Hi Godspell,

I'm going to have to agree with Cat on this. The questions he asks are legitimate.

The beautiful slippery slope argument is very tempting to use but it belittles your intelligence Cat. Like when assuming if someone smokes cigaettes they will automatically start doing weed and then other drugs.

I don't think Cat is speaking from a societal perspective: that if "A" is allowed, pretty soon "B" will follow. The much bigger issue is the moral argument: Some things are simply wrong, regardless of how "right" (or reasonable) they may seem. In cases like this, it can be very helpful to "push the envelope" to see how far we really are willing to go in defense of a particular position.

The issue we're talking about here is, essentially, "alternative sexual identities". Homosexuality, which is clearly an "alternative" (to the heterosexual norm), has been defended as legitimate and endorsed by God, as long as the relationships are loving and monogamous. Cat's post talked about beastiality as another alternative, and suggested that the same arguments used in defense of loving homosexual relationships could equally be used in defense of loving beastial relationships.

I have pondered this myself, and feel this is definitely a question that needs to be answered by anyone who believes that loving homosexual relationships are acceptable. I would encourage everyone to take a look around the following site: http://www.zoophilia.net/. [Don't worry, as far as I can tell there is nothing pornographic there. No pictures. Still, it's probably not work safe.]

Zoophilia basically means "animal love", and seems to be the preferred term for those who genuinely love animals and have sexual "relationships" with them. Beastiality is a similar term, but doesn't seem to having any "loving" component. [In that sense, "zoophilia" is more analogous to "boylove", and "beastiality" to "pedophilia", if I can use that comparison.]

Below are some quotes from the site:

We do not only claim to love animals, but we do love them much more than anyone else. Every real zoo loves and protects his lover overall, and those, who abuse any animal, have to be purchased (?) by the mentioned cruelty of animals.
-----------
Zoophilia is natural, cos we love animals as others love their human partners.

What is morality?

Morality is beliefs or ideas about what is right or wrong and about how people should behave, and morality can change. Not long ago, merely heterosexuality was moral, while zoophilia, homosexuality and each other kind of sex was amoral. As per that old morality, zoos, Jews, gays, lesbians, Moslems, blacks should be exterminated.

Zoophilia is Christian as well. Albeit in the Old Testament it is written, that zoophilia is objectionable, God approves zoophilia, cos it is love. There are countless Christian zoos like me. For my part, I am a devout Catholic Christ, I believe in the Lord, and I know, he has created me to love animals, his creatures.

Thank God, I live in a liberal country and wish all my zoofriends in the rest of the world to fight for love and justice!
-----------
Firstly I'll define what I mean by "zoo" A Zoophile is literally someone who has sexual relations with an animal. That kinda globally covers everything, including using an animal for sex the same way you might use a horse to pull a plow, or outright rape. My personal definition is someone who treats their animal the way they would treat a human partner: with love, respect, tenderness. Everything a married couple could expect from their partners. I like to think that I fall into this category.
-----------
So back to the question:- What's it like to be a 'Zoo'? I suspect it's an awful lot like being 'straight'. I've had relationships with people - male and female - and with my dogs. And I've been most comfortable in the relationships with my dogs. So I choose them.
------------
But what really cuts me to the heart is that I know I am going to outlive my lovers. Several times over. A dog has a life span of nine to eleven years, perhaps a little longer depending on the breed. So I know that I'm going to watch my lovers die several times over. That is something most 'straight' people will never have to be concerned about.

It should be fairly obviously to anyone who gives the issue honest consideration, that "zoos" are very much like us in many ways. They don't choose their attractions any more than any of the BLs on this site. And yet, here they are desiring to have loving sexual relationships with animals. Their attractions are a lot more "on the fringe" than homosexuality or boylove, but the same principals that apply to one should be applied equally to all (unless there is some sort of fundamental difference that I have yet to recognize).

Many of the same arguments that have been used here to defend loving homosexual relationships could equally be used to defend loving zoosexual relationships. So, one has to ask the question: if you believe that God endorses loving homosexual relationships, are you willing to take an equally strong stand in defense of loving zoosexual relationships?

CSL and Robert-I, I would be particularly interested to hear your perspective on this.

Blessings,
Rainboy