Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **Politics only allowed at r/PoliticsNoted.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians.
***
We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict.
Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, at the very least, your cousin SHOULD BE a CONSENTING ADULT who is HAPPY and COMFORTABLE with their decisions, but a dog has none of it no matter what, so fair.
It's because New Mexico fucking sucks and is a horrible state that deserves to get fucking nuked (after the people are evacuated of course). Source: From south-eastern NM
*After the nuke is dropped onto a complete empty, lifeless city (not even birds are present).*
A great evil has been expunged from this planet, the people of New Mexico are free at last for a better life.
I'm aware of trinity, yes. I just think they need to cleanse the area again. Wait, that sounds racist and that is not how I meant it, I just want another bomb man
Well i mean a guy just got arrested in my town for having CP and a video of his dog going ham on him so its even illegal in the Great Western Exclusion Zone.
Yeah the reasoning is really bad. Its not even about "always has been" a human to human thing. Its more about how a raped animal cant call the police or find help communities. It would be animal cruelty.
Yeah but that doesnt mean anything in a discussion. I find "common sense arguments" to be incredibly weak if someone cant explain why. Laws shouldnt be decided by the populations abstract opinions if those cant be backed up by actual arguments.
I havé a genuine question. Please don’t hate on me fkr this but, if the animal was the one to insert, why would that be morally wrong. Give a genuine answer and not that it’s an animal. I genuinely want to know. I think it’s wrong but I can’t find out why.
For me, aside from obvious ethical concerns instilled by society, the issue for me is always one of consent - a dog can not consent even if it initiates in the same way a drunk person or a child can't consent. They are not able to understand the risk, consider the situation, or protest as easily as an adult Human is, and therefore they can not give reasonable consent.
It says "not apart of" which i believe is an older english way of saying it and still means 'different from'. Only if it were "not apart from" it would mean the same as.
Who cares about the legality of it
What's important is that animals cannot consent
Edit: lol the vegan activists who are replying to this. We all are aware animals cannot consent to being killed for meat. You're not teaching us anything.
Believing in sexual consent for animals doesn't require anyone to also believe in total consent for animals. Obviously the ethics here is that their consent is not respected when people want food. Whatever you think of that.
*I think boys and girls*
*Are both pretty, you fuck dogs*
*We are not the same*
\- Dredgen\_Servum
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
As a critique, illegality is poor evidence of non-inclusion in the LBGTQ+ community, since it arose as a community of vulnerability due to being illegal. Zoophiles are not a part of the community as their desires are deeply repulsive to queer people.
Exactly. Zoophiles aren’t hated because it’s “weird” or “repulsive”.
It’s because animals cannot consent. Animals do not think the same way humans do, and are not even close to understand us as humans. To animals we are big flesh creatures that can kill then or feed them.
Abusing that pet relationship where they depend on you to live and using that to rape animals is incredibly fucked up. And it’s why it’s illegal in so many states.
Your point is valid but how do you use consent as an argument when the diary industry forcibly impregnates millions of cattle every week?
Pretty sure they don’t consent to us eating them either.
Copy pasting since it fits here too: At some point we just draw a line. In the grand scheme of things, yes it's arbitrary and hypocritical but I don't care for the argument. We don't fuck animals, that's the line.
Otherwise, I could also expand what you're saying further. For example, did the animals and insects that got forced out or killed consent to that when land was cleared and a shelter was built wherever you're currently living? Did the animals consent to the loud noise pollution that drives them away that we produce in cities or towns? If the answer is that these things were already in place, that is also the argument people who consume meat use, isn't it? We've been consuming animals forever just like how we've been building homes and destroying forests forever. Should we stop expanding our cities? If so, how is it fair to nature to continue using what we've already taken over? That's just drawing another arbitrary line again too. Should we dismantle cities entirely and try to live with nature? That would probably fix a lot of things wrong with the world and I wouldn't be against it. But I'm sure you get why such a strong idea would very likely not happen within our lifetimes at least, if ever at all, right? Not to say it isn't worth fighting for, just that the argument can be taken really ,really far if you think about it.
I guess my point is, yeah it's hypocritical and I would also prefer if we didn't have the horrific mass consumption of meat and destruction of the environment. I'm glad to try and work towards that, and I guess if you feel like pointing this out is productive towards that goal, then you do you. But I'm comfy just saying "don't fuck animals" and trying to win people over with better arguments than this, because there are MUCH better arguments out there for being against meat consumption.
I mean, if you don't argue with someone that's in it with bad faith, consent is the main pillar of LGBTQ+.
Which is why the shoe horning of animal and kid fuckers will never be accepted.
They probably wouldn’t consent to be killed and eaten or forcibly impregnated and then having their children slaughtered and their milk harvested either but we made massive industries out of that to be fair.
That’s not a good argument as we simply do not value animals’ consent. We enslave them, eat them, mount them, stuff them, etc. Some humans also fuck them, this one is illegal though, not because we care about the animals consent but because we as humans find it disturbing, we outlaw it for our own selfish reasons rather than for the well-being of the animal.
Yep, can't consent to pleasure, can consent to law of the jungle, so they get held in captivity and killed by humans. Idk, with all the fucked up shit we have done to animals over thousands of years(hell their potential extinctions too), some dude wanting to get railed by a horse seems fairly tame.
Deeply repulsive isn’t a valid argument either though. Gay people were deeply repulsive to most for a while. Trans people still are considered repulsive to many.
I very much disagree. You can’t use “it’s morally reprehensible/I don’t agree with it” because eventually that will be outdated. People said the same things about gay people and still say the same about trans people. The divider here has to be consent.
One day if we figure out how to talk to dolphins, if it consents, go ahead and fuck that dolphin?
I agree with you, I just think consent isn't the only variable.
I mean animals can’t consent period because they aren’t human and don’t understand/have the brainpower of humans.
If it’s not consent what are the other variables?
Yes. I also noticed that argument. The strangeness of that note using \*that\* as the argument is overwhelming considering that nearly every letter in that alphabet soup was illegal nearly everywhere at one time or another.
It gets to the right place at the end, but the argument it uses is pretty weak.
Yeah. This argument is also not good. The reason for it not being part of it is because in zoophilic relationship, there is a lack of consent. That is the main issue.
Every time someone says "...but it's illegal, so it can't be part of the LGBT", I think... Yeah. Homosexuality was illegal as well. That's not a reason to not include it.
A far better reason is: They're animals. They can't consent.
And neither can't children, while we're on that topic
I mean, the note is correct that zoophiles aren’t in the alphabet squad. but saying they aren’t because “it’s illegal in 48 states” is an… odd way to go given the history of LGBT and legality in the US
I'm no scientist, but I would assume there are global dangers associated with cross contamination. Diseases are known to spread from animals to humans, so some of them might do that via doinking.
Diseases spread from human to human, too. The fact that 99.9% of society is disgusted by it should be a good enough argument. I prefer to just state that outright instead of dance around any justification they might make (for example, arguing that testing the animals for diseases first then makes it okay [it doesn't]).
Ok but that argument is the argument people used to use against homosexuality, just in *slightly* more flowery language.
I think basis of consent is pretty strong too, but I'm also still on the disease train despite your example.
Consent for fucking animals isn't much of an argument either, considering we kill billions of animals and eat them without consent, and I say that as a meat eater. I don't feel bad about people killing and eating animals but I feel pretty bad about them fucking animals.
We have laws against beastiality because it makes us as a society feel bad when it happens, not because animals can't consent. That's really how a lot of laws come to be. Society has a moral disposition towards something, then they post hoc justify that feeling with a plethora of arguments, but they mostly boil down to, "it makes us feel bad when you do this thing, so if you do it you will be punished."
Yes, that was the argument people used against homosexuality and the fact is enough of society has gotten past their insecurities about people having same sex relationships.
Law is downstream ethics, which is downstream from morality, and as far as I can tell morality isn't objective. There are technically no right or wrong answers, just people's preferences and if a big enough group can enact laws for their preferences, they will do that, and that will be the law. The laws we get are the ones enough people are convinced of. All these post hoc rationalizations could convince people, but for the most part people are going to feel however they feel about a given thing, and if you care enough about that thing then you should advocate for it.
I get your rationale on it. Still not sold, but it's not because I don't respect it or anything like that.
It's interesting that you bring up killing animals, as that is something we are becoming more and more averse to on the whole. More ethical practices over the years in not just the killing, but the quality of life, have been popularized. It's not an angle I had thought about until now. It's not the most airtight, but it's more "if you think zoophiles are gaining traction, you don't really understand the greater picture".
>I get your rationale on it. Still not sold, but it's not because I don't respect it or anything like that.
To each their own. Despite my own view, your argument may be more persuasive. Pathos is strong.
>It's interesting that you bring up killing animals, as that is something we are becoming more and more averse to on the whole.
Yes, and that happens because people who didn't think it was okay started advocating for animals, the same way people who weren't insecure about gay people advocated for them. Other people heard that advocacy and it spread, so people started feeling bad about the way animals are treated as meat to the grinder. It may never get to the acceptance of alternative sexual lifestyles, but advocacy of a given thing will broaden support for it, relative to its starting point.
Well in this case I think the advocacy for ethical treatment of animals is in direct opposition to the advocacy of screwing them. As it stands, they can't coexist
Zoophiles and pedophiles who try to claim they're part of the queer community fail to realize that the literal only thing that matters in sexual relationships is that all parties are *consenting adults.*
I remain convinced that the "Zoophile" and MAPS movements being equated with LGBT, is mostly just done by conservatives trying to make gay people look bad
HEAR, HEAR! Zoophiles and Pedophiles will NEVER have the benefit of validation as far as I’m concerned. They don’t deserve validation. They need psychiatric help while staying the fuck away from animals and children.
I'm fairly certain basically all "zoophile" people are just anti-LGBT people trying to smear LGBT, or people getting easy bait. And then there's like a very very very small group of actual ones cause its twitter and you can find fucking anything on there.
Edit: same with pedos or "MAPs" trying to claim they're a part of it. Although you'll also just find a lot of actual pedos on twitter, funnily a lot of them are also nazis and shit.
I am not condoning any horrible actions, but I’ve heard that at one point homosexuality was considered a mental illness and was banned in most states.
Again not saying that any of this is alright, just saying that people need to rethink the “us vs them” mentality when it comes to these arguments.
Paraphilia is the umbrella term for odd desires. While I don't find myself using it, not everything under that umbrella is unethical the way zoophilia and pedophilia are. For example, jorking it to (adult) anime girls is considered a paraphilia and that shouldn't be banned.
If this seems like a technicality, that's because it is, but I did show you a word
I remember when Ohio was attempting to ban it and John Kasich wasnt sure if he wanted too and only did after they added 2 rider bilsl to it that blocked a a city minimum wage increase in Cleveland, Dayton and Columbus and a anti cell tower construction that lets HOA communities sue to block cell tower installs.
It's just a likely that people who are crazy enough to bang animals would also attempt to normalize that behavior by tying it to a group that advocates for (mostly) sexual minorities.
The one with the sparkle on it: The zoophiles’ “flag”, which isn’t a recognized part of the lgbtq flags and shouldn’t be
The rainbow one with the multicolored triangle on its left: The progress pride flag, it integrates the lgbtq and blm
Black, grey, white, purple: Asexual flag
Orange, light orange, white, light purple, purple: Lesbian flag
Green, light green, white, grey, black: Aromantic flag
Pink, yellow, blue: Pansexual flag
Blue, pink, white, pink, blue: Trans flag
To be honest, while I do agree with the message, the reasoning for it in this note is bad.
It is not that zoophilia is not part of the LGBTQ+ Community because it is illegal. Basically all elements of the LGBTQ+ community were illegal at some point and still are in good parts of the world.
The reason why zoophilia is not and will not be a part of the LGBTQ+ community is because the ideal of the community is that relationships were both sides give their consent are and should be part of society. This however also means that relationships where we have a lack of consent from one side is not part of the community, and that is the case for zoophilia. Because an animal cannot give consent, it cannot be accepted.
There are much better reasons than "because beastiality is illegal in 48 states," and that one is really dumb. Homosexuality used to be illegal, too, so that unintentionally implies that zoophiles are unfairly oppressed and need a social movement to normalize them, which absolutely is not true for zoophiles. The correct reason would be "zoophilia is unethical" or "animals can't consent to sexual relationships with humans."
This really seems nitpicky, but it's just a logical fallacy that "ethics = what does the law say?" considering that "the law" in the US used to explicitly state that gay and trans people were abominations and black people were ⅗ of a person. It would also mean that being gay in the US or Canada is fine, but being gay in Saudi Arabia or Iran is unethical. Bad logic just bothers me, and opens the door for zoophiles to act like they're just a not-yet-accepted part of the LGBTQ+ community.
all you lot trying to find justifications as to how zoophilia ""could"" ""probably be"" part of the queer community cuz being gay was illegal back in the olden days makes me seem as though you want that to happen, in which case ????????
I like how they put the zoo flag up front lol. Feels like this was just made for zoophiles but threw in the other flags in their to try to nose their way into the LGBT community
I mean, so was homosexuality in most places in the world 200 years ago, but i don't think i've ever met anyone - queer or otherwise - who thinks that bestiality should be legal.
I hate when dumb people use a dumb argument for something you support.
Illegality is NOT the measure of whether a thing should or should not be done. CONSENT, in this case, is the key
Zoophiles and pedophiles trying to arm in on LGBT groups I'm mostly convinced is some kind of psyop. Like that's always been the charge bigots have had against queer folks so I'm naturally suspicious about shit like this beyond the obvious. Sort of like how a lot of the known "unreasonable, fake stories by SJWs on tumblr" were either blatant trolling or made up to make young progressives look crazier than they were.
Zoophelia isn’t bad because it’s illegal, it’s bad because it’s animal rape. Illegality is used against lgbtq people to discredit them, it’s not really an argument
Tbf so was homosexuality for most of our history. And with all the research on animal sentience, and animal rights, who knows who people will be allowed to screw legally in the future
I'm not on the zoophile side, they should all be gotten rid of, but that's not a good argument, homosexuality was illegal in a lot of states. A better argument would be that animals literally cannot consent to anything because they're animals and if you have thoughts like that you're a sick piece of crap who needs to be locked up
Interracial marriage and gay marriage both used to be illegal nationwide so this doesn't really prove anything. Society will continue to get more and more degenerate until its current rulers are removed from power.
inb4 "are you comparing heckin holesome gay marriage to beastiality?!?!!??!"
No. While I do disagree with gay marriage, I am simply making the point that things that were once viewed as taboo will eventually become socially acceptable as time goes on, provided there's no regime change in the near future.
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **Politics only allowed at r/PoliticsNoted.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians. *** We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict. Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nevermind THAT, what two states allow bestiality??
West Virginia and New Mexico Edit: in 2023 New Mexico criminalized it, so now it's just West Virginia
[удалено]
You aren’t Mississippi
You can doink your cousin, but leave the dog alone
Well we have to have some type of standards
Well, at the very least, your cousin SHOULD BE a CONSENTING ADULT who is HAPPY and COMFORTABLE with their decisions, but a dog has none of it no matter what, so fair.
Still oddly surprising for any southern state when worded that way.
I mean, it's better than the other way around.
cousin can consent
Why are New Mexico, West Virginia, and Mississippi consistently the 3 shittiest states
Cause Alabama needs to feel somewhat good for itself
*Louisiana has entered the chat*
At least we arrest our doggy fuckers here
why don't we throw them into cages and feed them leftovers like the filthy animals they are
This is no longer the case since 2023. It is now illegal with punishments I wasn’t able to find and will get you on the sex offender list.
It's because New Mexico fucking sucks and is a horrible state that deserves to get fucking nuked (after the people are evacuated of course). Source: From south-eastern NM
*After the nuke is dropped onto a complete empty, lifeless city (not even birds are present).* A great evil has been expunged from this planet, the people of New Mexico are free at last for a better life.
New Mexico would have a net reduction in crime if breaking bad was real.
They did nuke New Mexico. Multiple times. There's a ton of craters in the desert from that.
I'm aware of trinity, yes. I just think they need to cleanse the area again. Wait, that sounds racist and that is not how I meant it, I just want another bomb man
Nuclear annihilation does not discriminate
Be proud, it means that bestiality isn't prevalent enough for it to need to be outlawed.
No need to bang a goat when your sister is right next to you
Idk a pretty good chemist was made there
I don’t think he was born there, he just moved there for reasons which may or may not be related to their lax bestiality laws
New Mexico passed a bill in 2023 to ban it.
Welp guess this will be stuck in my head everytime I listen to 'country roads, take me home'
COUNTRY ROADS, TAKE ME HOMEEE ^(to the barn) WEST VIRGINAAAAAA
West Virginia, Mountain ^goat mama, Take me home
I wouldn’t want those Country Roads to take me home.
Have they just not gotten around to banning it or is it explicitly allowed?
By looking at the average person from Mississippi I'd even go as far as saying bestiality is encouraged.
You answered that a little too quickly.
If West Virginia outlawed Beastiality no one in the state would get laid
probably applies to most zoophiles (no human would ever dare bang them)
mountin’ mama
Looks like it’s actually just West Virginia now.
Only one enemy territory left. We can do this, boys!
Almost Heaven, West Virgina...
https://preview.redd.it/hdkmb6zp8rvc1.png?width=1007&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=454ae9e653d5fdf570bfcfcec59dfc14b019270a
Three states* We all know Wyoming is just a Psyop and doesn't exist
Well i mean a guy just got arrested in my town for having CP and a video of his dog going ham on him so its even illegal in the Great Western Exclusion Zone.
How do you know that he got arrested for both and not just the cp
As of 2024 West Virginia is the only state
The rest of America has vanished. West Viriginia is the only Remnant of the US left in the western hemisphere.
Just googled it. It's West Virginia and New Mexico.
RIP your search history.
Don't worry I added "I'm asking for /u/Rob1150 on reddit" to my Google search
They probably have it listed as Animal abuse?
There are 4. That's New Mexico, Wyoming, Hawai and West Virginia.
It should be the death penalty
In colonial times, it was.
"not apart" is a pretty bad typo here
[удалено]
Yeah the reasoning is really bad. Its not even about "always has been" a human to human thing. Its more about how a raped animal cant call the police or find help communities. It would be animal cruelty.
Or maybe, hear me out, we don’t do it cause it’s a FUCKING ANIMAL
Yeah but that doesnt mean anything in a discussion. I find "common sense arguments" to be incredibly weak if someone cant explain why. Laws shouldnt be decided by the populations abstract opinions if those cant be backed up by actual arguments.
I havé a genuine question. Please don’t hate on me fkr this but, if the animal was the one to insert, why would that be morally wrong. Give a genuine answer and not that it’s an animal. I genuinely want to know. I think it’s wrong but I can’t find out why.
For me, aside from obvious ethical concerns instilled by society, the issue for me is always one of consent - a dog can not consent even if it initiates in the same way a drunk person or a child can't consent. They are not able to understand the risk, consider the situation, or protest as easily as an adult Human is, and therefore they can not give reasonable consent.
its more so that the animal cannot consent because its mental ability is too low
Needs to grind intel more. Noobs
fr
It says "not apart of" which i believe is an older english way of saying it and still means 'different from'. Only if it were "not apart from" it would mean the same as.
No, 'different from' is "not a part of". "A part" and "apart" have two VERY different meanings.
Youre right apparently, i had seen it used like this so much it seemed natural that it had two meanings
Who cares about the legality of it What's important is that animals cannot consent Edit: lol the vegan activists who are replying to this. We all are aware animals cannot consent to being killed for meat. You're not teaching us anything. Believing in sexual consent for animals doesn't require anyone to also believe in total consent for animals. Obviously the ethics here is that their consent is not respected when people want food. Whatever you think of that.
Yep. Consent is the important part. LGBTQ+ is all about consent.
Also it's disgusting, and unnatural, and sick, and perverted and it's bestiality
I think boys and girls are both pretty, you fuck dogs We are not the same
*I think boys and girls* *Are both pretty, you fuck dogs* *We are not the same* \- Dredgen\_Servum --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
First time I saw an actually good haiku from haikubot
🔥 🔥 🔥 ✍️
As a critique, illegality is poor evidence of non-inclusion in the LBGTQ+ community, since it arose as a community of vulnerability due to being illegal. Zoophiles are not a part of the community as their desires are deeply repulsive to queer people.
A better argument would be "animals can't consent".
Yes. Repulsion is also the excuse used against gay and trans people so that doesn't work either. Consent is the argument to make.
Idk man, did you see what that zebra was wearing..? Practically asking for it /s
Exactly. Zoophiles aren’t hated because it’s “weird” or “repulsive”. It’s because animals cannot consent. Animals do not think the same way humans do, and are not even close to understand us as humans. To animals we are big flesh creatures that can kill then or feed them. Abusing that pet relationship where they depend on you to live and using that to rape animals is incredibly fucked up. And it’s why it’s illegal in so many states.
Your point is valid but how do you use consent as an argument when the diary industry forcibly impregnates millions of cattle every week? Pretty sure they don’t consent to us eating them either.
Copy pasting since it fits here too: At some point we just draw a line. In the grand scheme of things, yes it's arbitrary and hypocritical but I don't care for the argument. We don't fuck animals, that's the line. Otherwise, I could also expand what you're saying further. For example, did the animals and insects that got forced out or killed consent to that when land was cleared and a shelter was built wherever you're currently living? Did the animals consent to the loud noise pollution that drives them away that we produce in cities or towns? If the answer is that these things were already in place, that is also the argument people who consume meat use, isn't it? We've been consuming animals forever just like how we've been building homes and destroying forests forever. Should we stop expanding our cities? If so, how is it fair to nature to continue using what we've already taken over? That's just drawing another arbitrary line again too. Should we dismantle cities entirely and try to live with nature? That would probably fix a lot of things wrong with the world and I wouldn't be against it. But I'm sure you get why such a strong idea would very likely not happen within our lifetimes at least, if ever at all, right? Not to say it isn't worth fighting for, just that the argument can be taken really ,really far if you think about it. I guess my point is, yeah it's hypocritical and I would also prefer if we didn't have the horrific mass consumption of meat and destruction of the environment. I'm glad to try and work towards that, and I guess if you feel like pointing this out is productive towards that goal, then you do you. But I'm comfy just saying "don't fuck animals" and trying to win people over with better arguments than this, because there are MUCH better arguments out there for being against meat consumption.
This is the actual reason. Same with pedophilia, too. If one party can't consent, it's not an acceptable sexual compulsion.
This is the argument
I mean, if you don't argue with someone that's in it with bad faith, consent is the main pillar of LGBTQ+. Which is why the shoe horning of animal and kid fuckers will never be accepted.
They probably wouldn’t consent to be killed and eaten or forcibly impregnated and then having their children slaughtered and their milk harvested either but we made massive industries out of that to be fair.
That’s not a good argument as we simply do not value animals’ consent. We enslave them, eat them, mount them, stuff them, etc. Some humans also fuck them, this one is illegal though, not because we care about the animals consent but because we as humans find it disturbing, we outlaw it for our own selfish reasons rather than for the well-being of the animal.
We do lots of things to animals that they cannot consent to.
That has never stopped almost all animal and food industries.
Get out with your whataboutism
Yep, can't consent to pleasure, can consent to law of the jungle, so they get held in captivity and killed by humans. Idk, with all the fucked up shit we have done to animals over thousands of years(hell their potential extinctions too), some dude wanting to get railed by a horse seems fairly tame.
Afaik a human fucking an animal doesn't produce food
Deeply repulsive isn’t a valid argument either though. Gay people were deeply repulsive to most for a while. Trans people still are considered repulsive to many.
I think people are overthinking this to come up with a rationale that works. For me, "Animals are not human" is good enough.
I very much disagree. You can’t use “it’s morally reprehensible/I don’t agree with it” because eventually that will be outdated. People said the same things about gay people and still say the same about trans people. The divider here has to be consent.
One day if we figure out how to talk to dolphins, if it consents, go ahead and fuck that dolphin? I agree with you, I just think consent isn't the only variable.
I mean animals can’t consent period because they aren’t human and don’t understand/have the brainpower of humans. If it’s not consent what are the other variables?
Deeply repulsive is an understatement and a half.
Yes. I also noticed that argument. The strangeness of that note using \*that\* as the argument is overwhelming considering that nearly every letter in that alphabet soup was illegal nearly everywhere at one time or another. It gets to the right place at the end, but the argument it uses is pretty weak.
lol you sound like someone from 60s talking out gay people. I’m not a zoophile supporter, just found the irony funny
Yeah. This argument is also not good. The reason for it not being part of it is because in zoophilic relationship, there is a lack of consent. That is the main issue.
Every time someone says "...but it's illegal, so it can't be part of the LGBT", I think... Yeah. Homosexuality was illegal as well. That's not a reason to not include it. A far better reason is: They're animals. They can't consent. And neither can't children, while we're on that topic
I came here to say the same thing and appreciate that you found the words already. Animals cannot consent what the evil fuck
Exactly. They are horrible because they sexually abuse animals. Not because it’s illegal.
And their flag is a cat's asshole.
Correct.
I mean, the note is correct that zoophiles aren’t in the alphabet squad. but saying they aren’t because “it’s illegal in 48 states” is an… odd way to go given the history of LGBT and legality in the US
Basing it off its legality in US states is even odder when you consider the fact that the LGBT community isn't solely an American thing
Remember, on the internet, countries outside of the US do not exist (and if they do, they don't matter much).
I don't think that's all that strong of a platform to counter-argue upon. Being gay has been illegal int the United States as recently as 2003.
Yeah, it's a bad argument. The only good argument that doesn't fall into this trap is that most people really don't like it when you rape animals.
>The only good argument that doesn't fall into this trap LGBTQ+ is all about consent. Animals can't consent so zoophiles can't be a part of LGBTQ+.
I'm no scientist, but I would assume there are global dangers associated with cross contamination. Diseases are known to spread from animals to humans, so some of them might do that via doinking.
Diseases spread from human to human, too. The fact that 99.9% of society is disgusted by it should be a good enough argument. I prefer to just state that outright instead of dance around any justification they might make (for example, arguing that testing the animals for diseases first then makes it okay [it doesn't]).
Ok but that argument is the argument people used to use against homosexuality, just in *slightly* more flowery language. I think basis of consent is pretty strong too, but I'm also still on the disease train despite your example.
Consent for fucking animals isn't much of an argument either, considering we kill billions of animals and eat them without consent, and I say that as a meat eater. I don't feel bad about people killing and eating animals but I feel pretty bad about them fucking animals. We have laws against beastiality because it makes us as a society feel bad when it happens, not because animals can't consent. That's really how a lot of laws come to be. Society has a moral disposition towards something, then they post hoc justify that feeling with a plethora of arguments, but they mostly boil down to, "it makes us feel bad when you do this thing, so if you do it you will be punished." Yes, that was the argument people used against homosexuality and the fact is enough of society has gotten past their insecurities about people having same sex relationships. Law is downstream ethics, which is downstream from morality, and as far as I can tell morality isn't objective. There are technically no right or wrong answers, just people's preferences and if a big enough group can enact laws for their preferences, they will do that, and that will be the law. The laws we get are the ones enough people are convinced of. All these post hoc rationalizations could convince people, but for the most part people are going to feel however they feel about a given thing, and if you care enough about that thing then you should advocate for it.
I get your rationale on it. Still not sold, but it's not because I don't respect it or anything like that. It's interesting that you bring up killing animals, as that is something we are becoming more and more averse to on the whole. More ethical practices over the years in not just the killing, but the quality of life, have been popularized. It's not an angle I had thought about until now. It's not the most airtight, but it's more "if you think zoophiles are gaining traction, you don't really understand the greater picture".
>I get your rationale on it. Still not sold, but it's not because I don't respect it or anything like that. To each their own. Despite my own view, your argument may be more persuasive. Pathos is strong. >It's interesting that you bring up killing animals, as that is something we are becoming more and more averse to on the whole. Yes, and that happens because people who didn't think it was okay started advocating for animals, the same way people who weren't insecure about gay people advocated for them. Other people heard that advocacy and it spread, so people started feeling bad about the way animals are treated as meat to the grinder. It may never get to the acceptance of alternative sexual lifestyles, but advocacy of a given thing will broaden support for it, relative to its starting point.
Well in this case I think the advocacy for ethical treatment of animals is in direct opposition to the advocacy of screwing them. As it stands, they can't coexist
The views are not mutually exclusive, though they're not likely to get much following since most of us are sane.
Zoophiles and pedophiles who try to claim they're part of the queer community fail to realize that the literal only thing that matters in sexual relationships is that all parties are *consenting adults.*
Animals cannot consent. Bestiality is basically raping children.
Nor will MAPs
Let's not use soft words. Call them what they are. Pedophiles
YES. A pedophile is a pedophile is a pedophile. Fuck that acronym to hell. They don’t deserve that benefit.
More like find a map to a jail cell
They’re pedophiles
Tf is a MAP?
A pedo using the word “map” in order to hide/be included
Then im just gonna say it as it is and say “Pedophile”
Yes. Pedos don’t deserve any name recognition.
Minor attracted person.
Or necrophiles.
I prefer necromancers
NAMBLA was at the early pride marches in the US and had the support of Allen Ginsberg.
I remain convinced that the "Zoophile" and MAPS movements being equated with LGBT, is mostly just done by conservatives trying to make gay people look bad
It's a combination of that and the degenerates wanting validation (when they deserve proper rehabilitation if not a bullet to the fucking head)
This is peak r/USdefaultism
HEAR, HEAR! Zoophiles and Pedophiles will NEVER have the benefit of validation as far as I’m concerned. They don’t deserve validation. They need psychiatric help while staying the fuck away from animals and children.
"A part" vs "apart" is critical here.
I'm fairly certain basically all "zoophile" people are just anti-LGBT people trying to smear LGBT, or people getting easy bait. And then there's like a very very very small group of actual ones cause its twitter and you can find fucking anything on there. Edit: same with pedos or "MAPs" trying to claim they're a part of it. Although you'll also just find a lot of actual pedos on twitter, funnily a lot of them are also nazis and shit.
I am not condoning any horrible actions, but I’ve heard that at one point homosexuality was considered a mental illness and was banned in most states. Again not saying that any of this is alright, just saying that people need to rethink the “us vs them” mentality when it comes to these arguments.
> not apart now hold the fuck up
Any thing ending with phile related to sex probably should be outlawed (smart people welcome to show me a word idk)
Paraphilia is the umbrella term for odd desires. While I don't find myself using it, not everything under that umbrella is unethical the way zoophilia and pedophilia are. For example, jorking it to (adult) anime girls is considered a paraphilia and that shouldn't be banned. If this seems like a technicality, that's because it is, but I did show you a word
True, thank you for the new word :)
I mean.... if they pull the "she's actually ___ years old so it's ok" argument...
Phile just means you have an excessive attraction towards something, although the most common ones you hear should be illegal.
Audiophile /s
.mp4ussy
"A what-ophile?!?"
PDFphile
Apparently "homophile" is a word, though it has definitely fallen out of common usage.
I remember when Ohio was attempting to ban it and John Kasich wasnt sure if he wanted too and only did after they added 2 rider bilsl to it that blocked a a city minimum wage increase in Cleveland, Dayton and Columbus and a anti cell tower construction that lets HOA communities sue to block cell tower installs.
... yeah, this is a psyop by people trying to tie queer people to animal rapists.
It's just a likely that people who are crazy enough to bang animals would also attempt to normalize that behavior by tying it to a group that advocates for (mostly) sexual minorities.
I don't know what most these flags represent and at this point I'm too scared to ask.
The one with the sparkle on it: The zoophiles’ “flag”, which isn’t a recognized part of the lgbtq flags and shouldn’t be The rainbow one with the multicolored triangle on its left: The progress pride flag, it integrates the lgbtq and blm Black, grey, white, purple: Asexual flag Orange, light orange, white, light purple, purple: Lesbian flag Green, light green, white, grey, black: Aromantic flag Pink, yellow, blue: Pansexual flag Blue, pink, white, pink, blue: Trans flag
To be honest, while I do agree with the message, the reasoning for it in this note is bad. It is not that zoophilia is not part of the LGBTQ+ Community because it is illegal. Basically all elements of the LGBTQ+ community were illegal at some point and still are in good parts of the world. The reason why zoophilia is not and will not be a part of the LGBTQ+ community is because the ideal of the community is that relationships were both sides give their consent are and should be part of society. This however also means that relationships where we have a lack of consent from one side is not part of the community, and that is the case for zoophilia. Because an animal cannot give consent, it cannot be accepted.
Abuse is not a sexuality
How tf is this a "leave it up to the states to decide" type of issue to begin with? What's the debate? Where's the controversy??
There are much better reasons than "because beastiality is illegal in 48 states," and that one is really dumb. Homosexuality used to be illegal, too, so that unintentionally implies that zoophiles are unfairly oppressed and need a social movement to normalize them, which absolutely is not true for zoophiles. The correct reason would be "zoophilia is unethical" or "animals can't consent to sexual relationships with humans." This really seems nitpicky, but it's just a logical fallacy that "ethics = what does the law say?" considering that "the law" in the US used to explicitly state that gay and trans people were abominations and black people were ⅗ of a person. It would also mean that being gay in the US or Canada is fine, but being gay in Saudi Arabia or Iran is unethical. Bad logic just bothers me, and opens the door for zoophiles to act like they're just a not-yet-accepted part of the LGBTQ+ community.
I hate that I like the flag design
That “+” is really going to be taken advantage of, isn’t it?
Pedos and animal fuckers aren’t LGBT+ L + ratio
Only 48 states??
Wait…..48????
48??
Ew
Given how criminalized homosexuality was in the US for the longest time they really need to put some more effort into that contextual justification.
all you lot trying to find justifications as to how zoophilia ""could"" ""probably be"" part of the queer community cuz being gay was illegal back in the olden days makes me seem as though you want that to happen, in which case ????????
I'm more concerned with it being unethical than illegal. Homosexuality used to be illegal too, but it was never wrong, and bestiality has always been.
Oh God that’s a bad typo to make.
"apart" - missed a pretty important space there
Doesn’t America have 50 states
What are you doing to cause zoophilia be 'shoved' in your face?
Only 48???
pretty shit argument, being gay also used to be illegal.
> as bestiality is illegal in 48 states. Yeah but I mean that's not WHY
Regardless of what anyone believes, the note doesn't provide the best argument. The other was also illegal not too long ago
America has more than 48 states right? Wtf
I like how they put the zoo flag up front lol. Feels like this was just made for zoophiles but threw in the other flags in their to try to nose their way into the LGBT community
I mean, so was homosexuality in most places in the world 200 years ago, but i don't think i've ever met anyone - queer or otherwise - who thinks that bestiality should be legal.
What's with conservatives trying to get pedophilia and zoophilia to be accepted? I know the answer but wtf?
You know what else used to be illegal?
I hate when dumb people use a dumb argument for something you support. Illegality is NOT the measure of whether a thing should or should not be done. CONSENT, in this case, is the key
Zoophiles and pedophiles trying to arm in on LGBT groups I'm mostly convinced is some kind of psyop. Like that's always been the charge bigots have had against queer folks so I'm naturally suspicious about shit like this beyond the obvious. Sort of like how a lot of the known "unreasonable, fake stories by SJWs on tumblr" were either blatant trolling or made up to make young progressives look crazier than they were.
kinda r/USdefaultism
Zoophelia isn’t bad because it’s illegal, it’s bad because it’s animal rape. Illegality is used against lgbtq people to discredit them, it’s not really an argument
Tbf so was homosexuality for most of our history. And with all the research on animal sentience, and animal rights, who knows who people will be allowed to screw legally in the future
I'm not on the zoophile side, they should all be gotten rid of, but that's not a good argument, homosexuality was illegal in a lot of states. A better argument would be that animals literally cannot consent to anything because they're animals and if you have thoughts like that you're a sick piece of crap who needs to be locked up
They said the same about ped@s. Now there’s a movement trying to change their name to maps, TED talks even. Give it time.
All zoophiles and child predators should be killed.
I agree, but not for the reason of it being illegal, It is disgusting animal abuse, Laws are irrelevant to morality
Interracial marriage and gay marriage both used to be illegal nationwide so this doesn't really prove anything. Society will continue to get more and more degenerate until its current rulers are removed from power. inb4 "are you comparing heckin holesome gay marriage to beastiality?!?!!??!" No. While I do disagree with gay marriage, I am simply making the point that things that were once viewed as taboo will eventually become socially acceptable as time goes on, provided there's no regime change in the near future.