Furry != Bestiality

[zama174]

Wait, wait, wait...back that train up!
Anthropomorphism does not equal half human half animal. Anthropomorphism is any non human thing whether living or not having human traits and or characteristics. From a majority of what I've seen in relation to furry art there is very little to link or to show that in fact many furies are indeed half human/human animal and evolved in some way or are genetically half-half for some reason. They are for all intensive purposes, genetically non-human. Yes there is art out there showing people transforming into furies but let's leave that for another debate.
For example the character you posted, Krystal. Now I admit I haven't played Starfox, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I highly doubt that there is any mention in her back story or during the game that she is indeed part human part animal genetically.

This is where you have to draw the fine line, being anthropomorphic means you can and are humanoid. They might look and act human, but they are definitely not human. Considering the basic definition of bestiality is is the practice of sex between humans and non-human animals, furries kind of fall into that category.

So...umm yea, while yes there are clear differences if you sit down and try to think why people like furies (it's sexualizing animals with human physical characteristics) you know there is a difference between liking that and a straight up animal.
Sorry to say it man, but people who call it bestiality are technically right.

Who cares if they aren't technically part human? Say they where from another planet, aliens. What then? Would being sexually attracted, and having sexual relations with said species be wrong if they where sentient and conscious beings? If the answer is yes, then what about inter-racial relationships? Though while being of the same species, in many instances we do not look like one another, the difference racial appearances can be very, very drastic.

Also, and I doubt that this is going to be a widely accepted view point, but what if animals where as intelligent as humans? If they where capable of speech and thought like we are, would it be wrong to partake of sexual relations with them when they are equally capable beings? Where do you draw the line for such things being wrong, if it is simply by the consciousness and awareness of life and the capability to ignore impulse and instinct, and higher brain function, then where is your argument against Furries or Anthros?

In nearly all cases where Anthros come into play, they are either close, on par, or beyond, human intelligence. And in such a case, why would it be wrong for a human and a anthro, or any other sentient being to be together? If it is simply looks, then you are traveling up a dangerous and slippery slope which could be turned into a argument for racism when taken to extremes, and at worst promote some form of master race to the destruction of others. The world has seen the kind of damage such thought can have, and while I know you did not mean it in any way like that, it could be used and developed on further to such an extreme.

 

[Rednog]

Wait, wait, wait...back that train up!
Anthropomorphism does not equal half human half animal. Anthropomorphism is any non human thing whether living or not having human traits and or characteristics. From a majority of what I've seen in relation to furry art there is very little to link or to show that in fact many furies are indeed half human/human animal and evolved in some way or are genetically half-half for some reason. They are for all intensive purposes, genetically non-human. Yes there is art out there showing people transforming into furies but let's leave that for another debate.
For example the character you posted, Krystal. Now I admit I haven't played Starfox, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I highly doubt that there is any mention in her back story or during the game that she is indeed part human part animal genetically.

This is where you have to draw the fine line, being anthropomorphic means you can and are humanoid. They might look and act human, but they are definitely not human. Considering the basic definition of bestiality is is the practice of sex between humans and non-human animals, furries kind of fall into that category.

So...umm yea, while yes there are clear differences if you sit down and try to think why people like furies (it's sexualizing animals with human physical characteristics) you know there is a difference between liking that and a straight up animal.
Sorry to say it man, but people who call it bestiality are technically right.

Who cares if they aren't technically part human? Say they where from another planet, aliens. What then? Would being sexually attracted, and having sexual relations with said species be wrong if they where sentient and conscious beings? If the answer is yes, then what about inter-racial relationships? Though while being of the same species, in many instances we do not look like one another, the difference racial appearances can be very, very drastic.

Also, and I doubt that this is going to be a widely accepted view point, but what if animals where as intelligent as humans? If they where capable of speech and thought like we are, would it be wrong to partake of sexual relations with them when they are equally capable beings? Where do you draw the line for such things being wrong, if it is simply by the consciousness and awareness of life and the capability to ignore impulse and instinct, and higher brain function, then where is your argument against Furries or Anthros?

In nearly all cases where Anthros come into play, they are either close, on par, or beyond, human intelligence. And in such a case, why would it be wrong for a human and a anthro, or any other sentient being to be together? If it is simply looks, then you are traveling up a dangerous and slippery slope which could be turned into a argument for racism when taken to extremes, and at worst promote some form of master race to the destruction of others. The world has seen the kind of damage such thought can have, and while I know you did not mean it in any way like that, it could be used and developed on further to such an extreme.

Ok, this thread is from a while back, but the gist of the argument is whether or not furry = bestiality. The crux of my argument is talking about a very different thing than morality. I'm arguing the logistics of whether or not one can call having sex with a furry is bestiality. And the simply argument is that by the definition being having sex with something that is not human it is bestiality, then yes having sex with a furry is bestiality.
Now if you want to have a debate about the theoretical morality should something like that exist; I personally don't care for that argument because there is no true answer and you could debate on a topic of theoretical morality forever.

 

[zama174]

snip

The Webster definition of Bestiality

"sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal."

In almost all of the myths and fantasies in which Furries exist, or people in fur costumes, they are of human level intelligence. Thus they are not lower animals, and thus it is not Bestiality. In fact, given the fact that in many cases they are physically more adept as well as mentally capable as us, the only argument you could have that it is bestiality is that THEY are committing it by having sexual relations with us. Being a physically lesser species, and similar mental capabilities we would be the lower animal. But I don't think that is what your argument is. And even if it is, then I say good for us with not being prey and instead being potential lovers.

 

[Rednog]

snip

The Webster definition of Bestiality

"sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal."

In almost all of the myths and fantasies in which Furries exist, or people in fur costumes, they are of human level intelligence. Thus they are not lower animals, and thus it is not Bestiality. In fact, given the fact that in many cases they are physically more adept as well as mentally capable as us, the only argument you could have that it is bestiality is that THEY are committing it by having sexual relations with us. Being a physically lesser species, and similar mental capabilities we would be the lower animal. But I don't think that is what your argument is. And even if it is, then I say good for us with not being prey and instead being potential lovers.

Dude I'm sorry but let this thread die, honestly it did not need to be necro'd and it doesn't need to be expounded on. People on both sides of the fence have argued in huge walls of text. I honestly do not care to extended it anymore.
Seriously this thread went tits up after page 1, people can argue the semantics of this to the day they die and we will never have an answer. People on one side of the fence will call it as they see it, people on the other will scream that the others just don't understand and are ignorant about the matter and that they are persecuted. At the end of the day I have stopped caring, I learned long ago when discussing religion or anything personal to anyone you just won't change people's minds no matter how logical you go about your argument, people will try to find even the most minute holes and argue until they are blue in the face.

I am done with this thread and so is everyone else who posted here. Let this thread die.

 

[zama174]

snip

The Webster definition of Bestiality

"sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal."

In almost all of the myths and fantasies in which Furries exist, or people in fur costumes, they are of human level intelligence. Thus they are not lower animals, and thus it is not Bestiality. In fact, given the fact that in many cases they are physically more adept as well as mentally capable as us, the only argument you could have that it is bestiality is that THEY are committing it by having sexual relations with us. Being a physically lesser species, and similar mental capabilities we would be the lower animal. But I don't think that is what your argument is. And even if it is, then I say good for us with not being prey and instead being potential lovers.

Dude I'm sorry but let this thread die, honestly it did not need to be necro'd and it doesn't need to be expounded on. People on both sides of the fence have argued in huge walls of text. I honestly do not care to extended it anymore.
Seriously this thread went tits up after page 1, people can argue the semantics of this to the day they die and we will never have an answer. People on one side of the fence will call it as they see it, people on the other will scream that the others just don't understand and are ignorant about the matter and that they are persecuted. At the end of the day I have stopped caring, I learned long ago when discussing religion or anything personal to anyone you just won't change people's minds no matter how logical you go about your argument, people will try to find even the most minute holes and argue until they are blue in the face.

I am done with this thread and so is everyone else who posted here. Let this thread die.

Point taken. See ya around.