Before I can effectively show that animals do have the ability to consent for sex, I need to define exactly how I am using consent:
–verb (used without object)
1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.
2. Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.
Ok. By sexual consent I just don't mean what that person means. I don't think it's ok to stick genitals into someone and then see if the person is ok with that. The same applies to animals. So by consent I mean agreeing to the activities through clear communication. A tiny minority of animals might be capable of it, I'm open to that and if the animals and who they had sex with did actually enjoy it, I don't see it as morally wrong.
Most of the text you copied depends on this view of consent which would allow you to go out and initiate sex with other humans and then wait for their reaction to see if they're ok with it, if applied to humans, so I'll cut that out.
As I said before, the consent issue is really a smoke screen for the icky factor. By and large people are disgusted about the idea so they claim consent is a big issue when in fact it is not. People do many awful things to animals who do not consent to what is being done:
(1) Do animals consent to locking them in a cage?
(2) Do animals consent to being slaughtered and killed in the millions every year for food?
(3) Do animals consent to being tested on by chemicals?
(4) Do animals consent to being 'fixed'?
I'm disgusted by that kind of sex but I completely agree being disgusted by it isn't a valid argument against it. Just getting that out of the way. It really has zero to do with the consent argument at least in this case.
Mentioning 4 other cases which can be immoral just isn't a good excuse to allow a fifth case.
1: No they don't, and it is generally immoral to lock them up unless there's a good reason for it.
2: No they don't, and it is generally immoral to slaughter them for food. But we also rely on food to live. We don't rely on zoophilia. In short I think we should minimize our use of animals for food as much as possible and use plants (or maybe "lab"-grown meat in the future) instead.
3: No, animals don't consent to that. But testing chemicals on them is done so we don't need to do it on humans and to develop medicine etc. we can use to cure humans. I think such testing can be morally justifyable without consent, as medicine tested on one person/animal can be used to cure millions of people. You cannot use a reason like that for why zoophilia requires consent.
4: No they don't, and it is generally immoral. It's because the way our meat production is organized is very immoral, taking into account the animals at least. It's not because fixing them is moral.
In short, certain animals CAN give consent, but not in a way that is typically understandable by humans. Attacking zoophilia is hypocritical for the above stated reasons.
No. If we take away their consent the thing is
we need a valid reason. That is all. Making medicine that can save many more than those who are affected by the testing is a valid reason. Sexual pleasure is nothing compared to that.
Also I'm just saying that I'm not really interested in arguing with a search engine for opposing views.
Topic: Re: Furry Discussion Topic (Split) (Read 4062 times)
