But then I’ll never have sex with anyone 
Well, I guess it’s hollowed out grapefruits for you then. 
Sure, but are there some things that are simply wrong from an a priori standpoint? I could just as soon say that murder was only wrong because of the “ick” factor.
You all remember a while back when we had a pedophile on the boards who tried to rationalize sex with children, as it may be pleasant for the child sometimes. Might not this be considered a similar activity–something that produces bad circumstances in such a number of cases that it should be considered wrong without atomizing every single instance?
Not an answer at all, just a rephrasing.
An odd aside to share.
When I was pretty young, a friend of mine and I were talking about going to visit a small southern town. This was in the presence of a middle to upper middle aged other friend. He immediately announced “I knew a guy from XYZ. He fucked a chicken once. XYZ is full of chicken fuckers!”.
Thats ALL it took. Now, even decades later, EVERY DAMN time I hear of that town I think “oh yeah, chicken fucker town”. I know its wrong. I don’t WANT to automatically think that. But, there it is, just lurking in there 24/7 just waiting for its chance to emerge yet once again…
How…No, I don’t want to know.
Never mind.
On the consent question:
What if you had one of those gorillas who knows sign language like Koko and you asked, “So, you wanna have sex?” and she signed back her consent. Would it then be acceptable (albeit icky)?
What if Koko was the one to initiate the conversation - how would you feel about that?
Murder deprives another human being of her/his life, and society of one of its members. There’s plenty more than “ick” involved.
But again, there we have arrived at the conclusion not just from the ancestral behavioral trait (you mate with your likes of mating age), but also from the evidence of harm and from the realization that
thus, regardless of outlier cases, having child molestation be regarded as criminal in the legal sphere and evil in the social-moral sphere is a sensible, rational conclusion. Not just “ick”.
Lemme restate **Der’**s position as I understood it: The human’s capacity for moral consent is not diminished or impaired in the animal, it is **absent **from the animal to begin with, and it is not a criterion for our other animal-welfare-related mores, so using it as a criterion for declaring bestiality immoral is meaningless.(*) (To which my elaboration is that a human whose capacity for consent is incomplete or impaired, can be being violated even if under the impression s/he’s receiving welcomed pleasure; the animal can never do more than merely react to stimuli.)
[(*) BUT, it is NOT meaningless in opposing a *marriage *with an animal, because the absence of the capacity for moral consent renders one party incapable of entering a contract.]
OTOH nothing prevents having the conduct be seen as cruelty in the face of evidence, nor it receiving societal opprobrium as deviant, abnormal behavior (“ick”).
This may or may not be a hijack, I’ll leave it for you to decide. Every time I watch the movie Planet of the Apes, I feel that Charlton Heston’s character hooking up with a human woman from the planet of the apes is somehow vaguely wrong. Even though they are both the same species, and the woman seems to like Heston’s character as much as she’s capable of, I feel that it’s pretty close to bestiality. In fact, I’d say it’s different from him dating a mentally retarded woman (which, if he has sex with her, could lead to rape charges if it is ruled she could not legally consent to sex): I really feel like he’s dating an animal. I think I’d find it less wrong if he was dating one of the chimpanzee women.
Does this make sense to anyone?
That’s hardly a useful argument, since some other religion could just as easily say “he who does not couple with a goat while at noon prayer is an abomination.”
Yes. Person/not a person is a more important division than human/nonhuman.
I think that’s it. I cannot see Heston’s woman as a person, even though she’s the same species as him. OTOH the apes are persons.
Yes. It’s wrong. Always. And while there’s of course an underlying “ick” factor, that’s not the real reason it should be illegal and morally unjustifyable.
It’s wrong in the same way that sex with a 12 year old is wrong. It does not matter if the 12 year old consents. It does not matter if the 12 year old enjoys it. It does not matter if the 12 year old initiates it. It is statutory rape which is a bright line rule that says no sex, ever, for whatever possible reason you can imagine or hypothesize, with a 12 year old. There is automatically such a huge authoritative and mental divide between the two actors that there simply cannot be meaningful consent no matter what.
That exact same justification can be made as to why beastiality is always wrong. Why animals cannot consent and why it is irrelevant as to whether they enjoy it or initiate it. It’s illegal.
So the OP posits, what about eating them? Isn’t that more wrong than sex?
Well no. Aside from the fact that we’re omnivores at our core and need meat, there’s the entire issue of how we kill animals. Animal cruelty is bad. Cutting off slices of a cow to throw on the grill just for shits and giggles is wrong. Proper killing should be instantaneous and as painless as possible. There’s a right and wrong way to kill an animal. There’s no right way to sex a donkey up.
Again, that line of reasoning leads to absurdities. Should we arrest dogs for having sex with each other? Neither can consent, after all. Moral rules that apply to humans do not necessarily apply to nonhumans. “No sex with twelve year olds” works because all the twelve year olds in question are human twelve year olds, with a shared human nature.
But every major world religion agrees on this point. Even the little ones too.
No, IIRC some religions have advocated bestiality (I recall reading of one where girls traditionally ritually lost their virginity to a goat, but the name escapes me). Besides which, any would-be bestialist could make up a religion that advocated bestiality, and that religion would be just as valid as any other.
This is a poor argument because as societies change, the laws governing conduct changes with them. Not terribly long ago, 13 and 14 year old young men and women were expected to marry and begin families. Today we’ve swung farther in the opposite direction due to longer lifespans and infantilization of teen and young adult children. We allow them more time to “grow up” because they have more time. The law is not some objective writ from on high that is it’s own moral compass. it is a line we drew because we have decided that we cannot argue the merits of each case individually.
(1) Really? Weird?
(2) It isn’t a real religion if someone doesn’t actually believe it to be true.
And if they do think it’s true? People have believed weirder things.
I asked that question on my first or second day here.
And I thought I had a uniquely twisted mind.