I have asked before what justification the irreligous have for objecting to humans having sexual relations with animals. After all, I snarked, it seems the logical next step after the public acceptance of homosexuality – another form of sexual preference that is ‘irrationally hated by backwards, bigoted religious fundamentalists’. (Incest is another, those mindless scripture-thumping sheeple!)
Religious nuts can cite this or that doctrine or verse or saying by a religious leader as their excuse – after all, they’re RELIGIOUS right? Those fellas don’t accept such blasphemy as logic, rationale and evidence!
One of the common responses in the comments was that zoophilia cannot be truly consensual (despite personal stories like this), because animals are not sentient and therefore cannot consciously choose to have willing sex with a human. Any apparent enjoyment on the animal’s part is wholly an instinctual, uncontrollable, involuntary response.
Therefore, zoophilia is akin to rape or pedophilia rather than to the consensual relations between, say, two adult male humans.
Which makes me think: Why then are animal labour, pet rearing or eating meat considered acceptable?
In the same way that dogs cannot make the concious decision that they want sex with Dr. Dog-Doer, oxen cannot voluntarily agree to being harnessed and made to plow the field (nor give consent to being castrated for that matter).
Rabbits cannot grasp the concept of ownership by another being, let alone freely submit to the stifling existence of life in a cage.
Fish do not have the mental faculty to decide they really want to be hauled out into the suffocating air and served still writhing to the discerning sushi connosier.
I ask thee, are the harsh enslavement, lifetime imprisonment and outright murder of animals not worse than simply raping them?
So again, to the irreligious: If you don’t base your ethics/morality regarding proper interactions between humans and animals on some outdated, arbitrary and probably mythical supernatural basis… Then what is your justification for objecting to zoophilia, but not to animal slavery, imprisonment and mass specie-cide?
PS. Just to get the message straight: I am no animal-rights activist. While I object to intentional mistreatment of animals, I do not believe they are entitled to rights the same way humans are. I do not consider animal labour, keeping pets or barbeques unethical, however I consider sexual contact between humans and animals to be immoral. Being a theist, this dichotomy seems perfectly fine to me.