The Batlord

I voted "maybe". If no animal is being hurt and there's no chance of an STD, then by all means, knock yourself out.

__________________

djchameleon

You can't apply your logic reasoning to morality. People draw their own lines about what is moral and not. It isn't a case of all one way or nothing like the OP tries to suggest that it should be. Shades of grey occur.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

The Batlord

You can try by actually attempting to use logic rather than just knee-jerk emotional reactions. If nothing is being hurt then what is the problem? If it can be proved that ****ing a dog or a horse isn't going to emotionally traumatize it, or that it can't contract an STD, then what is the point of arbitrarily drawing lines in your "shades of grey"?

__________________

djchameleon

The lines that get drawn vary from person to person. It doesn't matter if those conditions are proven to be harmless. It will still be viewed as wrong in their eyes while allowing for other practices to be perfectly fine.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

FRED HALE SR.

Why wouldn't they be able to contract std's? They contract anything from aids to leukemia.

__________________
" I slashed and burned thru my 15 minutes of fame."

The Batlord

So... if no one is being harmed then it's still wrong? That is the definition of irrational. You're defending a position with nonsense because you don't want to admit that you have no position. You can use your same non-argument to defend homophobia: no one is being hurt, but some people think it's gross. So, I guess it makes sense for those people to call it wrong. Or at least you'll defend their position if nothing else.

Google and Wikipedia strike again. Apparently you can't get or transmit STDs from/to animals. It mentions infections or other kinds of diseases, but it only mentioned animals giving them to humans. I'd assume the opposite would be true, but it didn't mention it. And even if you can give an animal a disease, that doesn't address my basic point. If there is no harm, is there a foul?

Zoophilia and health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________

djchameleon

You trying to apply logic to a morality scale is just as irrational.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

GuD

Dogs are pack animals. She might not consent the way a person would but when I had to leave her with my mom for a week she raised hell about it. When I come home, she's happy to see me and all she wants to do is hang out. She's visibly miserable without me. Domesticated animals are different from people, they will die in the wild. They are dependent on their caretakers to take care for them. The process of domestication is, granted, unnatural. But what's far too developed to turn back from now results in animals who need people. Not to mention, many people who need animals. Not for their meat. It's not just sex, if you read the rest of my post it's pretty clear where I stand on animal rights.

__________________
I spit bullets in my feet
Every time I speak
So I write instead
And still people want me dead
~msc

DwnWthVwls

I think you missed the point Bat is making in that people still pick and choose with no logical way of justifying it. Like DJ said you can't apply logical reasoning to it because not all people think logically about everything. No matter how much you reason with someone if it comes to an issue of morality/philosophy/ethics, there is nothing you can say to change the mind of a firm believer. Emotions are stupid/hypocritical when it comes to decision making but most of us do it at some level. The one's who don't are labeled sociopaths.

Bottom line is people use morality/emotion instead of logical reasoning to justify their "no" answer in this debate. The same people saying "no" have no problem with using animals for certain things they deem okay and are morally against things they have no use for. Why don't you just admit it instead of trying to argue that it's logical?

Also, the only animal I can think of in that category is dogs. Cats, livestock, rodents, reptiles, etc are all perfectly suited for surviving in the wild without us, given the appropriate environment. We bred the survival traits out of dogs to make them subservient. How do you justify that as an animal lover? It was bred to love you so it's okay? So by your logic, if we start breeding animals to f*ck us that's okay too. We need them because we have made ourselves "need" them not because we actually do.

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

GuD

Ah, I wasn't using logic. For the most part my responses have been entirely moral-based.

OP asked a moral question. Any answers a person would have is basically moral bartering. Even Bat's answers are.

__________________
I spit bullets in my feet
Every time I speak
So I write instead
And still people want me dead
~msc