He can't help it, he was born that way.

[CoryKS]

A lion and a tiger are basically the same species just different types of the same species... cats! Felines.

Plus, they can be bred for their skills in magic. They're pretty much my favorite animal. Gosh!

 

[Xue Sheng]

A lion and a tiger are basically the same species just different types of the same species... cats! Felines.

Basically you're not going to see a zebra and a waterbuffalo mixing it up anytime soon, though they're similar they're different species; equine and bovine. That is what I'm talking about. One could argue that someone from Asia or Africa or an even an Australian Aborigine is a different species from a European/American Caucasian but they're both STILL human! You've heard of cockapoos haven't you? The cross between a cocker-spaniel and a poodle? But I'll be damned surprised if you show me a Persian-shepard; a cross between a persian cat and a german shepard. It doesn't happen. Why because genetically it won't happen... naturally without outside laboratory assistance. So c'mon, please, it's not tautology okay? It's a biological fact.

YEAH RIGHT…Sure…you expect me to believe that…if that is true then how do you explain a Chimera or a Jackalope

 

[MA-Caver]

YEAH RIGHT…Sure…you expect me to believe that…if that is true then how do you explain a Chimera or a Jackalope

(throwing hands up!) Xue! .... (hands over my eyes) sigh!

 

[Xue Sheng]

(throwing hands up!) Xue! .... (hands over my eyes) sigh!

Sorry.. I just couldn't resist (hangs head in shame and skulks away)

 

[MA-Caver]

Sorry.. I just couldn't resist (hangs head in shame and skulks away)

S'ok... c'mon back over here... it's ok.

 

[Empty Hands]

A lion and a tiger are basically the same species just different types of the same species... cats! Felines.

I'm sorry, this isn't true. Lions and tigers are definitely different species. Lions are the species Panthera leo, and tigers are Panthera tigris. Housecats are a different genus even, Felis domesticus. Lions and tigers do share some genetic similarity, which is why they can produce hybrids. Similar to horses and donkeys producing mules. However, they are still different species that do not normally reproduce together.

You also might want to rethink this logic a bit. It would imply that it would be just dandy for humans to get it on with chimps or gorillas. After all, we are all apes.

One could argue that someone from Asia or Africa or an even an Australian Aborigine is a different species from a European/American Caucasian but they're both STILL human!

No one couldn't. Asians, Africans and aborigines all fit the basic definition of a species; "a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."

So c'mon, please, it's not tautology okay? It's a biological fact.

No, the tautology is in reference to your statement "Why? Because it's wrong!". That is a classic tautology.

Also, producing viable offspring (a Cat-Dog as you say) is different from your original claim that different species never try to mate with each other. That is manifestly untrue. Even if it was true though, the "unnatural" argument doesn't fly for reasons I have already enumerated.

But their opinions do not weigh in the fact that because the two men/women are human into their equation. They're only looking at the similarity of their sexes.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here, but it seems pretty far away from everyone knowing "deep down" that homosexuality is OK.

I think you're intelligent to know what I (and everyone else meant) when saying SPECIES.

With respect, I'm not even sure you know what you mean by species. Different whales are different species. Different apes are different species. Chimps and humans are not in the same species because we are both apes.

Even if we were though, as I have stated repeatedly, it still doesn't hold water as a rational argument against beastiality.

 

[Empty Hands]

We do it for enjoyment. Most of the animal kingdon does it for reproduction (as far as we know).

Bonobos and dolphins have both been documented having sex for non-procreative reasons. In bonobos particularly, it seems to serve a function as both recreation and a tool for social cohesion.

Many male animals will also use "sex-lite" such as mounting positions as a tool of dominance against lower ranked males.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I'm sorry, this isn't true. Lions and tigers are definitely different species. Lions are the species Panthera leo, and tigers are Panthera tigris. Housecats are a different genus even, Felis domesticus. Lions and tigers do share some genetic similarity, which is why they can produce hybrids. Similar to horses and donkeys producing mules. However, they are still different species that do not normally reproduce together..

Oh please

Ok their the same genus Panthera that is made up from the species Leo and Tigris to name 2. The point I believe was, for example that a dog and a human a dog and a cat a fish and an aardvark are to different genetically to reproduce they are NOT the same genus

Panthera is a genus of chiefly large cats that includes the snow leopard, tiger, leopard, jaguar, and lion, most having the ability to roar

 

[Empty Hands]

Oh please

What? They aren't the same species.

The point I believe was, for example that a dog and a human a dog and a cat a fish and an aardvark are to different genetically to reproduce they are NOT the same genus

Actually Caver's point was difficult to determine, mostly I think due to a confused idea of what a species is. Not all whales are of the same species, and a blue whale and a sperm whale (for instance) cannot probably successfully produce offspring, but he seemed to be indicating that they could.

In any case, I have already acknowledged this point, and refuted it. The "naturalness" of an act has no bearing on the morality. If it did, then you are immoral for taking antibiotics to cure your diseases or wearing a nylon jacket. None of these things are natural, but (almost) nobody thinks they are wrong.

 

[Xue Sheng]

What? They aren't the same species.



Actually Caver's point was difficult to determine, mostly I think due to a confused idea of what a species is. Not all whales are of the same species, and a blue whale and a sperm whale (for instance) cannot probably successfully produce offspring, but he seemed to be indicating that they could.

In any case, I have already acknowledged this point, and refuted it. The "naturalness" of an act has no bearing on the morality. If it did, then you are immoral for taking antibiotics to cure your diseases or wearing a nylon jacket. None of these things are natural, but (almost) nobody thinks they are wrong.

If I am correct the supplied link, which I will not watch, was about Bestiality. Two COMPLETELY different genus as well as species and pretty much that is not considered natural by any authority on the subject of reproduction I know of.

And morality is something ENTIRELY different that I am not even talking about here. But I will go out on a limb here and state for all to read that from a morality standpoint I don't think bestiality is considered moral at all nor do I consider it moral

But to be completely honest about where this post appears to be going now all I have left to say is I'm terribly sorry but this is now getting a bit too silly for me to continue.

Have a nice day :asian:

 

[arnisador]

Bonobos and dolphins have both been documented having sex

Wow, there's a mental image I didn't need. I hope the monkey is the one on top.

Many male animals will also use "sex-lite" such as mounting positions as a tool of dominance against lower ranked males.

I sense a BJJ joke here...

 

[SageGhost83]

.....Ok, Empty Hands, you can bang the dog for crying out loud, now stop getting so mental on us :lol:!

Joking aside, and please don't pound my face in ..............:lol:. Seriously this time, I see what you are trying to say and I agree that there is a certain tautology in that case. I won't condemn it just becuase many say that it is an unquestionable wrong in their books. However, animals engage in many such activities including cannabalism of their own offspring. I would hope that humans have formed more developed social behaviors since leaving the wild. I personally don't approve of it because it just seems like an insane and a very heinous thing to do. It doesn't seem like the animals are against it though - did the dog try to fight back? How about the horse who was "pitching" (by the way, I heard about that one on Elliot in the morning - I think he said that the guy had a broken pelvis, too.) I still go with Caver on this one, though. ****ing animals? Suddenly *man's best friend* takes on a whole new meaning.

 

[SageGhost83]

Many male animals will also use "sex-lite" such as mounting positions as a tool of dominance against lower ranked males.

Ohhhh, so that is what UFC is all about :lfao::lfao::lfao:. Okay, I am done. Let me stop before I get in trouble.

 

[SageGhost83]

Ohhhh, so that is what UFC is all about :lfao::lfao::lfao:. Okay, I am done. Let me stop before I get in trouble.

Poor Karateka never stood a chance against those uber-horny Gracies :roflmao:. Okay, seriously, I am done :lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2:.

 

[Big Don]

Ohhhh, so that is what UFC is all about :lfao::lfao::lfao:. Okay, I am done. Let me stop before I get in trouble.

Its only gay if you make eye contact.

 

[SageGhost83]

I apologize for the profanity gaffe in post #32 folks:duh::asian:.

 

[Marginal]

That's a tautology. Why is it wrong? Certainly not because it is "unnatural" as you seem to imply (although not true, cross-species matings do happen. Ever heard of a liger?). Plenty of things are unnatural that are not wrong, including antibiotics, nylon and space travel.

Animals can't give consent.

 

[Empty Hands]

Animals can't give consent.

Why is consent necessary for sex, but not necessary for killing and eating, working, or medical experimentation? For humans, informed consent is the cornerstone of any medical experimentation, so that issue is directly comparable.

 

[Marginal]

Why is consent necessary for sex, but not necessary for killing and eating, working, or medical experimentation? For humans, informed consent is the cornerstone of any medical experimentation, so that issue is directly comparable.

As long as you use immature humans (kids) in the comparison, it follows quite closely.

Swift aside, there are ethical guidelines wrapped around animal use/abuse. It may be arbitrary, but then so are all our social rules if you insist on going down that road. Does having sex with an animal do it any favors? Probably not. So I figure that's reason enough to discourage the practice. (A reason that is not, "it's icky.") Not to mention the potential public health issues a beast of burden with two backs can give rise to.

 

[Empty Hands]

Does having sex with an animal do it any favors? Probably not. So I figure that's reason enough to discourage the practice. (A reason that is not, "it's icky.")

Pretty close, really, considering that death doesn't do the animal any favors either. I'm just not satisfied with arbitrariness as a standard for law making and punishment.

Not to mention the potential public health issues a beast of burden with two backs can give rise to.

The fully human version has far more disease related health risks, actually. Zoonotic diseases of any stripe are fairly rare and usually difficult to catch.