Bestiality: Can an animal "consent"?

[Psychic Missile]

Any others that forbid bestiality?

I don't know of any that specifically prohibit it besides Islam, but forbidding it is justified through nearly all of them.

[Mr. Anderson]

Actually, no it wasn't. The argument was against mixing the white "race" with any other non-white "race". There was never any laws against a Hispanic and a black mating.

The Racial Integrity Act required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth and divided society into only two classifications: white and colored (essentially all other, which included numerous American Indians). It defined race by the "one-drop rule", defining as "colored" persons with any African or Native American ancestry. There was an exception made for the ancestors of Pocahontas, as many of the powerful First Families of Virginia" (FFV) counted her as a direct ancestor. As new groups began to immigrate, such as from China, India, and South America, they were all included in the "colored" classification, and could intermarry without penalty, as long as they didn't marry a European white.

Well where did the derogatory term half-breed that denigrated an infant into the lower castes of society come from then? What your presenting is the law of the land as produced by a dominate white society. Every one of the ethnic groups had their own ethnic tradition of non-acceptance to mixed sexual as well as marital relations. Many still do. And in some of them sexual relations with a white person is seen as atrocious as bestiality and may even have more societal repercussions than bestiality.

[Bill the Cat]

Well where did the derogatory term half-breed that denigrated an infant into the lower castes of society come from then? What your presenting is the law of the land as produced by a dominate white society. Every one of the ethnic groups had their own ethnic tradition of non-acceptance to mixed sexual as well as marital relations. Many still do. And in some of them sexual relations with a white person is seen as atrocious as bestiality and may even have more societal repercussions than bestiality.

All I am saying is that there was no law against "interracial" marriage. There were laws against certain races mixing, but not all races. Even in the societies you mention, they were interested in their own racial purity, and couldn't care less about non-dominant races intermingling.

[Teallaura]

That just opens up a new can of worms due to the discrepancies between Biblical tenets and common worldwide morals.
.....

No, it doesn't. You're confusing moral laws with ceremonial and administrative. There really aren't any major cultures that thing cold blooded murder is an okay thing.

[Psychic Missile]

No, it doesn't. You're confusing moral laws with ceremonial and administrative. There really aren't any major cultures that thing cold blooded murder is an okay thing.

How am I confusing moral laws with ceremonial and administrative laws?

If you're talking about "thou shalt not kill", that's a problem in itself. Christians have spent millennia finding ways to excuse the killing they are doing to the point where such a simple commandment has caveat after caveat. That's the nature of religious law. It's interpreted to mean whatever is convenient.

[KingsGambit]

How am I confusing moral laws with ceremonial and administrative laws?

If you're talking about "thou shalt not kill", that's a problem in itself. Christians have spent millennia finding ways to excuse the killing they are doing to the point where such a simple commandment has caveat after caveat. That's the nature of religious law. It's interpreted to mean whatever is convenient.

"Thou shalt not kill" is not an accurate translation; the word in question refers specifically to what we would translate as something like cold-blooded murder. Considering the prohibition is presented alongside other laws, some of which include the institution of a death penalty, it would be internally inconsistent to interpret it as a blanket prohibition against killing.

Now I'm not going to argue that Christians over the years have not looked for loopholes there where they shouldn't have, of course.

[KingsGambit]

It seems the bigger elephant would be those that reject the consent argument as valid. Still, I think it obvious that survival trumps consent.

Right. I think the two main viable standpoints that would allow for a prohibition of bestiality are a Singer-like utilitarianism taken to its extreme in allowing animal rights, or something like what Teal alluded to, acknowledging humans' rights to use (including humane killing) but not abuse, animals.

[Psychic Missile]

"Thou shalt not kill" is not an accurate translation; the word in question refers specifically to what we would translate as something like cold-blooded murder. Considering the prohibition is presented alongside other laws, some of which include the institution of a death penalty, it would be internally inconsistent to interpret it as a blanket prohibition against killing.

Now I'm not going to argue that Christians over the years have not looked for loopholes there where they shouldn't have, of course.

Even then there's disagreement over what old testament laws apply today, what constitutes murder or however you wish to define the word translated as kill in the KJV, and whether thou shalt not kill/cold-blooded murder and the allowances that implies is superceded by NT law (for example, with Christian pacifists).

[KingsGambit]

Even then there's disagreement over what old testament laws apply today, what constitutes murder or however you wish to define the word translated as kill in the KJV, and whether thou shalt not kill/cold-blooded murder and the allowances that implies is superceded by NT law (for example, with Christian pacifists).

True. I would not personally defend the Christian pacifist tradition but I know there's a legitimate case to be made.

[Jedidiah]

Even then there's disagreement over what old testament laws apply today, what constitutes murder or however you wish to define the word translated as kill in the KJV, and whether thou shalt not kill/cold-blooded murder and the allowances that implies is superceded by NT law (for example, with Christian pacifists).

I do not believe there is any disagreement that the "You shall not commit murder" applies to us today.

[Psychic Missile]

I do not believe there is any disagreement that the "You shall not commit murder" applies to us today.

I was talking about the other laws KingsGambit mentioned.

[Teallaura]

How am I confusing moral laws with ceremonial and administrative laws?

If you're talking about "thou shalt not kill", that's a problem in itself. Christians have spent millennia finding ways to excuse the killing they are doing to the point where such a simple commandment has caveat after caveat. That's the nature of religious law. It's interpreted to mean whatever is convenient.

And now you're equivocating on interpretation - whether or not X is interpreted the same by every translator doesn't change the actual meaning of X - same with law. Ceremonial/administrative laws aren't at issue - so whether or not those vary from culture to culture (they often do) is irrelevant.

And the issue you're actually bringing up is one of 'identifiers' - people who identify themselves as A but do not share the same values/beliefs/behaviors. The RINO/DINO things are examples of this. Calling yourself A doesn't make you the same as those who truly hold the values, et al, of A - so unless you can show that such behavior is typical of Christianity (as in prove, not state) then the point is not valid for our present purposes (tells us nothing about God's laws and humanity - the topic).

[Cow Poke]

First off, it sickens me to even have to write about something like this but with the mind-set of anything goes and don't discriminate about anything in the USA here goes...

What is the justification for outlawing bestiality? What if the animal "consents"? True it can not be verbalized but what if the animal doesn't seem to mind and the person doing so claims their "right" to engage in such an (abominable) activity?

Seriously, dude, I think you have "issues".

[foudroyant]

Clue up.
Years ago when discussing "gay rights" with those that say it's ok for them to be married I pointed out that why not allow polygamy? I thought what could be next or possibly in conjunction with what was next? After or during the same time *if* bestiality is one day approved what else? It's a frightening scenario.

[Cow Poke]

Clue up.
Years ago when discussing "gay rights" with those that say it's ok for them to be married I pointed out that why not allow polygamy? I thought what could be next or possibly in conjunction with what was next? After or during the same time *if* bestiality is one day approved what else? It's a frightening scenario.

Yeah, you have issues.