Is it wrong to be gay?

[bobeck]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

It's already been made clear as day that consent is what defines the illegality of bestiality.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I get the notion that "consent is the reason why bestiality is illegal" because it IS why bestiality is illegal.

I really can't emphasize how uninformed a statement this is. You offer these statements without any backing, either from court decisions, legislative history or intent or any other verifiable sources. Further, if this concept that lack of consent justifies the illegality of bestiality is as clear as day and therefore indisputable, then why is it that Google gives me conflicting and contrary evidence when I enter the question.. "is lack of consent the cause for the illegality of bestiality?" Wikipedia brings up Jacob M. Appel, who argues that lack of consent is not a meaningful concept when discussing human-animal sex. (This is by no means an exhaustive list). Point is, this issue of consent is not as clear as you or other posters have made it out to be.

I really hate belaboring this issue of consent as for the most part it is now moot with regards to Devonin's post. However I will make one last statement with respect to consent. You say, Bestiality will never become legal because an animal can never give definite consent to the act. My question is, who said it had to give consent in the first place? Impliedly with your statement, you erroneously elevate an animal to the status of a human being, and infer that every right a human has, an animal has as well and to the same degree. Talk about faulty comparisons.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I will live my life the way I want to, and anyone else should be able to do the same. However, you can't violate fundamental rights and laws in doing so.

The issue here is that you are using the concept of ''Fundamental rights" as the barrier or standard between right and wrong and argue that it is what keeps society ''flowing''. Yet the entire issue of Fundamental rights is really a constantly shifting scale that again revolves around the social circumstances.

Take a drastic hypothetical situation where say 2/3's of the population died off because of some disease. The government could enact a statute requiring all females to become inseminated, either naturally or artificially (with or without consent) for the purposes of procreation. What just happened to the fundamental right of consent and the right to give birth? Yes, this is drastic and likely not to happen, yet nevertheless it is possible.

And for those of you who doubt this (not necessarily the specific hypothetical but the fact that the government can infringe on fundamental rights) a basic understanding of constitutional law will easily explain it. Very basically, there are fundamental rights spelled out in the constitution. However, laws may curtail these rights only if that law serves a compelling state purpose, and is narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose. All it would take is for the justices to determine that the possible extinction of the population was compelling enough to supersede the rights of the individual, and that insemination was the least intrusive way to prevent that. (Please don't argue over the fact of how it is or isn't the least intrusive way... that's left up to the court).

All this lengthy discussion to show that this concept of fundamental rights is by no means the infallible stand against the conduct of society because it too can change.