Tsk tsk people, I believe you've almost offended me. Allow me to explain.
Essentially, you are trying to rationally justify irrationalism. This is precisely the brand of "hypocrisy" that I was ranting about a while ago in the "gay marriage" thread. We were previously discussing how gay people should be considered the same as hetero people, and this necessarily entails a discussion of normative standards, as I'm sure you remember a time (pre-1971) when homosexuality was considered a medical condition that "should not be condoned, but treated." Thus your failure to apply the same consideration here can only be an inconsistency (unless you wish to directly engage with me on the broad moral principles I already laid out on the first page).
Palefrost, I see you'd (edited) rather not use the proper definitions, but this, in fact, would be quite detrimental to this conversation. You are free to use your own definitions but in doing so, you will be forced to acknowledge a loss of accuracy and thus analytical power, and in doing that, you'll have made yourself irrelevant to any meaningful dialogue. Which I presumed was the aim of this forum. This is why it is important to be aware of definitions and principles to some degree of rigor, and this applies to all conversation.
Now if you don't mind me, I will first paste the proper definitions (which I've gacked from a conversation I was having in Livejournal in far more hostile conditions):
Technically speaking, bestiality is a legal term simply meaning engaging in sexual conduct with an animal (i.e. not human). That apparently means anything from raping a chicken while chopping its head off to letting your dog hump your leg (or whatever) to its satisfaction. It automatically holds negative connotations because of its use to designate such as illegal. Zoophilia refers to attraction to animals that does not preclude intimacy of any sort (for want of a better expression).
However, the way that it is discussed in places such as this thread (or rather, in layman's terms), well, the sole primary focus of the term bestiality is on the sexual aspect (as in the pornographic sense). Zoophilia again is a bit broader, and more commonly, focuses on the attraction to animals as a whole. This of course may manifest as a sexual attraction, and it seems that it does so often enough for people to make a generalisation of it. Since you (i.e. the guy who asked me to provide definitions) already implicitly agree with me that there is a distinction to be made in terms of what you call "bestiality" insofar, as some circumstances involve rape and some do not, I only need say that what I call "zoophilia", by definition, never involves an act of rape, for it would be equally absurd to claim that raping a human woman was an "act of love".
Much of the contention in these areas lie not only in the underlying premises, but also in the semantics, and misapprehensions about which terms refer to what and in the context of which part of what conceptual framework.
And now I will address your reply piece-by-piece:
To claim some sort of relationship to cover up a perversion is typical denial with hopes of fooling people into excepting deviant behavior. One can then assume, using the same mentality, that a child of eight also has a right and feelings for Chester the molester, maybe we should let them shack up and marry?
Quick reply: you're committing strawman fallacy. I've already explained that it is reasonable to assume (and Todd agrees with me here regardless of the discussion of sexual elements here) that it is possible to think of particular interactions between humans and other animals as a 'relationship' of some sort, and I even went into the effort of explaining specifically where this might constitute a delusion. I do hope you take the effort of rereading that part as it appears this has been ignored. Also, I claim that you wouldn't find yourself saying these things if we weren't talking about the "bumping uglies" bit.
We would need to explore how moral is agreed on and created to get any answers on why we are not bumping uglies with Bambi.
Of course. That is what we're doing here. However, let's change that statement to demonstrate the nature of exploration and practice of normative standards in cultural codes: "...and created to get any answers on why we are not bumping uglies with members of the same sex." I would like you to reflect on what part of you is being closed-minded, and in what way. I do not mean that one should be open-minded to the extent that they say "everything is OK" but rather that one should give proper consideration...for when this is truly done with proper regard to principles of reason, respect and tolerance, it no longer becomes necessary to say "this is OK" or not...and want to talk of that as a general prescriptive rule.
To me it would be way more fascinating to ask why people feel the urge (the fetish) to touch mary's sheep. What sexual history they have or how it got warped into sexuality.
As somebody who is personally and academically familiar with abnormal psychology and psychiatry, I can tell you that the presentation, as with everything else, can be quite varied. I can also tell you that in some cases this is arguably moreso the product of a predisposed orientation as opposed to a cultural motivation (again parallels can be drawn specifically to recent discussions regarding gender orientation). Therefore:
If you made it legal the dirty, naughty, shocking, unmentioned, need the person had is lost. I feel they would choose a new perversion.
Is most certainly possible...for some but not all people. Actually, it would be apt here to say that such are most likely to fall under the 'bestiality' umbrella, but not the 'zoophile' one as most typically, their specifically sexual interest would have been a result of the vicious cycle of what I refer to as "the pornography syndrome". As in when "normal" things no longer excite you, you need more, and more and it gets "ridiculous". In this case it's a search for "deviance" mediated through the sexual market, which in itself has implications for our practice of adherence to normative standards. And you're right. Apparently alot of deviant pornography is specifically marketed as being precisely that, and it really is quite exploitative.
However, I will remind you most importantly that we are specifically talking about relationships, not merely (and not necessarily) sex with animals and the reason I insisted on using the definitions was because I feel it important that there be a distinction observed.
Now moving along to Sarah's affirmation:
There is no need for such a thing to be considered a logical option
By now you will realise that I've ranted on at some length about why this is unacceptable. Furthermore, your justification for this is:
1. An appeal to naturalism, which is a fallacy (this comment is ridiculously long so I shall not provide an explanation unless required to).
2. Simply wrong, as evidence clearly indicates.
People using biological imperative as a motive for sex is a very very common device, but it's also an extremely obvious mistake...do I need to go into this further? If so, I will create a new thread.
People who enjoy sex with children are considered wrong… well, animals are in damn near the same position
This is a perfect example of exactly what I was cautioning against when discussing Todd's comparison of children and animals. Again it's also wrong (sigh, I could go on and on about this if you so wish but by this time, I'll have written a complete honors thesis)...anyway, Sarah, please read the first page again too.
And therefore, ladies and gentlemen:
Bestiality should be treated, not condoned.
Is false. This is also not medical practice.
On a slightly less tedious note, I see the parallels could lead to a very interesting discussion on pedophilia, as I also hold a significantly unorthodox position not dissimilar to the one I've demonstrated here and would particularly enjoy turning the heat up a little.
Will throw out bait soon.
