• Zooville.org is currently having domain issues. Please make note of our new address of zoovilleforum.net untill our original domain returns. Read the New Guidlines HERE!

Warren v. Virginia: a court case that zoos lost

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
I decided to make this thread so that it doesn't clutter up the other thread about fighting anti-zoo laws in court.

In early 2019, a zoo in Virginia challenged Virginia's anti-zoo law (sodomy law), arguing that zoos have a right to engage in sex with animals. The court denied that this right exists, and the zoo lost the case. This is an article about that case:


The summary in the above link says the following: "The Commonwealth [of Virginia] has a legitimate interest in banning sex with animals. The Court of Appeals held that the General Assembly's prohibition of bestiality does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution."

This is such bullshit. Virginia does not have a "legitimate interest" in banning sex with animals. (Laws that ban sex with animals are discriminatory, and based on people's moral prejudices, not reason or logic). Also, anti-zoo laws such as the one in Virginia do violate due process, yet the court ruled (wrongly) that due process is not violated by these unjust anti-zoo laws.

Further, the following was said about this court case (text in italics below is from the above link):

"2. There is no fundamental right to engage in bestiality

To qualify for heightened protection under the due process clause, a claimed right must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. It must be "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." The claimed right must belong to the class of rights "long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. A claimed right to engage in sexual conduct with animals simply fails this historical test. Bestiality was a crime at common law. In one form or another, it has been criminalized in Virginia by statute since at least 1792.

Although we recognize these same authorities also may have prohibited acts of sodomy that Lawrence held may no longer be criminalized, we reject the attempt to equate private sexual acts among consenting adults with sexual acts between humans and animals. Warren has not identified any court that has concluded that bestiality is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the due process clause, and we decline his invitation to recognize bestiality as a fundamental right.

As noted above, the due process clause not only prohibits states from infringing on fundamental rights, it requires that state prohibitions on certain conduct "be rationally related to legitimate government interests". Virginia's ban on bestiality passes this test as well. Assuming without deciding that Warren is correct that Lawrence removed morality as a legitimate reason for criminalizing certain sexual conduct such as bestiality, additional rationales exist for the General Assembly's decision to ban sex with animals.

First, there can be no serious argument that the Commonwealth does not have a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. "Bestiality [can be] considered animal abuse because the sexual molestation of animals by humans may physically injure or kill the animal victim." Most "[r]ecent bestiality laws ... are categorized as 'animal cruelty statutes,' demonstrating the belief that bestiality is a crime against an animal."

The General Assembly's interest in protecting public health also provides a justification for the ban on bestiality. "Scientists estimate that more than 6 out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people are spread from animals, and 3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people are spread from animals." Although not all of these diseases are or were transmitted by sexual contact, interspecies sexual contact does provide a means of such transmission. Accordingly, numerous commentators have recognized that there is a public health justification for bestiality prohibitions.

Given that Virginia's ban on bestiality is rationally related to these legitimate state interests and does not intrude upon a fundamental right, the General Assembly did not offend the due process clause when it adopted the current version of Code § 18.2-361(A) in 2014. Accordingly, Warren's as applied challenge to Code § 18.2-361(A) fails.

For the foregoing reasons, the General Assembly's prohibition of bestiality does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Accordingly, we reject Warren's challenge to the constitutionality of Code § 18.2-361(A) and affirm the judgment of the trial court."


All of what was said above is bullshit. First, I want to address the "tradition" argument. An intrinsic right cannot be given or taken away just because of "tradition". (For example, slavery was a "tradition" for centuries -- a court in the 1850s could've argued that slavery does not violate due process because it is a "tradition"). Just because something has been criminalized for a long time doesn't necessarily mean that something is just or morally good. So, I believe the argument that due process is not violated due to "tradition" is bullshit.

Another argument the court makes is that no court has previously declared a right to sex with animals. That is a precedent argument -- and it is a weak argument. Just because something hasn't happened before (within the courts) doesn't mean that a right doesn't exist. Yet another nonsensical argument the court makes is that all sex with animals is "animal cruelty". The court claims that having sex with an animal may "kill the victim" -- this is bullshit. The vast majority of people who have sex with animals do not kill the animal they have sex with. The court's conclusion on this is likely based on anti-zoo propaganda sources they used.

Also, the court says sex with an animal may injure the animal. This is nonsense -- sex with an animal does not automatically "injure" it. if the court is so concerned about animals being injured, why don't they ban slaughter and hunting (activities which do actually injure/kill animals)?

Consider also that the court is basing their decision on the "belief" that sex with animals is always "animal abuse" / "animal cruelty". What if sex with animals is not always "animal abuse"? Why did the court not consider that? Or are they so stuck in their prejudices and ignorance that they could not even fathom that? (Sex with animals is not automatically "abuse").

Yet another bullshit argument that the court makes is that sex with animals is likely to spread diseases, and thus it is in the "public interest" to ban sex with animals in order to prevent the spread of diseases. This is such bullshit! As @ZTHorse pointed out on his blog, sex with animals is actually safer than sex with humans, because most diseases cannot cross the species barrier. The problem is, no major recognized authority has come forward saying this. Only anti-zoo organizations are the ones being heard, and they create this bullshit "science" that the court accepts. There is is no public health justification for bans on sex with animals.

These arguments the court made are hiding the real reason they want sex with animals to stay illegal: their bigotry and moral prejudice. Virginia does not have a state interest in banning sex with animals, and their law is not rational -- yet the court affirmed both of these things.

I'm assuming many of the sources the court made were from anti-zoo sources -- hence, their conclusions were biased due to the tainted sources they were using. Zoos need to find a way to get pro-zoo sources, and then use those in court to counteract the anti-zoo propaganda that Virginia used in this court case. As @SigmatoZeta pointed out in another thread, zoos need to start organizing and getting recognized authorities to start treating zoo sex favorably -- because right now, the majority of medical (and other) authorities view zoo sex negatively, and the court relies on their opinions to make judgements (resulting in crappy judgements).

One completely different aspect that was challenged was the idea that Lawrence v. Texas nullified anti-zoo laws (he lost on that point as well).

Also, the least that people could do would be to call out the court as being full of bullshit. The problem is that, because nearly all zoos are hiding, their voices are not heard, and the only voices heard are the anti-zoos. Somehow, zoos need to at least protest these bullshit court cases. Remember that not every court decision ever made has been good. Consider Dred Scott for example -- accepted by President James Buchanan at the time, but now considered to be a terrible decision.

So, am I the only one who thinks this court case is full of bullshit? I apologize if this comes off as a rant, but this court case really pisses me off. The court's decision is being driven by prejudices and ignorance -- and their reasoning is based on lies spread by anti-zoos. And I want zoos to win court cases, not lose them.

Edit: I also want to mention another flaw in the "disease" argument (the argument that sex with animals should be banned due to the spread of diseases) -- eating animal products, such as meat, can spread diseases. If the court is willing to affirm anti-zoo laws on the basis of stopping the spread of diseases, then why aren't they also prohibiting meat-eating?

Also, there are many STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) that get spread from human to human. If the court says that the spread of diseases is a reason to ban sex with animals, then it logically follows that human-to-human sex should be banned as well (because human-to-human sex spreads diseases). So the "disease" argument against zoo sex is nonsense.

Ultimately, the ruling in Warren v. Virginia is not a rational ruling.
 
Last edited:

ManLovesDog

Tourist
Bullshit indeed. And transparently so under nonsensical and belabored reasoning. But Virginia has a long history of rulings like that - its a conservative state.
Could there be a different outcome in another state? Probably only with public support. Minds and hearts will need to change...a lot.
 

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
So when are we gonna accept the fact we wont be accepted
I noticed you reacted with "Haha" to the original post. What is funny about zoos losing court cases? Don't you have any desire to change people's minds, or at least get recognized authorities to stop spreading lies about zoo sex?

I think the attitude that society will never change is a defeatist attitude. Society's morals have changed on various issues, and there is a potential for it to change (in relation to zoo) as well.

Keep in mind that this court case is about anti-zoo laws and how they apply, not about social acceptance generally. Something can be legal and not socially accepted.
 
I noticed you reacted with "Ha Ha" to the original post. What is funny about zoos losing court cases? Don't you have any desire to change people's minds, or at least get recognized authorities to stop spreading lies about zoo sex?
We wont ever be accepted. We are outcasts gotta learn to deal with it honestly ? in the eyes of non zoos. We are probably one the same level as pedophiles
 
M

mares4me

Guest
There are certain things that will never change, legally speaking. Zoos are seen as mentally ill people, first and foremost. It's hard to win a case if you're regarded as insane. Our arguments won't be taken seriously.

Bestiality is not a right. It's a privilege. If you want to keep that privilege, you must act with discretion.
 

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
There are certain things that will never change, legally speaking. Zoos are seen as mentally ill people, first and foremost. It's hard to win a case if you're regarded as insane. Our arguments won't be taken seriously.

Bestiality is not a right. It's a privilege. If you want to keep that privilege, you must act with discretion.
I think sex with animals is a right, but it is just not currently legally recognized as a right. Also, your idea that there are "certain things that will never change" is a defeatist attitude.
 

SigmatoZeta

Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I deny that anybody's rights are given for free. They are all stood up for and fought for by people that choose to stand up for them and fight for them.

I honestly reject moral absolutism entirely. I don't even say that slavery is wrong in any absolute sense. If nobody had stood up against it or questioned it and been willing to fight against it, then our society would still be doing it. Slaves would still be treated as chattel that are hardly better than animals if they are even as good as an animal at all. They would be seen as unsavory pestilential garbage that unfortunately our society must depend upon to get anything done, but dear god, fuck them, we would say.

After all, we do the same thing with immigrants that are not yet or not likely to become citizens of the United States. If you ever take some seasonal factory job for a month to bring in some extra money over the holidays, you'll find that almost all manufacturing work is done by people of color and people that speak Spanish as their native tongue with one or two very young or aging white people in there. The same society that uses them treats them like they are lower than garbage. We use them, and we crap on them.

In an alternate history, we would still have slaves, and we would be doing the same thing with slaves. The idea that we would have done otherwise is a lie. We are already doing basically the same thing to immigrants, so it is far from being alien to human nature, even today.

Rights are things that someone stood up for and fought for. When you talk about "rights" and "duties," you are talking in the language of warriors.
 

SigmatoZeta

Esteemed Citizen of ZV
In an alternate history where nobody had ever stood up against slavery, political discourse would go like this:

Ned: "I hate those slaves because my company furloughed half of its paid workers! They are draining our country dry, and we should exterminate them!"​
Angie: "But Ned, the reason why they are chosen to do those jobs is that paid workers won't do them for any price that a company can reasonably afford."​
Ned: "Only because they have to!"​
Angie: "How dare you say that about those brave, strong people! They are still people like you and me, and just because they are slaves, that doesn't mean they don't give it their best at what they do!"​
Ned: "They are abominations! You know as well as I do that they smoke dope and drink booze, and they are responsible for almost all crimes, you know!"​
Angie: "Only because they are so desperate! Besides, if you don't like having to compete with slave labor, then why can't we just emancipate them like some people said we should do 200 years ago?"​
Ned: "And turn those savages loose on society at large? It's bad enough as it is!!! You loony liberals want to turn these noxious slaves loose upon our society when we can barely control them as it is!"​
Angie: "Now, Ned, calm down. There are some people that think that most of them would be able to coexist with us peacefully."​
Ned: "Theorists! Intellectuals who have never been out of their safe cloistered lives! They have no idea what regular ordinary working people have to go through! If we listened to these Limousine liberals, then things would be worse for us than they already are!"​
Angie: "But Ned, they tried abolishing slavery in the United Kingdom, and they have gone through a period of unprecedented prosperity."​
Ned: "They are DIFFERENT from the United States, Angie! We are not like the United Kingdom. Their culture is based on obedience to authority..."​
Angie: "Actually, I heard they are more democratic these days than we are, Ned."​
Ned: "Well, that just proves my point! We are a much more authoritarian society, Angie, and things work differently here."​
Angie: "But Ned, that is the opposite of the last argument that you were going to use."​
Ned: "And it's still just as true! Slavery will never be abolished because these abominations need to be kept under at least some kind of control! It is time for you to grow up and just accept that fact, Angie! When you have become an adult and have actual responsibilities and a MINIMUM of five children that you need to take care of, then you will understand."​
Angie: "But I am 36 years old, a senior executive, and pregnant with my sixth child!"​
Ned: "Of a company that sells CANDY! What a childish and unrealistic occupation! And that's WAY too many children!"​
Angie: "But you just implied that I had to have a minimum of five children to have a valid opinion, Ned."​
Ned: "But that's a lot different from six! When you grow up to have as much experience as me, you'll see things my way!"​

Angie is not going to win with someone like Ned by playing fair, so it is time for Angie to stop playing fair. Never ever play "touch" with someone that is going to play "tackle" regardless of what game you agreed to play.

If your partner in a conversation is not willing to observe any rational set of rules for civil debate, then I suggest you quit staying frustrated and learn to gas light and manipulate the son of a bitch.
 

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
That's pretty much how Lawrence went too. Your local (elected) courts are going to rule with the emotions of their electorate and kick the case upstairs to the (appointed) appellate court.
So would you say that Warren v. Virginia was a court case that was decided based on emotion? Do you think it was a fair ruling? (I don't think it was a fair or just ruling). What do you think about the arguments they made (defending the anti-zoo law)? Do you think their arguments are sound, or do you think that they are bullshit? As I stated in the original post, I think their arguments defending the anti-zoo law make no sense. For example, one of the arguments they used, that zoo sex should be illegal because it "spreads diseases", is an incredibly weak argument. It really shows just how pitiful the courts in the U.S. are.

As I said, in my opinion, the ruling in Warren v. Virginia was not a rational ruling. It is an example of a failure of the U.S. court system (at the state level). When I say "failure", I mean failure to uphold the rule of law and justice.
 
Last edited:

caikgoch

Esteemed Citizen of ZV
So would you say that Warren v. Virginia was a court case that was decided based on emotion? Do you think it was a fair ruling? (I don't think it was a fair or just ruling). What do you think about the arguments they made (defending the anti-zoo law)? Do you think their arguments are sound, or do you think that they are bullshit? As I stated in the original post, I think their arguments defending the anti-zoo law make no sense. For example, the argument that zoo sex should be illegal because it "spreads diseases" is an incredibly weak argument. It really shows just how pitiful the courts in the U.S. are.
For law to be "legitimate" it must have a valid purpose, be constitutional, and be enforceable. That law is enforceable so we can dismiss that. I've expressed my views on constitutionality in https://www.zooville.org/threads/in-the-us-well-have-to-fight-it-in-the-courts.2270/post-78581 .

That leaves "valid purpose". Consent, possible injury including disease, and the possibility of Zoo as a "gateway" to rape or pedo are all desperate attempts to find a "valid purpose." None will hold up to logical examination but most people vote based on emotion so the makers of laws vote to satisfy those emotions.
 

SigmatoZeta

Esteemed Citizen of ZV
So would you say that Warren v. Virginia was a court case that was decided based on emotion? Do you think it was a fair ruling? (I don't think it was a fair or just ruling). What do you think about the arguments they made (defending the anti-zoo law)? Do you think their arguments are sound, or do you think that they are bullshit? As I stated in the original post, I think their arguments defending the anti-zoo law make no sense. For example, one of the arguments they used, that zoo sex should be illegal because it "spreads diseases", is an incredibly weak argument. It really shows just how pitiful the courts in the U.S. are.

As I said, in my opinion, the ruling in Warren v. Virginia was not a rational ruling. It is an example of a failure of the U.S. court system (at the state level). When I say "failure", I mean failure to uphold the rule of law and justice.
That is a thing that courts fail at almost constantly. Unfortunately, the court system is really the alternative that the human race has to dealing with our interpersonal grievances by burning down the houses of our neighbors. It is better but only slightly.

The court system is also slightly better than the legislature. When it is paying for the military budget and large previously established financial obligations, the legislature is great. When it comes to making rational laws about how people should live their lives, the legislature is a dumpster fire. If you are a minority, you should never forget that the legislature is a system where decisions are made by a majority vote.
 

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
What I said in another thread:

Zoo50 said:
As I said, the anti-zoo arguments in Warren v. Virginia were really weak*, and zoos should learn from that loss going forward. Zoos should analyze the arguments used against Warren (no matter how asinine they were). To be honest, I don't know why that case wasn't appealed (maybe Warren ran out of money). Would Warren v. Virginia have ended differently if it happened in a more liberal state like Massachusetts?

*Arguments in Warren v. Virginia (for defending VA's anti-zoo law) included "it spreads diseases", "it goes against tradition", "there is no court precedent for zoo rights", "a lot of people say it's abuse, so therefore it's abuse", "sex with animals always causes animals to die or be injured" (all these arguments are nonsense).
What I'm trying to say is, rather than just going with the defeatist attitude of "zoos always lose" or "we won't ever be accepted", consider the fact that the anti-zoo arguments made in Warren v. Virginia are weak, irrational, and inconsistent -- a pro-zoo lawyer could fight these arguments in a future case.
 
Last edited:

caikgoch

Esteemed Citizen of ZV
What I'm trying to say is, rather than just going with the defeatist attitude of "zoos always lose" or "we won't ever be accepted", consider the fact that the anti-zoo arguments made in Warren v. Virginia are weak, irrational, and inconsistent -- a pro-zoo lawyer could fight these arguments in a future case.
And what I am trying to say is that we will have to appeal any case to get it out of the lower courts where judges are bound by public opinion if they want to keep their jobs. Only in the appellate courts can you expect an argument based in nothing but logic and fact to prevail. Just take a hard look at how juries are chosen and the silly shit they do.
 

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
WE know they are weak, irrational, and inconsistent. The majority of the world thinks they are strong, rational. and consistent.
How can the world possibly think "spreading diseases" is a good argument to ban sex with animals, when humans spread diseases (sexually) to each other all the time? If spreading diseases was really a good argument, then courts would ban human-to-human sex (in the same manner that they support anti-zoo laws). So that is an inconsistency. Another inconsistency is that eating meat (sometimes) spreads diseases, meaning, why isn't the court banning meat-eating as well?

The anti-zoo argument that "no court has recognized a right to sex with animals" (the "precedent" argument) also is a weak argument, because it has nothing to do with whether something is intrinsically a human right or not. For example, if "precedent" had always been used as an argument, same-sex marriage never would've been legalized in the U.S. (it would have stayed illegal because, according to the "precedent" argument, making it legal would have violated "precedent").

I'm hoping that someone (other than me) can analyze these arguments, so that someone can perhaps think of something that I may have overlooked.
 

arcticwolf69

Citizen of Zooville
so what is your point? To simply point out and find all the inconsistencies you can possibly find? We know it is inconsistent and weak. They do NOT care if it is obviously, they grab anything they can think up to argue with. Pointing it out does not CHANGE the way they think.
The anti-zoo argument that "no court has recognized a right to sex with animals" (the "precedent" argument) also is a weak argument, because it has nothing to do with whether something is intrinsically a human right or not. For example, if "precedent" had always been used as an argument, same-sex marriage never would've been legalized in the U.S. (it would have stayed illegal because, according to the "precedent" argument, making it legal would have violated "precedent").
It matters not how WEAK the argument is to the majority of the population. "no court has recognized a right to sex with animals", No matter how weak you think that argument is, THAT is the main distinction of the biggest part of the issue. How can any change ever be made unless that distinction is overcome. It is not as important a right to have sex with with animals. FIND a way to get adult animals the right to decide for themselves who and what they have sex with.
The majority of society will NEVER accept that we have a "right" to have sex with animals. For the most part i agree with them. If people had the right to sex with animals we all know a lot of abuse would start happening simply because they have the right to do it. Which is the biggest part of the entire anti zoo argument. Protecting animals from the abuse of unwanted sex with humans. I think we all agree that is a big thing they do need protected from.
If you truly wish things to change i think the only way to do it, is to get animals to be recognized as NOT haveing to verbally consent to sex with humans. The people behind all these laws have never lived with non human companions. They have no clue that animals can and obviously do have ways to convey their emotions and feelings with out verbally telling us. That is what MUST be fixed with education. Grandmas with little shitzus are terrified animal fuckers will abuse animals. They have reason to be in some cases.
The vast majority need to understand that an adult animal is NOT a child in mind. An animal choosing to participate in sex with a human for their own sexual pleasures, is not going to have a mental break down later in life fro the emotional trauma of it. For an adult animal it is not mentally traumatic to have sex because they wish too, claiming it is because they have no clue it is wrong, is also as you like to continually point out "weak", because animals have NO moral issues. If it feels good and they like it, they think there is nothing wrong with it because there is nothing wrong with it.
No matter how much you point out the majority of the world view is wrong.... they will never stop thinking it is.
Unless you educate them WHY their view is wrong. Most will never believe it, because they do not wish too. The ones who simply do not know can change that view if they KNOW why their thinking is wrong. Those are the people you need to change the opinion of.
Abuse needs to be based on actual physical and mental abuse. Not simply because it is icky and people think it must be wrong.
 
Last edited:

saddlebum66

Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Arc points out a number of things, most particularly that ranting about these Court cases will not help. What it WILL do is continue our being perceived as sex maniacs and perverts. Privacy IS an issue this battle might be fought successfully on, but unless we disconnect from the OTHER 'philias that have been associated with us in peoples' minds, we wont get far. That Epstein idiot is dead, but look at the fuss ongoing there, and thats a SINGLE- issue 'philia. If there was a proven HINT of Zoo there, even a Royal would get flushed. That is not going to change in the Public Eye anytime soon.

Additionally, regarding that oft-asked question about sex being harmless where eating a critter is fatal... let's try growing up...because the FACT is, first, last, and always....people can live without SEX, but they cannot live without food. This is the simple answer to what is really a simple question.
 

egoldstein

Citizen of Zooville
Additionally, regarding that oft-asked question about sex being harmless where eating a critter is fatal... let's try growing up...because the FACT is, first, last, and always....people can live without SEX, but they cannot live without food. This is the simple answer to what is really a simple question.
Let's not also forget that people can live without animals as sex or food. I'm not suggesting they should, and certainly not that they will, but neither of those (non-human animals for sex or food) is a requirement. Only pointing this out because it read (I don't think intentionally) as though animals == food is a requirement.
 

UR20Z

Esteemed Citizen of ZV
We wont ever be accepted. We are outcasts gotta learn to deal with it honestly ? in the eyes of non zoos. We are probably one the same level as pedophiles
You wish...

In the eyes of Joe Public, we're at a level that requires an extension ladder to be capable of looking up to pedophiles.
 

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
Additionally, regarding that oft-asked question about sex being harmless where eating a critter is fatal... let's try growing up...because the FACT is, first, last, and always....people can live without SEX, but they cannot live without food. This is the simple answer to what is really a simple question.
People do not have to eat animal products (eating animal-derived products, such as meat, is not a requirement to survive).

We know it is inconsistent and weak. They do NOT care if it is obviously, they grab anything they can think up to argue with. Pointing it out does not CHANGE the way they think.
So we agree that the arguments they make don't make sense. The question is, how do zoos challenge their anti-zoo mentality? One of their arguments is, "lots of [anti-zoo] sources say that sex with animals is abuse / cruelty, therefore it is abuse." How can zoos challenge that argument?
 

SigmatoZeta

Esteemed Citizen of ZV
People do not have to eat animal products (eating animal-derived products, such as meat, is not a requirement to survive).



So we agree that the arguments they make don't make sense. The question is, how do zoos challenge their anti-zoo mentality? One of their arguments is, "lots of [anti-zoo] sources say that sex with animals is abuse / cruelty, therefore it is abuse." How can zoos challenge that argument?
Stop assuming that people hate others based on abstract philosophy. I guarantee that if you just go to a non-zooey online venue that meets the Ray Oldenburg description of a good "third place" and instead of arguing, just stay out, and hang out there trying to make friends anyway, regardless of whether or not they tell you overtly they agree that animal sex is okay. Don't judge them for what they think, but judge them based on whether or not they can be respectful toward you. If they can, keep staying friends. If not, you don't have to talk to them. Eventually, you will find that people are coming around or at least softening their disagreement from an impassioned outcry to mere sullen grumbling. This has worked for me.

It does not work at a venue where rampant trolling passes for "debate," fyi.
 
Additionally, regarding that oft-asked question about sex being harmless where eating a critter is fatal... let's try growing up...because the FACT is, first, last, and always....people can live without SEX, but they cannot live without food. This is the simple answer to what is really a simple question.
saddlebum66 is correct. The eating of animals has nothing to do with bestiality. Animal husbandry has been integral to human survival for thousands of years.
 

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
saddlebum66 is correct. The eating of animals has nothing to do with bestiality. Animal husbandry has been integral to human survival for thousands of years.
Eat meat is related to sex with animals, in terms of morality -- it is morally inconsistent to kill and eat animals (something that is morally wrong), yet also condemn far-less-harmful sex with animals. Its about how people treat animals overall. If people were to do things in a morally good way (in the best interest of animals), then slaughtering animals would be outlawed, and sex with animals would be legal.
 
Top