codarac wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
codarac wrote:
In Germany they are debating whether or not to enact a law against bestiality, since no such law currently exists. There is an article and thread about it here:
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120203-40531.htmlSome of the comments on the thread for some strange reason remind me of WrongPlanet. Liberals are much the same throughout the West:
Quote:
I think it's hypocritical for somebody who KILLS animals (by eating meat) to condemn somebody sexually assaulting them. Murder is worse than rape, plain and simple. (What you find disgusting or not is irrelevant, just as people who find gay sex disgusting cannot prevent gay people from having sex.)
Well, you have to admit it's all quite logical. If all that matters in questions of morality is what the other party consents to, then a society that condones meat-eating has no business judging people who have sexual relations with animals.
I bow before liberals and their awesome powers of reasoning.
That is not quite correct. First of all, you won't find many liberals who advocate the legalisation of bestiality. This liberal / social democrat certainly doesn't. Like abacacus pointed out, non-human animals can't consent to sexual intercourse with humans.
Neither you nor abacus have addressed the point that the person I quoted was trying to make, which is this -
Animals cannot consent to being eaten either. So should we conclude that a society that condones meat-eating has no business condemning bestiality?
If not, then perhaps the question of consent is not the be-all and end-all as far as morality is concerned.
I think I indirectly addressed that point:
Quote:
The German Protection of Animals Act prohibits inflicting pain on animals or violating their physical integrity without a valid reason. Valid reasons include necessary medical procedures (things like declawing are illegal), scientific research and meat production, but animal slaughter is also required to be humane and painless.
It's a question of necessity and validity. Castration is allowed since it is necessary to prevent uncontrolled pet population growth, but declawing is not. Quick and painless slaughter is allowed because it's necessary for meat production, but the kind of torture that is practiced on Eastern European pelt farms is illegal.
A similar logic applies to physical contact between owner and animal. People may pet and hug and cuddle their little darlings, but if Fido's owner f**** the poor dog in the a**, he's committing an act of unnecessary and indefensible cruelty. Even sex acts that don't physically hurt a pet might cause psychological trauma and thus constitute abuse.
Aside from that, the German law also forbids the killing of vertebrates by untrained laypeople, as well as the eating of cats, dogs, and other common pet species. So for pet owners who don't happen to be licensed butchers and keep a pig as a house pet, there is no double standard. Fido's owner may neither kill, eat nor screw the noisy little mutt.
28 Feb 2012, 5:16 pm
