What are your opinions on (objections to, most likely) zoophilia?

I believe that the majority of objections to it simply don't meet the mark. Objections that such behavior is "unnatural" does not take into account that homosexual acts are also biologically unnatural, because they are not naturally procreative. And, at any rate, masturbation and protected sexual intercourse are not procreative sexual acts either. What is the objection to those? I agree that cruel forms of sexual interactions with nonhuman animals should be prohibited, but I do not see any logical reason for prohibiting noncruel forms of sexual interaction between humans and other animals.

__________________
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
-Peter Kropotkin

Ok now thats just sick and twisted on so many levels..but again thats just my opinion

__________________
You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
-Malcolm X-

Change is in the results, not the people doing the work. A team of engineers can do brilliant things under the right leader, or crash and burn with code that won't even compile under the wrong leader.
-Unknown-

__________________
The woman in my avatar is Cristina Scabbia and the woman in my profile picture is Tarja Turunen
Sun flames and moons glow, timeless the tides will flow, what will I face, what will be mine, fortune and fate the other side...

Public thanks to Catzmeow for enabling me to make my goal of half a million credits by Xmas.

When animals have sex with each other, are they raping each other, since neither participant offers "informed consent?"

__________________
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
-Peter Kropotkin

__________________
The woman in my avatar is Cristina Scabbia and the woman in my profile picture is Tarja Turunen
Sun flames and moons glow, timeless the tides will flow, what will I face, what will be mine, fortune and fate the other side...

Public thanks to Catzmeow for enabling me to make my goal of half a million credits by Xmas.

Why are we even acknowledging this thread. Sick (*)(*)(*)(*)!

__________________
Be thou faithful unto Death
And I will give thee a crown of Life

"The problem with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, it's just they know so much that isn't so"
- Ronald Reagan

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger, is prepared for a Master and deserves one"
- Alexander Hamilton

Oh cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.

Could you elaborate on that?

Moreover, the idea of informed consent being required for any and all forms of sexual activity is defended by the large majority of the population, but its true merits are rarely debated objectively. Sexual relationships that are not perceived to include informed consent are widely regarded as inherently deviant. Several years ago, Peter Singer, the controversial Princeton bioethicist, wrote a review of Dearest Pet, a book by Midas Dekkers. In the essay, Singer argued that human-animal sexual relations ought not to be prohibited if the animal is not harmed. He correctly points out that taboos have existed in the past against other non-procreative sexual behaviors such as homosexuality, masturbation and oral sex., and he argues that as those taboos fell, so should this one.

I fully agree with Singer on this issue. In part because of the speciesism that he pointed out, and in part because of the demonizing of sexual expression that religious conservatives are largely responsible for, any sort of sexual contact between humans and animals is immediately condemned without any further considerations. In the vast majority of “rebuttals” to Singer’s essay, no logical arguments were presented in opposition to his own. In Slate magazine, William Saletan did attempt to issue a logical argument in objection to Singer’s essay, but I believe he failed also.

Saletan’s objection to Singer’s conclusions rests on the fact that the animal does not offer “consent” to sexual activity, because an animal is at a lower level of mental functioning, and is unable to offer informed consent to sexual activity. But informed consent should not be a relevant factor in this scenario. It is certainly not a relevant factor when animals engage in sexual activity with each other. But Saletan’s objection would undoubtedly be that humans are supposed to treat lower animals in a more humane way than they treat each other. But it would be more prudent for him to adopt this as the primary factor in deciding the ethical rightness of human-animal sexual activity than to rely on the standard of “informed consent.” Does he believe that dogs offer informed consent when a leash is placed around their necks and they are dragged about on a “walk,” with their human masters deciding when and where they go? Wouldn’t that be kidnapping? Does he believe that they offer informed consent when they are kept inside the house when they want to go out? Wouldn’t that be false imprisonment? If Saletan cannot come to these conclusions, then it would be logically fallacious for him to come to the conclusion that sexual activity with an animal is “rape” of the animal.*

The fact of the matter is that any moral objections to human-animal sexual interactions should exist only if the interactions are cruel or inhumane. If mutually gratifying activities are occurring between humans and animals, then these activities are not biologically natural or procreative, (as is the case with homosexuality) but they ought not to be prohibited. Informed consent should not factor into this issue because informed consent is not a standard used to judge the morality of other human-animal interactions, and is only used in this case because of the demonizing of sexual expression.

*In fairness to Saletan, I doubt that he considers sexual interactions with an animal to rise to the level of rape of a human. But then again, having read an article he wrote about age of consent violations, when he acknowledged that they might be biologically natural, but are still morally wrong, his definition of rape leaves much to be desired.

__________________
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
-Peter Kropotkin

United States 1835: Who are these idiots who think (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s should be freed? Sick (*)(*)(*)(*)!

__________________
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
-Peter Kropotkin

It could develop into an interesting discussion.

Isn't it logical to assume that an animal, a dog, for instance, cannot consent to sex with a human being? How does the dog let the human know it is interested in sex?

How does the human determine whether the animal is harmed or not? The animal has no way of telling you it is hurting.

__________________
The woman in my avatar is Cristina Scabbia and the woman in my profile picture is Tarja Turunen
Sun flames and moons glow, timeless the tides will flow, what will I face, what will be mine, fortune and fate the other side...

Public thanks to Catzmeow for enabling me to make my goal of half a million credits by Xmas.

When the dog starts humping the human's leg, I think it's safe for us to make a certain conclusion.

If you kick a dog, it will yelp. If you forcefully penetrate a dog, I presume it will do the same thing.

And what is your response to my above arguments about informed consent not being considered a necessary staple of other human/animal interactions?

__________________
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.
-Peter Kropotkin