Anti zoo arguments

[Bear28]

Thanks for the replys Bear28 that was an interesting article

​Well it wasn't really an artical. It was a reply post but it might as well be one.

[egoldstein]

Argument #8: Being zoosexual is only a choice, so it is unnecessary.
Why this argument fails: Zoosexuality is a sexual orientation just like any other sexual orientation. People are born zoosexual in the same way people are born homosexual — it is an orientation that cannot be changed.

 
This is a piss-poor retort, it asserts that zoosexuality is an orientation, but offers no substance to support the claim, it carries the same weight as the opposite assertion it is intended to refute. Anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Maybe it *is* a choice, I don't know. Assuming if it is, and in all cases, the assertion that it's unecesary is still pointless. There are many things in life which are not "necessary" and as a society we do not remove them or punish for them, many of them are even encouraged. Non-procreative sex of all types is "unnecessary", eating good food of a quality more than required to sustain life, having a nice house or car, the accumulation of wealth, every labor-saving device ever invented, and an absolutely astounding number of other actions which are typically engaged in and considered "good".

[Cynolove693]

 
 
This is a piss-poor retort, it asserts that zoosexuality is an orientation, but offers no substance to support the claim, it carries the same weight as the opposite assertion it is intended to refute. Anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Maybe it *is* a choice, I don't know. Assuming if it is, and in all cases, the assertion that it's unecesary is still pointless. There are many things in life which are not "necessary" and as a society we do not remove them or punish for them, many of them are even encouraged. Non-procreative sex of all types is "unnecessary", eating good food of a quality more than required to sustain life, having a nice house or car, the accumulation of wealth, every labor-saving device ever invented, and an absolutely astounding number of other actions which are typically engaged in and considered "good".

I believe it is an orientation for alot of zoophiles.. Atleast I have been this way all of my life; attracted to animals only, emotionally, romantically, and sexually.. Why should the term "orientation" include one unchosen, inborn form of emotional and sexual attraction like heterosexuality or homosexuality, but exclude another such as zoosexuality?

[Bear28]

Here was Huma's Unnatural Argument prompt from his old sight.
 
A common argument used against the zoosexual lifestyle is the "unnatural" argument. in its most basic form this argument implies that sex is for procrastination purposes, and that since humans cannot have offspring with say, a dog for example, that zoosexuality is wrong.
this argument is frequently heard from religions circles, but not always. while this argument may resemble Human Exceptionalism, it really is a beast of its own; for many animal rights activists and others not inclined to see themselves as "above" animals will use this argument. some versions will say that human/animal mating goes against nature's design i. e. a man and a woman. other versions insist that no human/animal mating would occur naturally in the wild nor does any other type of inter-species mating.
Whatever version is used, they all pretty much say the same thing: Human/animal sex would not occur on it's own in the wild, nor can any offspring be produced, so therefore zoosexuality is unnatural and wrong.
Examples: 1. Zoosexuality goes against God's plan, for God intended sex to be between a husband and wife for the purpose of procrastination. 2. An animal is only attracted to members of it's own species as nature intended.
Counters: 1. Not all human relationships serve the purpose of procreation. Homosexual relationships cannot produce offspring, sometimes one or both parties in a heterosexual relationship is sterile or otherwise unable to have sex and/or kids. Also, I've heard of some relationships in which one partner has HIV, would we advocate them to have a child? Not to mention some people just don't want kids. 2. I can only laugh at this proposed augment of zoosexuality being wrong because it's unnatural. it is unnatural, i'll not deny that but what about that makes it wrong? The very existence of 99% of our relationship with the animal kingdom is unnatural. are you telling me a human riding a horse is "natural" behavior for the animal? How about a seal doing a handstand? Or what about a lion in a cage? Is that natural? Or the destruction of habitat, just how "natural" is that? Or what about the fact that dogs would not exist in their current form if not for careful (and sometimes careless) breeding? they used to be wolves, remembers? We bred the wolf out of them.

[egoldstein]

I believe it is an orientation for alot of zoophiles.. Atleast I have been this way all of my life; attracted to animals only, emotionally, romantically, and sexually.. Why should the term "orientation" include one unchosen, inborn form of emotional and sexual attraction like heterosexuality or homosexuality, but exclude another such as zoosexuality?

​
There's evidence showing that homosexuality and heterosexuality as distinct orientations with a genetic basis. I'm not aware of there being any evidence for zoophilia being an unchosen, inborn trait, maybe it is, but without evidence to support the claim, it's just an assertion of opinion and no more valid than other, unfounded suppositions.
If anyone has evidence to back up the claim I'd love to see it, but without that, the offered retort has no more weight than what it's intended to disprove. We might prefer it, but that doesn't make it true.

[Cynolove693]

Ok I'm a 100% against animal abuse, and i agree that anyone that harms an animal should be faced with a jail or prison term for their actions depending on the degree of the abuse that was done; and when released should be prevented from possessing an animal for a determined amount of time..
Also that they should definetly seek mental health treatment for any underlying mental conditions once released and not specifically for treatment of their sexual attraction... But comparing zoophilia (the love of animals) or the act of the sex itself ''bestiality'' to physical abuse is not even relevent here.. Unless the animal was physically harmed during the sexual act; Then it would be animal abuse..
But suggesting that a consenting animal is being abused with absolutely no evidence to back it up is an unjustifiable accusation, and should not even hold up in court.. Sorry to tell these guys but there is no cure for zoophilia; some may think it is a choice, but let me put it this way, if you wanted to stop being a zoophile, would you be able to?
We love animals in a deeper way and yes we may take it even further into the sexual realm; Most zoo's know how to read an animals body language; sorry to say it, but better than most people would be able to that are not zoosexual..
Again like i said animals matter a great deal to us zoo's so due to this fact we have a deeper understanding of their behaviors;... Because we have this bond with animals, understanding them and connecting with them is a major part of our thought process; our psyche..
Sorry to burst these people's bubbles as for saying we should seek treatment.. there is absolutely no need for us zoo's to seek mental health treatment and it would make it worse on us if we did by suppressing something that is part of our major thought process; Here's a little quote from a Psychological/Psychiatric point of view that is related to what i just implied..
"The psychiatric community knows of no 'cure' for zoophilia, any more than there is a 'cure' for homosexuality or bisexuality, and would generally regard an attempt to change a person's lifestyle as being more harmful and disruptive than the lifestyle itself may be. It is possible to sway a person away from an undesired lifestyle by using drugs such as Depoprovera (SP?), but this acts by suppressing all sexual desire, and makes a person asexual. Take away the drug, and the person eventually reverts to his natural state. The same is true of aversion therapy, whether through shock therapy or some other negative association such as a noxious odor"

[Cynolove693]

​
There's evidence showing that homosexuality and heterosexuality as distinct orientations with a genetic basis. I'm not aware of there being any evidence for zoophilia being an unchosen, inborn trait, maybe it is, but without evidence to support the claim, it's just an assertion of opinion and no more valid than other, unfounded suppositions.
If anyone has evidence to back up the claim I'd love to see it, but without that, the offered retort has no more weight than what it's intended to disprove. We might prefer it, but that doesn't make it true.

Be that as it may, let's break down the definition of orientation shall we..
1. A familiarization with something
2. the direction of someone's interest or attitude, especially political or sexual
3. in Behaviorism is mentally directing attention or physically directing the body towards a stimulus of some kind
4. Sexual Orientation is a term used to describe our patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction—and our sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions. A person's sexual orientation is not a black or white matter; sexual orientation exists along a continuum, with exclusive attraction to the opposite sex on one end of the continuum and exclusive attraction to the same sex on the other, but it sometimes implies either or..
Claiming that in order for an orientation to be true; you have to have a genetic basis backing it does not apply for "all" orientations.. Some can be psychological, it is entirely possible to be attracted to something from the start but not be based biologically towards it.. You have the right to show skepticism, but are the above definitions not applicable to zoophilia?

[Cynolove693]

We are all born with the ability to love.. With that being said Human-animal communication has existed for 1000s of years.. Genes do play a role in psychological traits as well.. 
I stand by the assumption that certain people are born with an innate affinity towards non-human living creatures. They are inexplicably drawn to animals, with an ability to connect, understand, and communicate with them better than they can with most people.
In psychology and ethology, imprinting is any kind of phase-sensitive learning (learning occurring at a particular age or a particular life stage) that is rapid and apparently independent of the consequences of behavior. It was first used to describe situations in which an animal or person learns the characteristics of some stimulus, which is therefore said to be "imprinted" onto the subject. Imprinting is hypothesized to have a critical period.
With that said, I did not grow up with an animal, yet always wanted one from a very young age, and when I did have the opportunity to be around animals I was happy as can be, so this wasn't a learned trait..
Egoldstein there is actually scientific studies being done that questions whether genes have a role in whether or not someone is an animal person.. Just Google it you'd be surprised by the results, After all, genes influence a wide array of human traits..
 

[Cynolove693]

Ive always felt a familiarization with canines, from an early age, just seeing them on TV made me happy; hell blues clues was my favorite cartoon because it had a dog in it.. I can recall times people were walking their dogs down the road even, made me feel envious of them.. I wanted a dog of my own but my parents wouldn't allow it for some reason.. The times that I got to be around relatives dogs, where some of the most memorable points in my childhood.. even before I had the chance to own one later in adulthood I had this affinity.. In all technicality based on the definition above, I can classify my lifestyle as an orientation, whether anyone believes its an inborn trait or not..

[Cynolove693]

OH I forgot to mention Scooby-Doo was also a favorite of mine and still is lol who doesn't like scooby!