inherently wrong.


Anonymous3422 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Thorne wrote:Homosexuality

Thorne wrote:

Homosexuality is very normal, but entirely different than bestiality and pederasty. I will again stress the fact that animals, and children as well, are not capable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Homosexuality is a feeling of attraction by a person towards another of the same gender. Sex in a homosexual relationship is between two consenting adults. Pederasty involves sex with small boys. If you can't see that there is an issue with that, you need psychological treatment. A child may say yes, thereby "consenting", but being a child he is not matured enough to truly understand the weight of such a situation. To put it simply; no matter what you say, getting fucked by an grown man when you are a child in mentally and potentially physically damaging. It's also illegal. One last overshadowing point, is that our culture has decided that activities such as raping little boys and animals are a disgusting and wrong, and are therefore not tolerated in this society.  

 

How are animals not capable of consenting? They have sex all the time. Children cannot consent because they do not have sex under normal conditions. Animals do. The consent argument doesn't make sense when applied here.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 789
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote:Now, I'm not

mythrys wrote:

Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 789
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote:Now, I'm not

mythrys wrote:

Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 789
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't know how this happened but

Old Seer wrote:

mythrys wrote:

Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

I had no intent of making a post.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:If a

BobSpence wrote:

If a potential sex partner is of the opposite sex and is very closely related, it is mainly justifiably considered wrong because of an increased risk of giving birth to a child with a defect from a recessive gene. So close relationship is a negative. It should not be relevant in homosexual sex.

Evolution has arguably given us an inhibition against sex with close relatives because it does not promote diversity, and genetic diversity is an advantage to a species that has not become maximally adapted to a stable environment, or has an opportunity to expand into new environments.

With other than close relatives, relationship is not really an issue as such. We are left with the basic default principle that sex, or any act with another, is wrong if it involves coercion to any degree, ie, the partner should be informed and willing. Extending this principle would pose problems in the case of sex with an animal. How can you be sure the animal is aware of and meaningfully willing to participate in the act?
 

I've seen movies were dogs seem to be very willing to participate.

Short answer no, it is not wrong, but BobSpence is right, willingness is difficult to ascertain.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Bestiality

Let me begin by saying I've never had a fucking poodle ask my consent before it humped my leg....

Moral issues. 

Does the act harm the animal:

Yes: Then the act is immoral because it causes unnecessary harm.
No: The act is not immoral.

Moral issues aside, I'd have to say that urges toward bestiality fit the definition of a paraphillia, a mental health issue.

Now, that being said, someone tried to draw a dishonest parallel between bestiality and homosexuality as well as masturbation.

Does Masturbation cause unnecessary harm?
No, unless you are chaffing, thus it can not be immoral.

Does Consensual Homosexuality cause unnecessary harm.
No: Thus it can not be immoral.

 

And before I close, let me define "unnecessary harm". When an act causes harm tangent to the 'good' it does. It is then a question weighing the harm against the good. In the case of bestiality, "harm" would be defined as physical pain. With homosexuality, the 'harm' of offending a bigoted segment of the general population is outweighed by the personal need for sexual gratification and more importantly, the emotional need for closeness with another human being.

 

I'm inspired to change my usual 'sig' for this...
"Saying you don't believe in magic but you do believe in god is like saying you don't have sex with animals, just dogs..."
 

What do ya think?

LC >;-}>

 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3641
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 

 

           I believe sex between animals and humans is acceptable as long as both partners are in a committed relationship with each other.  But sex just for the sake of sex is just, well ....vulgar.  

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.