Under the law i dont think its a crime against the goat that he fucked it, but dammit its just wrong! Its like pissing in a public place it doesnt cause a victim but its offensive to society as the law puts it.
By existing you are depriving animals or habitat food etc the electricity you use is causing other habitat loss. We have had this discussion before and i dont want to get back into it but we are designed to eat meat AND plants (canine teeth plus molars) Plus we derive many essential nutrients from meat that if it wasnt for modern food techniques would be very difficult for us to get otherwise. You can deny it all you like jah but eating meat isnt inherentally wrong. If you want to argue it we can drag up the old thread.
Killing the goat to eat it isnt murder and yes i would rather kill or even murder the goat than have sex with it.
justahalf- i think you're right. a hooker lives in my building and my god is she an ugly site! such a dirty bitch too. everytime i walk passed her apartment i can smell filth and cigarette smoke. she never cleans her windows either! filthy cow
lol. would you eat a vegetable that someone had had sex with? I would prefer my animal meat to be similarily untouched. People having sex with animals be unhealthy for both the animal and humans - allowing disease to cross between species.
Affect on others is a very wide description, what if that person passed on a disease to others?
(Animals that are eaten have to pass health checks to pass as fit for human consumption.)
I guess the law is a throw back to religious laws but i cant see anyone standing up for law reform.
Another way to look at this tho is that that goat wasnt his to have sex with. If the owner had wanted to have sex with it there probably wouldnt have been an issue (whos going to complain to the police?)
Do any of you vegetarians own pets that you feed meat? would it be wrong for me to own a cat that i fed meat even if i didnt eat meat?
I don't think the law against bestiality is there to prevent disease spreading. You wouldn't eat an animal that a human had had sex with, yet presumably you would eat an animal that another animal had had sex with? Can we infer from that that you have a preference for indirect contact with animal genitalia rather than human?!
You're right, it is a throwback to religious laws. Our law and government are generaally secular in just about all other areas so I don't know why there should be this kind of moralising in the law.
The reason there's no one standing up for law reform has nothing to do with lack of merit in the arguments - it's purely that it aint exactly a vote winner!!!
I agree with you about not wanting to do the whole vegetarian debate again bob. I don't have a problem with bestiality being llegal and people who eat meat agreeing with that. I do have a problem with people who eat meat saying "what a poor goat having someone do that to it" when they are happy to have animals killed for them to eat. As you have pointed out, having a problem with the morality of his actions is more the point than any trauma to the goat.
When did the argument at hand ever deviate from morality?
According to a previous statement of yours, "killing an animal is worse then fucking it". Yet, if this were based on a moral stand point, and you have no problem with those people that kill animals & subsequently eat their meat, it'd make you a hypocrite.
From a purely moral point of view, it's perfectly natural for people that eat meat to find bestiality immoral. I agree however that they shouldn't say things like "oh, poor goat" -- when from the goats perspective murder > rape. Then again that's irrelevant since neither you or I are goats.
Mendoza & Bob, you both seem confused.
Secular law, like its predecessor, religious doctrine, has its basis in morality. The law is there to provide a clear distinction of what it perceives to be "right or wrong", which is exactly what morality is.
Bob, if I were the owner of a dog, and enact upon it viscious acts of cruelty and torture, but no-one were to complain to the police. Would that make it right?
Ownership is irrelevant, especially where it regards a sentient being.
Where it regards law reform, what possible reason would you have for law reform? Bestiality would only be perceived as an archaic "religious throwback" if people no longer thought of it as being immoral & wrong.
Please feel free to state if you are of this opinion!!
I was stating as a side issue that if the owner had been having sex with the goat the police probably wouldnt have been called, and that you could almost (not under any law or whatever) say that the guy was being done for having sex with another mans goat, as the law doesnt recognise the goat as being sentient.
It was not meant as a serious arguement and im sorry you took it as such shaolin.
You might get done for cruelty to animals.
Where do you draw the line at sentient beings? insects? rodents? mammals?
...It'd make no difference to me whether it was the owner or someone else fuckin' the goat -- it's the act itself that's irreprehensible.
But I ain't no narc, so yeah, guess you're right - the police would not have been called.
Interesting point regarding the definition of sentient beings. It's not an easy distinction to make, personally I'd class the majority of animals as sentient - that is, they are capable of feelings and some even of thought.
Here are few excerpts from the Crimes Act 1961.
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who commits bestiality.
(2) This offence is complete upon penetration.
Having sex with someone else's animal without the owner's permission is a crime against property, the same as if someone "borrowed" his horse to haul their carriage without his permission.
I read in a kinslea ((SP?)what ever his name is) institute book that 48 of rural americans had thier first sexual experience with an animal, now i dont know what the definition of sexual experience was but damn thats a high number we should change all those jokes to americans