answer this question

Debate Question

(1)Should bestiality be illegal? (2)What is the difference between bestiality/Zoophilia and homosexuality?

I was reading this debate [ http://www.debate.org /debates/Bestiality- should-be-illegal/4/ ] . This questions popped up in my mind. Can you give a detailed answer to make this clear to me? Thanks :)
*
I don't what's wrong with the link. I put it correctly.. There is something wrong with fanpop.
Nick16 posted 9 months ago
*
There are a few spaces between the characters in the link. Try deleting those.
swampfox31 posted 9 months ago
*
No problem.
swampfox31 posted 9 months ago
 Nick16 posted 9 months ago
next question »

Debate Answers

whiteflame55 said:
So there are two arguments to be had here, one of which is only tackled partially in the argument posted against beastiality, the other gets underexplained. He does make another argument about offspring, but I don't find it very convincing.

So the first and easiest to explain is health. The argument about penile cancers may be true, but I express similar doubts to the responding poster. The bigger problem is zoonotic disease. I didn't have to look far to find out what we're looking at:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health

Yeah, it's Wikipedia, but it's well supported. Generally, we view the introduction of new disease into the human population as dangerous. I'd say there's two major harms here that extend beyond the individual in question. Rearrangements of viral genomes and acquired genetic capabilities in bacteria are a very big deal, resulting in many of the scourges we deal with today. This is especially bad if they're transmitted beyond that person. While all of these diseases are transmitted sexually, many have other routes available that are less common, yet remain important in this circumstance. But the reality is that no change in genomics need occur. Higher prevalence in humans of zoonotic disease is inherently bad. The vast majority of new disease in humans comes from animal sources and can be spread widely. HIV, for example, isn't all that different from its simian counterpart, SIV. And their sexual spread will likely not end with these relationships, as many humans will also be engaged in sexual relations with other humans.

The second argument, the one not well explained, is this idea of consent. We use consent in a lot of ways to judge whether something is alright to do, whether we're talking about sex or scientific experiments. We do a lot to animals through coercion, not taking their will or choice into account. I would say that this is another way to utilize their inability to consent for personal pleasures. An animal, with few exceptions, lacks methods to communicate their desires accurately, and even in the case that they can, we cannot be certain that they understand their own decision well enough to make it. For these animals, it does come down to a similar situation as with pedophilia, and that gets more complex. So let's focus on the ones that cannot adequately communicate their views. One might struggle to call it rape, but it bears little of the certainty that comes with a consentual relationship as seen with two adults. Until we can know their views for certain, we cannot possibly know whether they're active partners with full knowledge of the situation, willing participants who simply don't understand the situation but accept it, or victims of sexual assault. And we shouldn't assume any of them. That uncertainty, however, shouldn't lead to action on the part of a human being, who shoulders the burden of adhering to the need for confirmation and full consent.
select as best answer
posted 9 months ago 
*
It's an interesting debate, by the way, though I think a lot of the arguments on each side are faulted. The Pro argument isn't explaining the specific harms of zoonotic disease very well, nor is he making it clear that the specific addition of more diseases to a population is linearly bad. His ethical argument isn't very straightforward either, and I think he complicates it in many ways that he doesn't have to. Con is responsive but is making a lot of arguments that aren't directly addressing the issues at hand, and his arguments about ethics are even more convoluted and difficult to follow.
whiteflame55 posted 9 months ago
*
Time limitation: 2 days. Character limit: 4000. Best of luck!
Nick16 posted 8 months ago
*
Yep, all good
whiteflame55 posted 8 months ago
Chaann94 said:
Yes, it should be illegal because the animal can't consent with the sexual acts. And it's also partially protecting the bestialists or however they're called, since you have no idea what kind of bacteria/viruses they could get in/on their genitals.

Also the difference between bestiality and homosexuality is that homosexuality is a relationship between two people of the same sex who can both consent.

I can't believe how many times people compare homosexuality with unconsential relationships. I've seen questions like this multiple times. I've even heard people say; "but pedophilia is just like homosexuality". Well, no, because in pedophilia there is a lack of consent. I'm not part of the LGBT community myself, which is for the better to me because I wouldn't be able to handle all the crap people even think of posting/saying these days.
Sorry for that rant, but I felt like it had to be said.
select as best answer
posted 8 months ago 
Violet_Shade said:
1) Yes, bestiality shoul be illegal. The animal cannot consent and in some cases it can end up killing the animal.
2) Homosexuality is loving those of the same gender, and bestiality is sexually assaulting an animal, and they cannot consent.
I cannot believe people compare the two, and I for one am part of the LGBT community(i'm bisexual).
select as best answer
posted 8 months ago 
next question »