Well my family is mostly Catholic but it didn't effect my love of dogs as I felt that this was truly who I was.

I have a difficult time believing there are any religions that would support zoophilia. I hate to say it, but most religions are focused on explaining and stringing along the life and death of human beings. To make matters worse, there are no passages in any religious texts I've read which depict pedophilia as being wrong. I could imagine that most religions would lean exclusively to supporting child, and underage marriage since there is a better sense of control and chance of procreation of their own members. They are "pro life" organizations after all, typically designed to compulsively expand themselves. Have you heard the saying "touched by an angel?" It's rather scary once you understand it's true meaning.

The original religions were notorious for selling their members offspring into marriages with other members. Being a zoophile would make potential buyers and sellers of a marriage angry. Fathers couldn't sell their female children to a zoophile, and a husband didn't want to buy a wife "damaged or deflowered" by an animal. Zoophilia was a threat to both a father's pride, and a husbands pride.

These were times when increasing and maintaining a working population were key issues, since the life expectancy was much lower. Religion provided an excuse, a guideline, the law which urged the creation of more human beings. If a religion were to accept zoophilia, they would need an excuse for doing it. The whole point of having or using a religion is for the excuses to commit to any action against the free will of the followers for the followers, and I doubt any religion would want or need an excuse to force people into zoophilia. Population control is a plausible excuse, but they already have that covered by creating holy wars to kill off their populations, ritual sacrificial murder, and are more likely to support homosexuality for population control before resorting to zoophilia.

Other religions view the spilling of semen as "wasteful" if it does not create children. In modern times I believe that these religions would rather that semen be wasted on human interest before an animal, since human interest is viewed as mutual and above the interest of the animal.

That concludes, religion is not the best place for zoophilia, since religions usually surround the pride of self and the pride of the human race. Although they speak down against pride, they are no less immune to it. In any religion, even satanism, you'll find yourself stuck in a double bind of guilt and a sacrifice of any self interest for the interest of the organization.

[deleted]

I grew up in a Catholic family, not devotedly Catholic, but Catholic none the less. We would go to church every few sundays, and follow customs of the Catholic church. Today I am still a Catholic, despite the belief that bestiality is wrong in all forms according to Christianity.

** Im gonna ramble a little about my take on Christianity and zoophilia. As a result, I will assume and cite certain beliefs within the Christian religion, which might be provoking for some. I recommend discretion with everything I say, I completely acknowledge different beliefs, and I encourage criticism of what I say.**

When puberty came around, and I began to understand my sexual interests more, my religion began to butt heads with my sexuality. It did cause me some distress, as bestiality is considered a mortal sin (a very grave sin) in the Catholic church. All the while, I attended a Catholic high school where we were taught to not only know the "rules" in the eyes of the church, but to also understand why they were the way they were. I learned a great deal about theology of Christianity according to Thomas Aquinas (Respected theologian and doctor of the church) in high school, and I came to my own conclusions based on what I had learned that it is possible for zoophilia to be accepted within the church. It is worth mentioning that the church does not have any problem with the thought of loving an animal, rather it is the sexual act that is considered sinful. There are effectively three conditions within that must be met in order for a sexual act to not be considered according to the church, those three things are:

1. The act must involve the complete giving of self by both people involved in the act (It must be between two individuals (monogamous) that are only having sex between each other and no one else)

2. Both people must give consent

3. The act must be fruitful or the possibility for it to be fruitful must be present (A child must be conceived from the act, or it must be possible for a child to be conceived)

The first point is not really a predetermined element, rather it is by the volition of both individuals that the first thing can be met. I should also point out that I do recognize not everyone here is monogamous, and I humbly respect that. The second point is of course the most widely recognized of the three, and im sure that most zoos would argue that animals can give consent, I feel no need to elaborate on this point. The third point is really the point of concern; the church holds that this is the reason that homosexuality cannot be accepted by the church as well. I personally believe, contrary to the church, that this point does not need to be true. My personal studies into theology of the catholic church have lead me to believe that this point does not need to be true, but I will not go into depth on this matter...

That is my take on Christianity view under the bias of a zoophile. Most of this of course would not be agreed upon by someone who did not share this bias. Regarding the consensual issue according to the Catholic church, and touching upon the church's beliefs on the treatment of animals, animals are considered lesser beings than humans. Animals are considered to have what are called "sensitive souls" while humans are considered to have what are called "rational souls". The real difference between the two is that rational souls are believed to have a sort of self-awareness that allows for them to exist separate of their bodies after death, while sensitive souls do not have this trait, and are effectively tied to their bodies with no desire to find happiness or become successful or anything like that. Because of this, the church does not value animals the same way it does humans, and so it is considered okay to kill animals for the purpose of consumption and religious sacrifices (which do not happen very often anymore). I personally disagree with this, and new scientific studies are showing more and more that certain animals are capable of exhibiting capabilities more than what the church believes possible.

I do believe that there can be such a thing as a "compatible religion", or for a current religion to come to accept zoophilia, but quite honestly, as funny as it may sound, I dont think the world is ready for something like that. Before such a thing is to happen, many progressive changes must occur. Christianity has changed its doctrine with time in the past, and every once in a while, an Ecumenical Council can be called to change controversial subjects within the church. It was only recently that same-sex marriage was legalized, and the church has not yet, but could potentially make well-informed decisions in the future that lead to the acceptance of homosexuality in the church. What I am trying to say is that we cannot expect to see a compatible religion until we see a change in major governments views of bestiality. We cannot expect to see changes in religion until we see changes in the state, only then can we entertain this conversation.

Religion is irrelevant in my life. I went throw the stages of hating it and blaming it for why there is a possibility for being punished and many thing's. Over time I moved on and began to forget about it. The only effect it has now is it comes in-between me and my parents.ita why I am not as close to them as I could be.

I used to be more religious when I was younger, but these days I have little religion left aside from the giggles I get from being a Pastafarian. Entertainingly enough, one time I asked the Prophet Bobby Henderson what he thought about it but he (perhaps wisely) chose to ignore the question. As far as I know, it's still an unresolved question in the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Do you think there are or can be religions that are compatible with zoophilia? What do you think would be the criteria for a "compatible religion"?

Sure, I think there have been a number of them through the years that could be adapted (adopted?) by anyone who desires such a thing and modified as needed until it fits the bill. I would think an animistic approach would probably work with very little tweaking, but when you're picking unfounded reasons for believing something, history shows they don't really have to make sense.

What is your take on those aspects of certain religions?

I think all religions should be examined for what they claim, when their claims are demonstratably false, contradictory, or ethically objectionable they should be discarded like any other bad idea. Just because a bunch of other people believe and/or make excuses for it doesn't change what it says. I explored a lot of religions when I was growing up, trying to figure out which one was "right", by reading and thinking about the claims they make.

If you were raised in a religious family, how do you think it influenced your perception of zoophilic or zoosexual activities, if at all?

It certainly had an impact for me and caused me some issues. It was certainly one of the factors which encouraged me to read more scriptures. The larger family were Catholics, but my immediate family were only nominally so. We were not discouraged from examining other religions or from asking even hard questions.

I don't see a difference between humans and non-humans (I see them as part of the same thing); unfortunately several "mainstream" religions don't have this view.

It does appear though that several eastern religions, namely Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, view humans and non-humans as part of the same thing (to a large degree anyway), so they might be more compatible with zoo. A theme of these religions is humans being reincarnated as non-human animals, or the other way around.

Interesting topic...discussed alot in the past, but still relevant.

Well, let´s see...the monotheistic religions usually condemn sexual contact with animals. Only Islam with its distinction between haram and halal animals has a slightly less condemning approach. But don´t start a party celebrating your conversion to Islam yet ;) , as dogs are seen as haram/impure and you´ll get basically the same treatment as in other monotheistic religions. If you are lucky to be a "lover" of halal animals like donkeys, horses and camels (yup!Camels!), the Qu´ran only demands that you keep off "holy" persons like the Imam so you don´t transfer your "impurity" onto him. Oh, maybe some whipping, too... That´s the reason why in Northafrican , muslim dominated countries donkeys with small boxes hanging from their necks are said to roam the streets. You can have sex with the donkey, but are supposed to put a small fee for the owner into the box. Don´t know whether this is right or just some "creepy sex pasta", but I know for sure that in muslim countries, usually very rural and with a sturdy patriarchic structure,animals are seen as a natural contraceptive and getting off with a donkey is more permitted than impregnating a random girl, forcing her family to pay for a traditionally very expensive webbing, outright ruining the entire clan financially for centuries. It´s the very same with certain South American countries´ rural areas...I´m sure some have seen the Vice vid about the "donkey fucking tradition" . But one should not evaluate this "traditional bestiality" as tolerance towards zoophilia. Preferring an animal as your partner your entire life certainly isn´t covered, females usually also are denied to get it on with a quadruped unpunished. This behaviour is exclusively permitted to horny male teenagers as a safe outlet for their steaming hormones.

In other religions, interspecies sex is usually also not appreciated, but the eminence of the offense doesn´t match that of monotheistic religions. Hinduism,Buddhism and any other religion/philosophy with the prevalent idea of reincarnation is kinda "cool with it" when it comes to interspecies contact. The usual idea of impurity prevents you from entering holy places like temples and monasteries, but that´s pretty much about it. In Shintoism, the japanese naturalistic religion/philosophy, human-animal contacts are part of folklore and the japanese word for bestiality/zoophilia/having sex with an animal is "uwake", what roughly translates into a rather harmless "doing silly things". The "religions"/belief systems of naturalistic religions/cults/tribal cultures like that of the Native Americans, for example, probably were the most permissive ones towards genuine zoophilia that ever existed. For a Native , it was perfectly okay to love an animal, even not only for horny teenagers, but also in the way I understand zoophilia. In South American tribes, this was very common, too. The less "civilised", the more permissive towards zoophilia, that´s how I perceive it.

The ancient polytheistic religions of Europe (Roman and Greek) also had a less condemnative attitude towards human-animal contact. In Pompeii, the town burnt to charcoal and buried under tons of ashes from a volcano eruption, legit brothels in which you were able to buy sex with an animal were dug out by archaeologists. In Circus Maximus, women usually were executed by forcing them to have sex with an animal too big to survive the act as public entertainment. That should give a slight hint at the general attitude towards animal sex....;) AFAIK, In Greece you lost your citizen rights when caught with an animal,you weren´t allowed to vote, but the proto-democracy of Athens already allowed voting only for highly respected and rich members of society. But besides that, you´d be a perfectly acceptable citizen in both , Ancient Greece and the Imperium Romanorum.

The Germanic tribes and their culture would be heaven for me as a horse lover. The Germans worshipped the horse and killing one for the Germanic gods was seen as the highest form of animal sacrifice you could donate to the deities; this sacrifice ritual was only done in times of catastrope and life threatening incidents endangering the entire tribe. Someone like me probably would have been perceived as an omen from Thor or Odin...it really makes me chuckle when Neonazis ,who usually instrumentalise the Germanic and Norse traditions for their purposes, demonstrate against zoophilia...with Nordic gods staring down from every inch of their tattooed skin. ;)

What´s left? Hmm, the modern religions like Anton Szandor LaVey´s satanism, for example. LaVey sees man as the one and only true god and following that rhetoric, man truly comes first, even when it´s about fucking animals. Wicca as a modern occultist, naturalist cult doesn´t outright condemns us, but places the emphasis on mutuality. Using animals as sex toys , for example, is equally badly received as in society , but true love between an animal and a human can be seen as an expression of the universal principles of Urania/Gaia and/or the gods/godessess Wiccans pray to.

Scientology surely appreciates any bestiality/zoophilia confessions...but only when they´re "auditing" folks. What else could be more ideal for Hubbard´s mobsters to have 100% percent reliable blackmail material and simultaneously a bulletproof reason why "you MUST buy this audition to get rid of your demons to be a Glorious Operating Thetan one day". Suck ma dick..I´m an operating Zetan, bitches! ;)

Basically, you can condense it to "The living circumstances usually form the religion". In more rural areas and times, sexual contact with animals isn´t seen as a big sin. In remote areas with only a few women "available", it was totally okay to have sex with an animal, even in top conservative and Christian areas. In Bavaria´s rural parts, one of the most conservative and catholic areas you can imagine, nobody cared for the lonely sheperd who had to stay with the animals for months mating with a sheep or a teenager "curing his boner" in a pig or cow. I believe this shows how little religions can do against traditions and life circumstances.Even a major sin was undone with confessing it next Suday at the mass..."and don´t forget to put something into our churches´ donation box on your way out, Herbert!". Technically, the Vatican is an animal brothel of the mosta dvanced nature...it doesn´t even has animals itself, but has made lots of cash with interspecies sex.... grin ;)

My impression is ,the more urban and less rural a culture is, the more hostile towards zoophilia it becomes. The people who are familiar with animals and have to work with them in their everyday lives are very likely to consider us a minor nuisance at maximum. The more distanced from the animals a culture becomes, the more concrete it puts under it´s feet, the more hostile towards the general idea of interspecies sexuality. A part of mankind simply has lost contact to what sustains all of our very lives on this planet. Someone familiar with the dimensions of a horse from experience would never ever get the idea that having nonviolent intercourse with a mare of average height can physically damage her. There are foals coming out of there, retards! Foals!;)

Do you think there are or can be religions that are compatible with zoophilia? What do you think would be the criteria for a "compatible religion"?

I think certain forms of paganism are compatible, as is Wicca in certain interpretations. Eastern religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shintoism seem to be broad enough to allow for it in some cases too (though that opinion may be uneducated).

But the Abrahamic ones are trickier, because Leviticus gives it a death penalty. Of course, the apologetics used by the gay community usually work with this too (ancient laws designed to combat fertility cults don't apply now, plus God is love and cares more about that than the rules), but it's a difficult sell for many believers.

Some religions have certain... customs and beliefs that influence the treatment of nonhuman animals, or demand certain rituals be carried out. What is your take on those aspects of certain religions?

I grew up Lutheran and read a lot of the Bible, so thst's my only real point of reference. Animal sacrifices to atone for sins, cure leprosy, or any number of other ceremonies are barbaric and cruel, as is the extension of that concept to humans with Jesus Christ. Biblically, animals are considered as property and servants of man, and I don't agree with that either. There may be a place for agriculture in society, but I don't think livestock should be treated with such low regard that they live in misery and die painfully so I can save a dollar on a burger.

Do you think that a religious distinction between humans and nonhumans(as seen in the topic of souls for some faiths) lends itself to deeper moral and intellectual distinction?

I think that by treating animals as fundamentally different from human beings and less than them, it does encourage a disregard for their well-being. I think that biology and ethology, properly understood, lead to the idea that humans and other species work in very similar ways, albeit with more complexity in certain mechanisms of the human brain. But there is little doubt in my mind that this religious distinction worsened animal lives, not least when Descartes declared them to be mere machines imitating pain without feeling it dye to their lack of souls. The scent of burning cats was thick in the nostrils of some Parisians thanks to that revelation.

If you were raised in a religious family, how do you think it influenced your perception of zoophilic or zoosexual activities, if at all? When you discovered your attraction(Or for any non-zoos, when you paid it some really serious thought), was there a 'shift of balance' so to speak?

I first learned about it from Leviticus, actually. When my attractions developed, it was a contributor to my loss of faith, though ultimately both may stem from misanthropy. I did also develop my attractions relatively late, due partly to a desire to save myself for marriage. Perhaps the repression of homosexuality was also a factor. It all melds together for me, really.

Do you think there are or can be religions that are compatible with zoophilia?

All of them are, if you are a grown-up and civilized and cleaned out the medieval parts from the religions. We here in this part of the world also do not do stonings any longer, for example. And gays can marry. Look at that civilization.

Besides, afaik zophilia is only ruled out in the bible in one spot, and that was smuggled in later, it was not part of the original bible. ... if memory serves me right, but I could be totally wrong.

Anyway, as you said, many religions have sex with animals, at least in some of their stories as mythical thing that happens. Those far outweight the few that are against it. In fact, I think the big monotheistic religions of today might be the sole religions who are adamantly against it and force a huge and strict separation between humans and animals (who are conveniently placed as lower objects into the care and hand of humans to do as they see fit with BUT NOT THAT ONE THING!).

Ever other older or more tribal religion pretty much on the contrary sees humans at least as part of a web or a circular construct or something similar where humans are but one piece of nature. And that makes so much more sense, doesn't it?

Do you think there are or can be religions that are compatible with zoophilia?

Rarely.
The ones that don't tell you that it's wrong to have sex with animals, maybe.
But then again, most zoophiles prefer scientific proof and common sense and for that reason any kind of religion isn't compatible with zoophilia.

Some religions have certain... customs and beliefs that influence the treatment of nonhuman animals, or demand certain rituals be carried out. What is your take on those aspects of certain religions?

I have a giant hatred for these religions.
Animals shouldn't be seen or treated as less.
It's disgusting and because of this zoophilia is seen as wrong in most people's eyes.

If you were raised in a religious family, how do you think it influenced your perception of zoophilic or zoosexual activities, if at all?

Wouldn't change a thing.
I won't let a book or the sheeple who believe in it let me change my sexual orientation, lmao.

Religion is something that I don't want to be bothered with.
It has no use in life and only hinders mine.

I'm a Norse heathen, and there are no explicit 'rules' in my religion against bestiality. Then again, there are very few actual 'rules' in my religion at all. More like vague values: you should take responsibility, show hospitality and respect your ancestors, stuff like that.

So, I see no conflict between my religion and my sexuality. In fact, part of why I became interested in Heathenry from the beginning was the fact that it doesn't have a history of homophobia or sexism the way Abrahamic religions do. Also, Abrahamic religions tend to view animals as created for the sake of humans, or that humans should dominate the animal kingdom. But norse mythology doesn't say that humans are closer to the gods than other animals or anything like that.

There is a story involving (kind of) bestiality too. In order to help the other Gods, Loki had to vandalize the building of a wall around Asgard. To do this, he transformed himself into a beautiful mare and lured off the work horse of the man building the wall. Loki was away with the stallion for quite some while, which made it impossible for the man to finish the wall on time. Later, Loki came back with the foal he gave birth to: Sleipnir. Sleipnir became Odin's horse.

Loki is not really meant as a role model. He is a trickster, and he often breaks rules and expectations. But this can also lead to new advantages (like Sleipnir). Still, I do find it fascinating that one of my gods mated with a stallion, and that this is considered a good solution to the problem in the myth.

But well, heathens are like people in general (except with a preference for mead), so I won't tell other heathens about my zoophilia!

I was raised in a very religious family, and even though they got less extreme in practicing it as when they did it in my childhood

Basically it was: God doesn't want you to do anything, woo your thoughts, and woo happiness. You should always be humble, dress humble.. you get the point.

Then we got to a church that was what you could say average in its thing, no special clothing on Sunday, or all day listening to Gods word. (I hated Sunday, because all we did was listen to this local radio talking about how god wants you to do this that)

So I have seen both the stronger religious sides and the less extreme side.

Of course, religion has these set rules, but most religious people choose what rules matter and what doesn't. God forbid a lot of things, which, in their time made a lot of sense, But when it comes to social rules, where it should still matter somewhat, some sins are just ignored all out. I'm talking about deceit, marriage (or better, divorce), business standards, gossiping, and judging others actions. And then when someone is gay, or in my case, zoo it all suddenly matters and you should repent. That kind of hypocrisy is what made me part church community. Now god didn't create a grading system on sin, and people who claim this exists are, to my knowledge on the subject of sin; "bags of shit" or, as the bible describes them; "pharisees".

I'm still religious, I guess that my raising left it's mark, along side with an interest to mythology, and I don't think I will ever give up on that idea because I quite like my idea of what "god" is. As of zoophilia, I do feel horrible, because I can't talk about it.

I never choose to be attracted to dogs, nor did I choose to lack any feeling for a human being past friendship. I have stuffed it away, ignoring my feels, and for the longest time I didn't even connect the idea of me being attracted to dogs to begin with.

As for treating animals in general, I consider them to be my equal, be it dogs, horses or cats. I'm born on this planet, so are they, I didn't choose, they didn't. Just because I got born H.Sapiens doesn't give me high ground to treat any creature "below me" (read food chain) less than how I wish to be treated. I treat any animal as it should be treated, to its species, I don't give a dog the same treatment as a cat.

Now when it comes to food, I prefer to kill the animal myself, if the opportunity arises (hunting is illegal here). I have my little ritual of thanking the animal (its body) blessing it's soul and it's important to me. I am not to be above the food chain, and as an omnivorous creature, I have to eat meat to get certain minerals / vitamins. So that's pretty much my belief system there.

I hope it all made sense, if not, ask and I will try to explain

Heh, not exactly serious, but there was an attempt to organize a "First Church of Zoophilia" in the early 2000's. The media got wind of it, labeled it as an attempt to legitimize bestiality under freedom of religion, and shut it down pretty fast.

google it for some fun.

[removed]

[removed]