I think this right there is where the break comes. Animals in no way can be regarded as moral agents. Animals have no concept of right or wrong other than what we as an owner may give them. An attack dog that kills a child is no more guilty of murder than a car is. Animals as pets are property with no more or less standing in law than that.
- The issue of consent and the ability to discern consent is central due to the presumably reciprocal nature of a relationship.
- We also agree that to treat a human-animal relationship exactly the same as a human-human relationship is generally delusional in that animals have obvious differences between them. But also in terms of being aware of how one treats this topic on a conceptual basis.
- Care must be taken to maintain consistency in reasoning when discussing how one should/can treat animals.[/quote]
Actually, no care must be taken to maintain consistency. Animals are property, and, as such, have no rights. We protect animals from cruelty, not because it hurts the animal, but because it makes us feel bad when someone beats a dog to death. Note that there are no such public outcry when one animal kills and eats another. As a society, we couldn't care less about that rabbit that just became a snack for that fox. There are no great rallying cries when a hamster eats its young. Nor, is there any particular outcry when someone hits a dog with his car. The car owner may have to pay restitution to the dog owner, but, there is no criminal act.
Again, since animals have no status in law, they cannot be considered rational actors any more than a door or a tree.
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. Neither are considered rational actors and thus have either no rights (animals) or severely curtailed rights (children). However, the similarity is really superficial.
While they do have less rights than a full adult, children are not considered property under law. I cannot sell my child, nor can I kill her with impunity. I can do both with my dog.
Since animals are property, at best, the laws protecting them are property laws. We criminalize beastiality because it is a violation of property. In the same way that there are laws preventing you from removing the muffler from your car (illegal noise violations and pollution violations), we proscribe beastiality acts.
There really are no similarities between pedophilia and beastiality (I exclude zoophilia since it is not illegal) other than they are both criminal acts. You cannot marry an animal since an animal is incapable of entering into a legally binding contract in exactly the same way you cannot enter into a legally binding contract with a stapler.
Marriage is, and likely will remain so for the foreseeable future, a contract. Without the ability to sign, you cannot marry anyone or anything.
[/QUOTE]
