My Legal Studies teacher worded a comment on bestiality quite interestingly. (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2016-05-04 07:26:31 by Jorah_Mormonism Dogs are pretty cute, huh?

So, this is pretty damn small. But my Legal Studies teacher was talking about an Australian sports person who got drunk at a party and fake humped his dog, this was then posted on social media. He said, and I quote roughly "It wasn't real, so he didn't get in trouble. But if he had actually... (Got real awkward) Done it, that would definitely have been illegal, and arguably immoral." Now, I know it's small, but the fact that he said arguably was strange to me. And I wasn't the only one. A friend next to me gave it a bit of a laugh and said "Arguably?" and there were a couple more chuckles and murmurs. I would have questioned the teacher on it but I didn't wanna get known as that guy who prompted a debate on dog sex (I'd also probably be the only one who would openly argue from a neutral standpoint). Figured I'd mention it here instead. Do you guys think there's anything to the fact that he specified "arguably" or was he just using pointlessly flowery language?

Swibblestein 6 points on 2016-05-04 09:37:27

I think most of the time, people are against zoophilia due to a negative gut reaction. The fact that he said arguably, to me, says he's not going based on a gut reaction, which I would tend to be optimistic about - I think from a purely rational standpoint, zoophiles have this argument won.

Again, I can tend to be a bit overly optimistic on this subject (in part on purpose), so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

furvert_tail Equine, large canid 2 points on 2016-05-04 10:34:13

If I had to guess, I'd guess that anyone who uses legal language regularly would habitually prefix moral questions with "arguably", just as they would prefix any allegations with "allegedly" to avoid accusations of slander or libel.

Jorah_Mormonism Dogs are pretty cute, huh? 2 points on 2016-05-04 12:22:32

Well that's the thing. I assumed that's what it was after thinking about it for a while. But he tends to just use stuff like "arguably" or "allegedly" when something is notably controversial in an argumentative sort of way. And the morality of bestiality is only really controversial in that it tends to anger people and is considered quite taboo. Especially so in a christian highschool. I guess I'm just surprised he didn't take the chance to "prove how good a person he is" and immediately condemn it like most of the teachers would.

furvert_tail Equine, large canid 3 points on 2016-05-04 15:01:34

A Christian school? Interesting. Almost surprising nobody countered with "Of course it's immoral, it's sex outside marriage." :)

Kynophile Dog lover 2 points on 2016-05-04 16:16:56

Remember, the New Testament has anti-gay stuff in Paul's letters (Romans, especially), but nothing against bestiality. Maybe God loves us more? :P

furvert_tail Equine, large canid 1 point on 2016-05-04 16:42:50

But only if we're heterosexual sheep-shaggers. :P

Kynophile Dog lover 7 points on 2016-05-04 20:42:47

Funnily enough, the Hittites were even more specific. From the Code of the Nesilim (what the Hittites called themselves)

199) If anyone have intercourse with a pig or a dog, he shall die. If a man have intercourse with a horse or a mule, there is no punishment. But he shall not approach the king, and shall not become a priest. If an ox spring upon a man for intercourse, the ox shall die but the man shall not die. One sheep shall be fetched as a substitute for the man, and they shall kill it. If a pig spring upon a man for intercourse, there is no punishment. If any man have intercourse with a foreign woman and pick up this one, now that one, there is no punishment.

furvert_tail Equine, large canid 1 point on 2016-05-04 20:48:44

Remarkable. Thanks for that!

actuallynotazoophile ok, I lied 3 points on 2016-05-04 21:24:53

you win this round, equiphiles.

zetacola + Rum 1 point on 2016-05-05 02:59:55

If a man rape a woman in the mountain, it is the man's wrong, he shall die. But if he rape her in the house, it is the woman's fault, the woman shall die. If the husband find them and then kill them, there is no punishing the husband.

Ahh, good old values.

syzithryx i like cookies 2 points on 2016-05-04 21:43:06

Ah, Paul, the original in-the-closet homophobe. XD

ksfgh4525t 8 points on 2016-05-04 15:02:22

He's a professor of legal studies. Everything is arguable. Especially morality.

WEFGGADFASERGR 1 point on 2016-05-04 18:45:05

The moral part is his opinion, but he knows the legality is only judged by law. So he said what the law was and added his opinion.