-39 votes

Bestiality, is there a victim?

Ok, it's out there so we might as well reason it out. Bestiality. First, in a libertarian society should the government be authorized to restrict its practice? Is there a victim? If so, is it a legitimate argument for the government's restricting of homosexual marriage?

A friend of mine brings up a good point with regard to the logic of this argument. If we allow people to carry guns, should we allow gorillas to carry them too? Should Toonsis the cat really be denied the "privilege" of driving?

Sure, bestiality is disgusting, I'm not arguing that, I think homosexual sex is disgusting as well. But should the state prohibit these activities with violence?

Maybe the thing to do would be to flip the argument. If homosexual marriage was already not illegal, What if we promoted a law outlawing bestiality and inter-species marriage? Would the homosexual community argue against it because it was a slippery slope to outlawing gay relationships and marriage? Would anarchist and libertarians protest at the capital steps to protect the freedoms of animal lovers?

Rand Paul is at least attempting to validate the slippery slope argument apparently, although I think (hope) he was just placating the blue hairs...

http://americablog.com/2013/06/gop-sen-rand-paul-supreme-cou...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No, there's no victim. Yes,

No, there's no victim.

Yes, it should be allowed in civilized society.

But it's not unexpected that the riff raff here doesn't understand your nuanced argument. I even predict they misinterpret my support of your point.

It goes with the territory when you post philosophy on a political rallying forum. Mises.org or other libertarian/philosophical forums would be more receptive tot his type of discussion, in my experience.

Being as beastiality is not civilized,

"it should be allowed in civilized society" is the most dizzy-fying sentence I have read in a while.

I think there is a victim

The people in close contact with such behavior are a victim.

Infectious disease is a quick example.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

And why am I banned from

And why am I banned from making post when everyday i come here theres some bullshit post like this

Lol!

Really. I know EXACTLY what you mean.

strictly speaking, there is

strictly speaking, there is no victim if the animal is willing. in fact sometimes the animal could be the instigator.

secondly, even if the animal is the victim, the NAP doesn't apply to animals.

there is no basis in the NAP to prohibit any form of bestiality.

the NAP is not perfect, it does not produce s perfect society or a moral society.

it is a principle that has limited application.

i think the down votes are from those who want to believe that the NAP would prevent everything bad from happening.

At first I thought it was

At first I thought it was utterly ridiculous that the animal could possibly be an instigator. Then I came across this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/frisky-dolphin-trie...

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

I think I see your point. Are you suggesting the NAP is not

the end-all be-all for what the law should be? I don't know why you were so heavily down-voted, other than natural repulsion at the example, but if the point you were trying to make is that the NAP works better as a PRINCIPLE (Something normally true) than a LAW (something that is always true with no exceptions) then I for one think the question is worthy of discussion. If it should be treated as a law, let those who think that way state why in this case. If it should be treated as a principle then let those who think that way give difficult examples such as this to test the idea.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

What does Libertarianism have to do with this?

Nothing, in my opinion.

If there is suffering, there is a victim. Yes I'm talking about crazies who take advantage of cats and so on.

There are actually two victims, since the perpetrator takes on the risk of infection and becomes a social/moral degenerate through this act. They victimize themselves.

It's not unlike factory farming where the animals are treated mercilessly and then their meat encourages disease in those who consume them. Two victims.

Or you could say there is no such thing as a victim, there are just karmic events playing out naturally over multiple lifetimes as we transmigrate between species. I mean, how far do you want to carry it?

I'm going to comment on this thread and say that the victim...

in this kind of attack would be the same victim as that of an assault on a retarded person or an Alzheimers's patient: the perpetrator.

The apparent victim of the assault may go on to live the rest of their life completely unaltered by the event. The assailant, however, will live forever after with the knowledge of the event, irreversible and inalterable, to its end.

Bestiality is just another form of cowardly bullying. That's all it is.

"Home is where it's hardest."
-Tommy

OMG PANDAS!!! LOCK UP THE CHILDREN!!!
-me

Personally, I find the idea

Personally, I find the idea that humans are somehow special (having a soul, consciousness) and that there should exist special rules for them because of that a somewhat narcissistic notion.

Humans are animals as well. A highly SUCCESFUL animal, but there's nothing remotely special about them. We have superior intelligence and yes, that's great, but this superior intelligence doesn't somehow give us special rights. In the eyes of the universe (or God), we are smaller than a speck of dust. Even if we managed to colonize half the galaxy, it would just be a piece of trivia before the universe/God. Because even such an act is as nothing before the grandness of existence itself.

The issue regarding bestiality is not about consent and it has nothing in common with homosexuality. Personally, I find it more comparable to pedophilia. The reason I believe pedophilia should be a crime and punished (and not homosexuality), is because while a child may give consent, they are not adult enough yet to make such a decision. An adult engaging in pedophilia is simply abusing his position in order to alleviate his desires.

Similarly, even if we could see that the animal would be happy (and this spectacle could thus be interpreted as consent), the human engaging in bestiality would still be abusing his higher position as an intelligent being. Consent of an animal wouldn't matter in this case, because the animal simply doesn't know enough to realize if it's being abused or not.

It's quite simple.

Humans have a soul, a conscience - whatever you want to call it, that sets us apart from every other species on earth.

Animals don't have the luxury of expressing their emotions nearly as much as humans do and in spite of this, they can never "consent." That's the big difference.

Quite a silly topic and I laughed when I read "A friend of mine brings up a good point with regard to the logic of this argument." - It's not logical at all, actually. Appears to me like it's more a case of stirring the pot.

The only thing they are going to ban is Polygamy.

Besides banning a traditional marriage between one man and one woman, the only other bans are likely going to be against polygamy of 1 man and several women. This is because these institutions produce children in families. We have population control going on in this world and it's a soft kill. Not having children can be argued as killing the people of the future in a very real sense. With out life there is no liberty. It is a self evident truth that children raised with their father and mother in love and caring is the optimal situation for them. Destroying this family unit is the goal of these demon death dealers. Promoting every other non-child rearing situation is what will be glorified and praised. Biblically speaking the first commandment was to Multiply and fill the earth. As we have liberty and invent and become an advance civilization we need specialists of every kind, more life and diversity is needed to advance to the next level. So get married and have as many kids as you can and teach them liberty, love and hope..

Sick

I pray you are trolling

The Animal Is The Victim - Obviously

Some might argue that as long as no human was harmed that there's no victim. I disagree w/ that. It feels like it goes against nature to say that. I'm admittedly a hypocrite though since I am a carnivore.

It's sort of a reminder that human beings are animals as well. When you watch those nature shows of lions hunting buffalo, we all have some of THAT in us, instinctually.

It is a capital crime

Punishable at the mouth and by the hand of at least 2 witnesses.

Exodus 22:19
Leviticus 18:23
Leviticus 20:15-16
Deuteronomy 27:21

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

deacon's picture

so is murder

per one of the 10 commandments
but god sent moses and joshua out to kill all
the inhabitants in the lands,men women and children
and if god was so worried about coveting,he might not have coveted
another mans wife
deacon

setting your expectations to high,can cause depression

Whose wife?

?

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Maybe

He owns a petting zoo!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Raping animals should never be accepted by civil society

Animals cannot consent.

Why is this thread drawing so much attention?

It's unlikely that your

It's unlikely that your advocacy of veganism will ever be accepted as the norm.

Out of curiosity, how long have you been vegan?

Where is the line?

Can a man now legally marry his brother, father or grandfather? Can a woman legally marry her daughter, mother or grandmother? Can homosexual men adopt young boys and teach them that homosexuality is good and not bad? If once the adopted boys are of legal age, can he be married to his adopted father? Woody Allen would say yes. But just where will they draw the line?
Get the government out, PRIVATIZE marriage!!!
grant

I was never "taught"

I was never "taught" homosexuality, I learnt it all on my own without any third-party manipulation or "help". I guess I basically would see boys in school who I thought were cute and put two and two together. But I agree with you on getting government out of it entirely. It's ridiculous.

Our overlords can't draw that line for us. It's ultimately up to us.

Love is spiritual, sex is carnal.

Perhaps the word teach is not the best choice of words. But children do learn from role models and imitate what they experience in their environment, do they not? I imagine there was some stimulus in the environment that caused you to be sexually attracted to boys; perhaps the idea of a forbidden homosexual act or the desire to dominate or be submissive to another man because of actions by men or women around you, whatever, it wasn't merely appreciating the beauty of a man or boy. You control your own actions, do you not? You have free will, do you not? Or are your actions programmed by some genetic predisposition. Finding a person cute or beautiful doesn't lead to someone wanting to have sex with a person. A person can admire the beauty of an animal and not want to have sex with the animal, likewise a man can admire another man without wanting to have sex with him. And even if the desire does arise it is not impossible for an individual to control, reject and ultimately change their desires. But ultimately my opposition is not the decisions you make, of which they are not for me to judge, but having the government sanction homosexual acts is my objection. Marriage, whether it be heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual or whatever should not be under the jurisdiction of government and is where I draw the line.
grant

very important distinction.

sex is NOT love. it is just sex.
if I ever meet God. my first question will be, why did I get a penis without instructions for use? the next will be about the duckbill platypus.

;)

we're not talking "against the law" here

"But should the state prohibit these activities with violence?"

I have no desire to engage the issue of bestiality. If you desire to promote it as such, feel free, but homosexuality and gay marriage are already at generally high levels of debate, particularly gay marriage. Keep in mind that gay marriage is the hotter issue of the day and that homosexuality is no hotter a topic really than it generally ever has been. In other words, I am unaware of any serious people, whether they be media pundits, politicians, neighbors, or average joes, threatening or suggesting that the state prohibit homosexuality or gay marriage with violence. The hot topic of gay marriage is simply one of recognition [not punishable behavior].

You need to ask yourself this question....

Was he wagging his tail when you finished?

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

"placating the blue hairs"

As a politician, Rand has no reason to actively declare his personal opinion regarding the SCOTUS defeat of DOMA. I assume he agrees with the decision, but it's not a big enough deal for him to get into the faces of Santorum fans and scream, "Ha ha! In your face you nationalist, moral majority morons!"

The AmericaBlog article you posted is a hit piece. It's total spin, utterly deceptive, and intended to make Rand look like Rick Santorum. This particular slice of the gay community has something in common with Rick Santorum. Both hope for national legislation defining marriage.

Rand [like Ron] doesn't see it as a national or federal issue, but that if "government" should wrestle the issue at all, that wrestling match should not stray outside the ropes of State jurisdictions, and that any concerns regarding bestiality should be similarly bound.

I like to be told how great I was while taking a drag on a cig..

after a romp. Don't think I could do it.