Three Reasons Society Shouldn't Rush to Condemn Bestiality
Several critics of gay rights over the past decade—from Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and Colorado lieutenant-governor candidate Janet Rowland to baseball-player-turned-conservative-activist John Smoltz have drawn widespread condemnation for comparing homosexuality to zoophilia and for arguing that according legal protections to same-sex relationships will open the door to legalized bestiality.
While decent people everywhere were correct to criticize this flawed and highly inflammatory analogy, few—if any—critics of the comparison dared to challenge its underlying premise: that sex between human beings and animals should be illegal under all circumstances. In fact, despite the concerns of opponents like Notre Dame philosophy professor Ralph McInerny that the decriminalization of bestiality was “an idea whose hour will surely come, and soon,” the reality is that the past few years have witnessed a dramatic increase in anti-bestiality statutes.
Illinois and Missouri both recriminalized bestiality in 2002. Washington State made human-animal sex a Class C Felony in 2006, punishable by up to five years in prison. Even socially-permissive Holland—renowned for its progressive policies on marijuana and prostitution—banned such acts in 2008. Unfortunately, the legislative debate over these bans has lacked even the pretense of serious reflection or intellectual rigor. Instead, most lawmakers have relied upon widespread public repugnance to justify legal action.
As a co-sponsor of the Washington State law, State Senator Bob McCaslin, observed: “How could you be for (bestiality)? My God!” Such an approach differs greatly from the way our society addresses most legal prohibitions, where we place the burden upon those supporting such restrictions to prove that laws are necessary.
Three justifications have been advanced for recently-enacted bans on bestiality. The first of these reflects the concern of animal rights advocates, such as members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, that bestiality is synonymous with animal abuse. Animals cannot consent in a meaningful way to sexual contact, they argue, so human-animal sex is akin to rape.
The problem with this reasoning is that animals cannot consent—under the legal definition of that term—to anything. We do not describe owning a pet dog as kidnapping, even when the canine is restricted to the inside of a home, although confining a human being in the same manner would clearly be unethical. What might make more reasonable sense is to speak of animal welfare. Certainly, to the degree that animals experience pain, an argument can be made for preventing such suffering. (Although I suspect that the vast majority of lawmakers who voted for anti-bestiality statutes do not eschew hamburgers, leather-goods or even fur—not to mention cleansers and cosmetics safety-tested on the eyes of lab rabbits.) But while (without becoming graphic) some such human-animal interactions are likely painful, others may well be neutral or even pleasurable for the animals concerned. As the father of the modern animal rights movement, Princeton-based philosopher Peter Singer, points out, “Sex with animals does not always involve cruelty.'" The trial of the British man accused of masturbating “Freddie the Dolphin” in 1991 offers one case where lengthy court testimony did not suggest suffering on the part of the animal. Of course, to the degree that such interactions do cause suffering, and such suffering can be proven, generic animal cruelty statues should provide ample means for redress.
A second set of objections to bestiality relates to the safety of the humans who engage in such acts. Washington State’s law was inspired, in part, by the tragedy of Kenneth Pinyan, a zoophile who was fatally injured while having sex with an Arabian stallion. However, opponents of bestiality have never offered evidence that such accidents are common enough to justify legislative action. Moreover, the uncomplimentary language these prohibitionists used to describe Pinyan at the time of his death suggests that his welfare was not their primary concern.
The final argument for prohibition—and likely the one that explains its strong public support—is that crossing the species barrier has been a sexual taboo in this country, at least publically, for many years. Opponents of bestiality often describe themselves as advocates of “human exceptionalism” and express the belief that intercourse with animals debases the dignity of human beings by blurring the lines between people and animals.? (They fail to explain why sex is unique in this manner—why playing Frisbee with a dog, or eating a corned beef sandwich, does not also blur such boundaries). Of course, nobody is suggesting that these critics be forced to sleep with animals, anymore than we would force vegetarians to eat lamb. However, the burden should be placed upon the prohibitionists to explain why a small minority of individuals with non-mainstream sexual interests pose a threat to our overall societal welfare.??
I leave open the question of how many zoophiles actually live in the United States: The research of sexologists such as Kinsey, as well as a brief survey of the Internet, suggest a considerable number. Needless to say, public animosity—and criminal statutes—likely keep them in the shadows.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote eighty-one years ago in Olmstead v. United States that “the right most valued by civilized men” is “the right to be let alone.” Yet it is easy to let men alone when they do things our way. The test of a truly enlightened civilization is one that lets people alone, to pursue their own predilections, even when the majority of us prefer to live our lives very differently from theirs.
To read Wesley J. Smith's response to this piece, click here
POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
We have sex because it is our nature too, and the dogs don’t have the sexual hang-ups humans do ether, Lieth in the KJV means telling a lie in old English look it up, all kinds of other old English words ending in, eth. Humans have instinct too the fight or flight response. Please just stop the battle, and make zoo legal , and make it easy on all of us. Jesus would not be doing what the hateful trolls are doing that is for sure. Whoever does not do the things of Christ is anti Christ. Christ is ant condemning. Free choise like which fruit I pick from whatever tree.
How many times do I have to tell humans we are animals on many levels?
Animal rights you nave to be kidding, butcher the dogs sexual organs or kill them in death camps with beautiful music is worse than Hitler’s death camps, and you cry animals rights!!!!!!!?
A dog is asking for sex and whoever is naked, and vulnerable. Take a look at a police dog trainer, and you will get the picture of the potential damage a dog can do to whomever. The zoo should be admired to be able to do what they do. The zoo knows the unspoken language of the dog. Consenting is not running away or tearing whoever to bits. The power of a dog or any non human animal is greatly underestimated. There is risk in everything too. A person can die doing literally anything. Stop the persecution. Anyone with a heart understands the non human animal. On top of that the once against the zoo is also against the gay , and furry of the furry fandom. Yiff is just sex between to human animals. The word lieth is an English word that means not to lie, Many words in old English that end in eth. The same demonic anti Christ humans are the once condemning the zoo gay furry and a not so well known Third Gender. A lot of them are in India. Condemnation should end. I know all of the lies being spoken on this planet regarding health care too. I can be a great asset pointing them out to whomever as I see them. And get human in better health as well. If Freddy the dolphin did not want to be masturbated he would not have been masturbated. We are being anal about sex.
Concerning Kenneth Pinyan, humans die doing all kinds of things, being literally anal about sex. sex is not man made, and does not pollute.
Dignity my ass, If a dog what ever non human animal wants to have sex will not not go away. A female dog can initiate the sex and or and flag her tail or when sexually stimulated flag her tail as well. let the sex begin anywhere they want it to begin sex. Sex is all around us, and we are blind to it.
More zoos than you think. Many are terrified to practice zoo and as a consequence don’t do it. Christ would not want us to be walking around in heaven afraid of having, and or giving pleasure. We should not start on this planet. The zoo, gay, and furry are the meek unassuming Christians , and that is why they are being assaulted just like Jesus was assaulted when he was on earth. Let us stop the persecution of what is essentially to Jesus because they portray the fruits of my loving savor, Galatians 5:22: 23.and are peacemakers, and forgiving. Let us heal the heart of the once I mentioned, and love those that love, and are good to their neighbor.The zoo, furry gay, furries believe in doing unto others what they want to be done unto them. Do therefore to them good too them. Be good to each other on this planet, and we will be good to each other in heaven too.
A slight edit
The loving understanding love of God is in you. One thing humans deny is that they are animals- mammals. Humans are an animal that wears clothing,and ether loves whoever or they hate whoever being warmongers wanting to put whoever down in an attempt to make themselves feel big. To do that is an illusion yet a lot of humans fool themselves thinking such an illusion is real. Such humans are the immoral ones doing what Jesus would not do to anyone. Jesus lifts humans up, and does not push humans down.
The loving understanding love of God is in you. One thing humans deny is that they are animals- mammals. Humans are an animal that wears clothing,and ether loves whoever or they hates whoever being warmongers wanting to put whoever down in an attempt to make themselves feel big. To do that is an illusion yet a lot of humans fool themselves thinking such an illusion is real. Such humans are the immoral ones doing what Jesus would not do to anyone. Jesus lifts humans up, and does not push humans down.
On that note, I'd like to pull out a few significant facts across the emergence of these new arguments, both 'for' and 'against' this 'sexuality' in question.
Over ' homosexuality '...
Is it not so that 'homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality' occurs between and within species?
If so, isn't it invalid for the homosexual community to class 'zoosexuality' irrelative to 'homosexuality'.
That principle may apply to 'heterosexual zoosexuality', but it does not to 'homosexual zoosexuality'.
This is because a zoosexual may be homosexually orientated or heterosexually orientated.
How did the 'homosexual' community come to the conclusion that all Animals are a 'third sex'?
In more 'lighter', 'understandable' terms, I'd say the homosexual community should accept 'homosexual zoosexuals', but not 'heterosexual zoosexuals', (the same way it does with non-zoosexuals).
When did a 'zoosexual' ever gain the position to call ourselves in the public 'similar to 'homosexual'', for starters, the media rejects the zoosexuals.
So this idea that 'zoosexuals are classing themselves similar to homosexuals', was entirely brought on by homophobes and homosexuals, themselves.
The only relation 'zoosexuality' has to 'homosexuality', is that they are both 'rejected' by society.
Zoosexuals believe they can follow in homosexuality's footsteps to sexual freedom, that's all.
I believe this anti-zoo 'homosexual' community should call themselves the 'non-zoosexual homosexual' community.
You can't deny that homosexual zoosexuals exist.
Hence, I dispute the homosexual community's reaction over this.
They seem to see the Human on top, and come to the conclusion only heterosexual zoosexuality exists, hence it'll never be comparable.
And yes, most zoosexual men are homosexually orientated to non-Human Animals.
While, most zoosexual women are heterosexually orientated to non-Human Animals.
Every individual has an age, kink, gender, sex and species.
So, you can be orientated specifically to more than one 'certain characteristic'.
Most zoosexuals are zoophile. Zoophiles are 'Animal lovers'.
Hence, with them being romantically intimate, sex only comes by as an 'obsessive affection', just like when any other person falls in love.
So let it be.
What's wrong with giving sensual pleasure to the one you love?
Just because you 'accidentally' fell in love with a non-Human Animal somehow, doesn't mean you just have sex with them for whorish reasons (even though, there are plenty of zoo-whores in the world).
There are plenty of zoophiles who aren't zoosexual, but very few zoosexuals aren't zoophile.
Or is the next argument whether they love them or not?
I believe the less liberal people become, the more freedoms will be lost, and eventually such a society won't cope; the same applies vice versa.
Zoosexuality is not harmful on it's own.
So why not keep the balance, and just condemn the 'zoosadism'?
Sure, there's sadist and rapist sex in zoosexuality, but the same exists in many, if not all, other sexualities.
I believe it won't be long until it becomes legal , I just fear for those who come out the closet will actually be hurt by those who hate them.
Who's worse, those who harm the zoosexuals and their Animals?
Or the zoosexuals who wouldn't dream of hurting their Animals or anyone else for that matter?
Regards,
James
P.S. Sorry for my English.
What is sex? It's the means by which a species reproduces.
To purposefully have sex in such a way to negate the reproductive aspect separates the purpose of sex from the act itself. This separation of the purpose from the act creates a "division" in the act. Being both spirit and body this "division" causes pain and/or suffering, because there is no longer union in the individual.
Having sex with a creature of another species is by nature a way to obtain the pleasures of sex without the reproductive aspect. Thus, it is unhealthy and shouldn't be encouraged.
By that reasoning, "it is unhealthy and shouldn't be encouraged" to have sex with a woman who is not fertile and at her fertile time of the month. People who've had a vasectomy, or their tubes tied would have to stay celibate. In fact anyone who was infertile for any reason would have to stay celibate, and masturbation and contraception should also be banned.
Did you know that the Catholic church used to ban people from marrying infertile partners? A long time ago, men were occasionally made to prove that they could achieve erection, penetration and ejaculation. I think post-menopausal women were ok, but not if they were considered "barren". Only a few years ago, a priest in the UK refused to marry a man in a wheelchair when he found out that the man couldn't ejaculate. He was able to have sex with his fiancee, but that wasn't enough for the priest.
I find the thought of having sex with animals distasteful too, but just because something has a yuck factor doesn't mean it's ok to ban it.
Just to repeat "To purposefully have sex in such a way to negate the reproductive aspect..."
Thus a naturally infertile couple would not fall into this category, for they have not chosen their infertility. HOWEVER, masturbation, contraception & sterilization would fall into the purposeful category.
just because something has a yuck factor doesn't mean it's ok to ban it.
You're right! My argument is the only one that holds water, not being based at all on a "yuck factor", which is why you felt the need to "negate" it with "The Catholic church is evil" argument (whole second paragraph). This is only an ad hominem (or, more correctly, ad ecclesia) arguments, which are just poor logic. Do you happen to have a response which isn't urban legend that might actually address my argument that separating sex from reproduction is unhealthy?
Don't worry if you don't, our society is so addicted to "sex without consequences" that they'll sooner allow bestiality than let go of what's harming them. Kinda like a crack addict willing to destroy even those he loves out of the need to get another fix.
So gay sex would be OK, but masturbation, contraception & sterilization are "unhealthy and shouldn't be encouraged"? Do you think they should be made illegal?
That second paragraph was only intended to point out that other people have taken what I would consider to be extreme measures to limit sex to reproduction. I was just pointing out that it wasn't a reductio ad absurdum argument, but that people have actually tried to enforce what I would consider to be the absurd consequences. If people want to live by those rules, that's up to them, but I don't think they should be legislating their religious beliefs on other people.
I don't have any problem with people having sex without intending reproduction, and I find your arguments that it causes pain and/or suffering and is "unhealthy" unconvincing. In fact, I don't think you've made a case for that at all.
Which part was the "urban legend"?
I was a bit uncharitable in my last response, which frustration doesn't excuse. I stand by what I said, I think I could have said it nicer. I'll just give one part:
"Which part was the "urban legend"?"
In a debate if you bring up some story or a claim, you're the one responsible for providing documentation, original sources, etc. Thus it's not my responsibility to find their truth or lack there of.
I wouldn't however, recommend that you spend time researching these claims. Even if every example you gave turned out to be 100% true, it wouldn't help your argument at all. Showing how people use a truth in a bad way doesn't negate the truth.
For example, anorexia doesn't negate the truth that it's important to eat healthy. Or someone with OCD who washes their hands 100x a day, doesn't negate the truth that washing your hands before eating is good.
You need to be looking for an argument that proves that separating sex from it's reproductive aspect is NOT unhealthy.
First you talked about "urban legends" to disparage me, then you said "Do you own research, I refuse to waste the time", then you said not to bother backing up my claims. I'm not 100% sure, but I think you're talking about the trials. I suspect you may have already spent some time finding out that I wasn't making them up, but if you google "impotence trials", you'll find a few accounts of how people were required to prove their prowess in court by having sex with their wives (it was occasionally the wife on trial). There was a famous one in 1659 where the Marquis de Langey was unable to perform, resulting not only in his marriage being annulled, but him being banned from ever marrying again. He was later able to change his name, which somehow enabled him to marry again, and he had seven children .
Distinguishing between "sex" and "copulation" seems to be semantics. By most people's definitions, two people of the same sex can have sex. They wouldn't normally have children doing it, but then neither would a man and a woman if either partner is infertile, or if the woman is too old, or just at the wrong point of her cycle. Even the Catholic church allows the "rhythm method" of timing intercourse so as to avoid pregnancy - surely that's separating sex from reproduction.
"You need to be looking for an argument that proves that separating sex from it's reproductive aspect is NOT unhealthy."
Actually, I think it's you that has to find an argument showing that this separation IS unhealthy. Masturbation and contraception for example are very widespread, and almost no-one would think they should be banned (not in the UK or USA anyway). You seem to be starting off from the viewpoint that certain things are wrong, and then constructing an argument to justify it.