Wait guys- Hussar, not to be confrontational but I can't believe you just wrote most of what you did. You're simply talking way into the wind of evidence here.
If a simple encouragement to reassess your views will do nothing, then I will have to drag up some notable references (two that come to mind are the work of Jane Goodall, and a TV program running in Oz right now- "Meerkat Manor" as well as numerous other studies into animal behavior, obviously). I could also refer to anecdotal evidence, but for now I'll address the points of your argument, even though they are based on the same premise...which, I might add, you failed to justify on any grounds whatsoever (really!)
Note that there are no such public outcry when one animal kills and eats another.
What? You're indirectly advocating a defunct form of specicism here. In the previous animal rights forum we discussed the notion that life entails a tension regarding resources and self-maintenance. The only difference between humans and other animals in this regard is the social and moral system; this is not an issue of its non-existence. How your statement is specicist is in thinking from a strictly anthrocentric viewpoint as to say that only humans have a moral system that matters. The only way in which this is "wrong" is that it is simply inaccurate.
Again, since animals have no status in law
Completely wrong. Animals are already regarded as moral agents otherwise we would not have laws against animal cruelty.
What you are arguing is tantamount to a Descartean view that animals (that are not humans) are essentially biological robots. We've ascertained since then that such views are rather inaccurate.
Therefore:
The car owner may have to pay restitution to the dog owner, but, there is no criminal act.
That's because this is an accident. Were it to be malicious or deliberate, that's a crime.
I truly think the major problem with this line of thought is the fact that both children and animals have somewhat similar standings in law.
This is a different point. But your implications entail an inconsistency. Children have protective rights, and either you acknowledge that their rights are different from animals, children are to be considered property to be treated by family at the whim of their 'owners' as they have next to no rights, (a popular pre-18th century notion, perhaps), or else you acknowledge that laws protecting animals are for the animal's sake, not for our own consciencable notions.
Oh wait...you just cancelled that point with this:
I cannot sell my child, nor can I kill her with impunity. I can do both with my dog.
People have been arrested, charged and convicted of a criminal offense for doing that regardless of whose property it is...so I'll see you in jail, then.
After all that:
We criminalize beastiality because it is a violation of property.
This is, at least, in part, true. But not wholly, as bestiality involving animals that are not considered property (yes, there are those, in case you didn't know) is also considered illegal (or so I thought).
That said, while you've obserbed that zoophilia is not illegal, essentially you've denied any grounds for there being such thing as zoophilia, at least on the premises that a zoophile may typically present, as central to the notion is the fact that animals ARE to be considered as moral agents.
And your post has raised one more nuance regarding a common channel of debate regarding the ethics of zoophilia. It is seen as easier to argue for its validity as acceptable conduct if one did not have to consider animals in a moral light, but nonetheless I do not think it a proper avenue of argumentation for the above reason.
Funnily enough, finally I do agree with you on the notion of the legally binding contract that is marriage.
If a simple encouragement to reassess your views will do nothing, then I will have to drag up some notable references (two that come to mind are the work of Jane Goodall, and a TV program running in Oz right now- "Meerkat Manor" as well as numerous other studies into animal behavior, obviously). I could also refer to anecdotal evidence, but for now I'll address the points of your argument, even though they are based on the same premise...which, I might add, you failed to justify on any grounds whatsoever (really!)
Note that there are no such public outcry when one animal kills and eats another.
What? You're indirectly advocating a defunct form of specicism here. In the previous animal rights forum we discussed the notion that life entails a tension regarding resources and self-maintenance. The only difference between humans and other animals in this regard is the social and moral system; this is not an issue of its non-existence. How your statement is specicist is in thinking from a strictly anthrocentric viewpoint as to say that only humans have a moral system that matters. The only way in which this is "wrong" is that it is simply inaccurate.
Again, since animals have no status in law
Completely wrong. Animals are already regarded as moral agents otherwise we would not have laws against animal cruelty.
What you are arguing is tantamount to a Descartean view that animals (that are not humans) are essentially biological robots. We've ascertained since then that such views are rather inaccurate.
Therefore:
The car owner may have to pay restitution to the dog owner, but, there is no criminal act.
That's because this is an accident. Were it to be malicious or deliberate, that's a crime.
I truly think the major problem with this line of thought is the fact that both children and animals have somewhat similar standings in law.
This is a different point. But your implications entail an inconsistency. Children have protective rights, and either you acknowledge that their rights are different from animals, children are to be considered property to be treated by family at the whim of their 'owners' as they have next to no rights, (a popular pre-18th century notion, perhaps), or else you acknowledge that laws protecting animals are for the animal's sake, not for our own consciencable notions.
Oh wait...you just cancelled that point with this:
I cannot sell my child, nor can I kill her with impunity. I can do both with my dog.
People have been arrested, charged and convicted of a criminal offense for doing that regardless of whose property it is...so I'll see you in jail, then.
After all that:
We criminalize beastiality because it is a violation of property.
This is, at least, in part, true. But not wholly, as bestiality involving animals that are not considered property (yes, there are those, in case you didn't know) is also considered illegal (or so I thought).
That said, while you've obserbed that zoophilia is not illegal, essentially you've denied any grounds for there being such thing as zoophilia, at least on the premises that a zoophile may typically present, as central to the notion is the fact that animals ARE to be considered as moral agents.
And your post has raised one more nuance regarding a common channel of debate regarding the ethics of zoophilia. It is seen as easier to argue for its validity as acceptable conduct if one did not have to consider animals in a moral light, but nonetheless I do not think it a proper avenue of argumentation for the above reason.
Funnily enough, finally I do agree with you on the notion of the legally binding contract that is marriage.
