Yahoo Clever wird am 4. Mai 2021 (Eastern Time, Zeitzone US-Ostküste) eingestellt. Ab dem 20. April 2021 (Eastern Time) ist die Website von Yahoo Clever nur noch im reinen Lesemodus verfügbar. Andere Yahoo Produkte oder Dienste oder Ihr Yahoo Account sind von diesen Änderungen nicht betroffen. Auf dieser Hilfeseite finden Sie weitere Informationen zur Einstellung von Yahoo Clever und dazu, wie Sie Ihre Daten herunterladen.

Is death penalty for bestiality in religious laws justified to protect poor animals from abuse?

The law of Mose requires death penalty for bestiality, I think, Islamic Sharia does the same.

Is it to protect animals from cruelty by sexual abuse? Is the harshness of this punishment justified, or should it be more moderate? Or should bestiality even be legal?

Cruelty to animals is the primary comprehensible reason to punish this.

Update:

As noted in an answer, the law of Mose requires the animal to be killed, too. So protection of animals can't be the reason, and I don't know any further legitimate reason for severe punishment.

12 Antworten

Relevanz
  • ?
    Lv 7
    vor 9 Jahren
    Beste Antwort

    No. That's just plain silly

  • Sky
    Lv 7
    vor 9 Jahren

    Laws should always be applied by logical and rational reasons, not religious doctrine, and especially when it comes to the death penalty. One of the commandments in that one book say "thou shall not kill", yet there are so many ways to be found in that very same book that justify killing someone.

    The problem with laws regarding bestiality (dictionary definition: sexual activity, usually intercourse but including other actions, between a human and an animal) and religious doctrines that pertain to it is that they make no distinction between consensual sex and rape, or sex that comes from a deep loving relationship and sex that comes from exploitation of an animal for the purpose of the human's gratification. It doesn't matter to the courts or the judgmental stink-eye of the religious people (whatever religion it is) that the woman who made love with her male horse or the man who made love with his dog were deeply in love with and committed to that animal and was sharing sexual intimacy as an extension and expression of their love. No distinction is given between someone whose sexual orientation is zoophile/zoosexual and animals are the mates they are attracted to, and someone who is mentally ill or deranged. No attention is given to how consensual that sex was, how mutually pleasurable it was, or how much the animal was the one making the offer to the human. Such cases are treated no differently than the guy who hops the fence into a sheep pasture in the middle of the night because he has a serious case of the blue balls and just needs a hole and a heartbeat. They're also treated no differently than the porn maker who restrains or sedates an animal so they have no ability to reject the sex, or the sick bastard who has sex with a chicken which is always painfully fatal for the chicken.

    When the treatment of an animal is so abusive that it results in pain, suffering, death, or other trauma to the animal (whether that animal is human or nonhuman), in my opinion that person should be severely punished, if not executed. That sort of act deserves such a punishment.

    But when the sex between two beings is consensual and pleasurable, whether out of being very much in love or from a friends-with-benefits thing, that should never be a crime whether both beings are human or one is human and one is nonhuman. It's not sex that should be illegal; it's rape and abuse that should always be illegal. To follow the laws of a book written 2000 years ago, which relay the stories and supposed teachings of a guy who lived a few thousand years before that and was reported to live to the age of 120 during the Iron Age when the life expectancy was about 26, is a deeply flawed way to run any government or judicial system.

  • Anonym
    vor 9 Jahren

    1) Is death penalty for bestiality in religious laws justified to protect poor animals from abuse?

    The question - because it is worded poorly - is ambiguous. Regardless of which of the two possible meanings you intended, though, the answer is "No".

    2) Is it to protect animals from cruelty by sexual abuse?

    No. It is intended to prevent humans from engaging in sexual immorality.

    3) Is the harshness of this punishment justified

    Justified how? God commanded that punishment in that very particular situation (Israelites living in Israel, living under Mosaic Law, person legally convicted of the act, etc. etc.) That **is** the justification. In other words: God commanded it, and that is the justification for it.

    4) Or should bestiality even be legal?

    No, it should not.

    - Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

  • vor 9 Jahren

    "“However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. 45 You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, 46 passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way."

    Lev. 25:44-46

    If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave and they had sons or daughters, then only the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. 5 But the slave may declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I don’t want to go free.’ 6 If he does this, his master must present him before God.* Then his master must take him to the door or doorpost and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will serve his master for life.

    Lev. 21:4-6

    “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his rproperty.

    Exodus 21:20-21

    The Bible doesnt even give a crapp about how humans should be treated. I doubt these religious laws were created because they cared about their animals. Just like homosexuality, beastiality deviated from what they were accustomed to and made them uncomfortable, so they deemed it an abomination.

  • Wie finden Sie die Antworten? Melden Sie sich an, um über die Antwort abzustimmen.
  • vor 5 Jahren

    Well, I think people do not get a death penalty even for a human rape. So i might think they sure will not obtain one for an Animal rape. However all stated and accomplished, the punishment wishes to equal on the lines of a human rape!

  • vor 9 Jahren

    The law you speak of was not given to mankind, but only the Jews, to keep the nation pure until Messiah came. The death penalty, as far as a murderer, was given to all mankind governments throughout the ages...

    Wouldn't it be stupid to kill people for animal abused, when they murder thousands of children in this country everyday, in their mother's womb, in the name of the law...

  • vor 9 Jahren

    The killing of the person and the beast involved should let you know how much God hates bestiality. It's a sick perversion of what God made sacred for husband and wife only.

  • vor 9 Jahren

    No.

    I don't think it had anything to do with the animals. It had to do with the fact that having sex with animals is immoral and disgusting.

  • vor 9 Jahren

    No, but these sick abusers should be raped by a gorilla. I detest animal cruelty.

  • Art
    Lv 7
    vor 9 Jahren

    Check you sources the animals get hung as well.

  • vor 9 Jahren

    It should be against the law, but killing you for it's a bit much.

Haben Sie noch Fragen? Jetzt beantworten lassen.