NationStates Jolt Archive

Now that homosexuality and homo marriage are becoming yesterday's news in terms of destroying the nuclear family, poligamy and eventually bestiality are the next big family destroying evil.

So is poligamy and beastiality really all that bad? I mean if 4 chicks and a guy want to live together forever why shouldn't they? Maybe I just want one chick or want to marry a guy as well, we'd be just one big loving family. I wouldn't want to hurt nobody.

Also, if pigs and dogs are your thing so be it, it'd be a one sided relationship so your loss

We shall have to see what society's limit is. I could see there being a problem with the whole bestiality thing in terms of consent, but polygamy is much more reasonable. Mormons and Muslims could argue that banning it violates their religious freedom or something.

Now that homosexuality and homo marriage are becoming yesterday's news in terms of destroying the nuclear family, poligamy and eventually bestiality are the next big family destroying evil.

So is poligamy and beastiality really all that bad? I mean if 4 chicks and a guy want to live together forever why shouldn't they? Maybe I just want one chick or want to marry a guy as well, we'd be just one big loving family. I wouldn't want to hurt nobody.

Also, if pigs and dogs are your thing so be it, it'd be a one sided relationship so your loss

WoW

Now that homosexuality and homo marriage are becoming yesterday's news in terms of destroying the nuclear family, poligamy and eventually bestiality are the next big family destroying evil.

So is poligamy and beastiality really all that bad? I mean if 4 chicks and a guy want to live together forever why shouldn't they? Maybe I just want one chick or want to marry a guy as well, we'd be just one big loving family. I wouldn't want to hurt nobody.

Also, if pigs and dogs are your thing so be it, it'd be a one sided relationship so your loss

Bestiality is a completely different matter. Like pedophilia, an animal cannot consent to venereal relations with an adult human.

Everything's fine, so long as there's consent. I don't care about polygamy or polyandry (spl?) or any form of other polyamorous marriage (ie: 3 girls and 5 guys). Why? Because it doesn't hurt my family. But if that's your thing (and you can afford it), go ahead.

<snip>

New Rafnaland is right. Who cares what people do, as long as there's consent?

You realize that there are no real arguments to polygamy, as the main people against homosexuality are religious people, and polygamy is permitted by all three abrahamic faiths possibly barring Christianity(I'm almost certain it's not banned, but I don't think it's mentioned anywhere either. Also Jesus lived after it was out of common practice, so he had the mindset that only one man and one woman can marry. He apparently says stuff to this effect in places. I'm not Christian though, so I wouldn't know where.)
And bestialic marriage is banned in the U.S because the animal can't give consent. Other then that, go ahead.

We shall have to see what society's limit is. I could see there being a problem with the whole bestiality thing in terms of consent, but polygamy is much more reasonable. Mormons and Muslims could argue that banning it violates their religious freedom or something.

Except it doesn't. Nowhere in either religions' holy books does it say that polygamy is OK. Well, it might in the Book of Mormon. And Mormons have (several times) attempted to argue that exact same thing in the courts when they've been arrested for having multiple wives: they still go to jail. (Or whatever the hell the punishment is for polygamy.)

Oh, and polygamy is fine, inside of a religion. It's just not kosher by the government (the government won't recognize it), just as they don't recognize unions between two men or two women.

Except it doesn't. Nowhere in either religions' holy books does it say that polygamy is OK. Well, it might in the Book of Mormon. And Mormons have (several times) attempted to argue that exact same thing in the courts when they've been arrested for having multiple wives: they still go to jail. (Or whatever the hell the punishment is for polygamy.)

Oh, and polygamy is fine, inside of a religion. It's just not kosher by the government (the government won't recognize it), just as they don't recognize unions between two men or two women.

OHHH but think of the tax revenue ;) If it all were legal...

Technically bigamy is banned, not polygamy. And it should be noted that bigamy also covers situations where the wives don't know about each other. Also, I do believe it's legal in parts of some states.

You realize that there are no real arguments to polygamy, as the main people against homosexuality are religious people, and polygamy is permitted by all three abrahamic faiths possibly barring Christianity(I'm almost certain it's not banned, but I don't think it's mentioned anywhere either. Also Jesus lived after it was out of common practice, so he had the mindset that only one man and one woman can marry. He apparently says stuff to this effect in places. I'm not Christian though, so I wouldn't know where.)
And bestialic marriage is banned in the U.S because the animal can't give consent. Other then that, go ahead.

Polygamy was a common practice in Islam as a cultural hold-over from the pagan Arab days. It had nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with displaying your wealth and power.

Nothing says 'rich', quite the way owning a nice palace in the 'burbs of Damascus and being able to pay the servants to take care of twenty wives (and your hundreds of children!), while still being able to maintain your military commitment to the Sultan screams it.

Except it doesn't. Nowhere in either religions' holy books does it say that polygamy is OK. Well, it might in the Book of Mormon. And Mormons have (several times) attempted to argue that exact same thing in the courts when they've been arrested for having multiple wives: they still go to jail. (Or whatever the hell the punishment is for polygamy.)

Oh, and polygamy is fine, inside of a religion. It's just not kosher by the government (the government won't recognize it), just as they don't recognize unions between two men or two women.

My point was more that the government not recognizing either can be interpreted as problematic for very similar reasons, and thus that the government probably should recognize both.

And I'm pretty sure there's a passage in the Quran that establishes specific conditions under which one can have multiple wives. I could be wrong though.

Whatever goes on between consenting adults shouldn't be any of the government's business, if 5 adults want to be married, no matter what I think about it personally, I don't think it's a government issue.

As far as animals, I think that is illegal for reasons other than "forced morality".

OHHH but think of the tax revenue ;) If it all were legal...

And the tax revanue from marijuana, among others. The hell is wrong with our government?

Polygamy was accepted, the same with slaves as both made up of relative normal if not only wealthy families. The common acceptance of the nuclear family is a relatively recent phenomenon, made popular by WASPS.

Doesn't really matter, as long as Islam allows it.
EDIT: Also, rabbis have banned it in parts of Judaism because most countrys didn't like it, and since this was around the time of the Crusades, Jews weren't doing too well even without polygamy. The ban still stands though, although I should note that this is only parts of Judaism(Ashkenazic, or the people that came from all of europe except for spain under the muslims). The rest still allows it, although nobody does it. Like levirate marriage.(When a husband dies,the widow marries his brother)Nobody does that anymore either. Actually I think this goes with a lot of stuff.

My point was more that the government not recognizing either can be interpreted as problematic for very similar reasons, and thus that the government probably should recognize both.

And I'm pretty sure there's a passage in the Quran that establishes specific conditions under which one can have multiple wives. I could be wrong though.

I don't recall reading that, granted it's been a while since I've read my English interpretation of the Quran.

But there would be a strong case for Tibetans, here. When a woman married, she married not just the man, but also every one of his brothers.

Technically bigamy is banned, not polygamy. And it should be noted that bigamy also covers situations where the wives don't know about each other. Also, I do believe it's legal in parts of some states.

Definetely bigamy is and should remain banned.

Consenting polgamy is about more freedom and who doesn't want more freedom, this should ring true to all you libertarians.

And the tax revanue from marijuana, among others. The hell is wrong with our government?

I think I love you.

Definetely bigamy is and should remain banned.

Consenting polgamy is about more freedom and who doesn't want more freedom, this should ring true to all you libertarians.
You realize that those two sentences contradict themselves.
Maybe I should have made it clearer in my last post that bigamy does not cover ONLY situations where the wives don't know about each other, it also covers consenting polygamy. Bigamy is having two or more wives(husbands) regardless of whether they know about each other or any other factors. I do agree that nonconsenting polygamy should be illegal though.

Animals can't give consent and polygamous relationships would make determining paternity and inheritance hell. Although polygamy should probably be alright, so long as it's equal opportunity and women can have multiple husbands as well. And of course children should be kept the hell out of anything like a sexual relationship with an adult until they themselves are adults.

If consent is the only real issue, bestiality CAN be acceptable.
I think a dog choosing to hump a human's leg implies the dog's consent.
If the dog is ~3 years old, would it be legally above the age of consent?
If a gorilla is taught sign language, can it legally sign consent?

If consent is the only real issue, bestiality CAN be acceptable.
I think a dog choosing to hump a human's leg implies the dog's consent.
If the dog is ~3 years old, would it be legally above the age of consent?
If a gorilla is taught sign language, can it legally sign consent?
A dog humping a leg does not constitute consent. :rolleyes: For one thing, arousal does not constitute consent. For another, dogs have the intelligence of what, 5 year olds?
As for the gorilla instance, is there a way to prove that the gorilla knows what it's consenting to? But then again, if someone wants to try to have sex with an unwilling gorilla, I say go for it, just play fair and don't use sedatives so s/he can tear you into pieces for it.

[QUOTE=New Rafnaland]Bestiality is a completely different matter. Like pedophilia, an animal cannot consent to venereal relations with an adult human.QUOTE]

Bull. It is such a naive assumption that those under eighteen can't give consent for sex. It just this dumb, self-perpetuating myth that they don't know anything about the world around them. Now I am not saying we allow fourty year old men to have sex with their two-year old daughter, but I have even seen ten year olds be extremely....... I am going to go with the word manipulative here. Now, this was with some other kid of their own age, but still, within reason, consent can be given by younger people than we let do so now. After all, in the middle ages, girls could be legally impregnanted as younger as ten (biology permitting). Now I'm not saying that that should happen either. I think that the consent age for sex should be lowered, but the pregnancy level be raised to twenty. Thoses young than twenty engaging in sexual acts should be forced to use contraception, both males and females. Around age thirteen-fourteen would be fine, provided that the younger party be watched very carefully by their guardians. Otherwise, child molesters will just be snapping up kids like crazy. There's a difference between statuatory rape, and just plain, sick, vile old rape.

As for beasitiality and poligamy, ah hell, why not.

P.S. If Michael Jackson is in fact a child molester, I have no problem with having him put to death. Raping children is just about the most awful thing you could ever do. CONSENT is a key word in my argument, so don't start calling me a sick twisted teen until you've read this all the way through.

P.P.S. Also, if the animal likes it, I say that constitutes consent, don't you?

If consent is the only real issue, bestiality CAN be acceptable.
I think a dog choosing to hump a human's leg implies the dog's consent.
If the dog is ~3 years old, would it be legally above the age of consent?
If a gorilla is taught sign language, can it legally sign consent?

Wow, someone of great intelligence. And I'm not being sarcastic, I think your right.

You realize that those two sentences contradict themselves.
Maybe I should have made it clearer in my last post that bigamy does not cover ONLY situations where the wives don't know about each other, it also covers consenting polygamy. Bigamy is having two or more wives(husbands) regardless of whether they know about each other or any other factors. I do agree that nonconsenting polygamy should be illegal though.

In a bigamous relationship, the female is not married to the other females, but agrees to be married to the male agreeing that he would have multiple wives. This is wrong.

A true polygamous relationship (IMO) means that you are married to everyone in the relationship, not multiple people to one person.

P.P.S. Also, if the animal likes it, I say that constitutes consent, don't you?
(As a note here, I'm talking about bestialic marriage not bestialic sex)
First of all, not under U.S law, where they have to sign something to get married, at least.
Second, you think they'd really want to have sex with a dog in front of a judge? And even if they want to, the judge probably doesn't want to see it.

In a bigamous relationship, the female is not married to the other females, but agrees to be married to the male agreeing that he would have multiple wives. This is wrong.

A true polygamous relationship (IMO) means that you are married to everyone in the relationship, not multiple people to one person.
You do realize that that would still ban polygamy in states where gay marriage is outlawed. Secondly, I don't see the problem with your definition of bigamy as long as the woman is allowed to do it too.

Pedophilia does not refer to persons under the age of eighteen. It refers to pre-pubescent kids. I don't care what a kid does after they've "pubed", as it were.

The age of conscent in most States of the US is sixteen, not that that doesn't stop them from commiting the venereal act at a younger age.

<snip>

P.P.S. Also, if the animal likes it, I say that constitutes consent, don't you?

Enjoyment does not equal consent. Children in the womb seem to enjoy touching their own genitalia and it's a well established fact that children will often carress their genitalia because it "feels good" well before they are capable of committing the venereal act.

Bull. It is such a naive assumption that those under eighteen can't give consent for sex. It just this dumb, self-perpetuating myth that they don't know anything about the world around them.
it is naive of you to think that people under the age of 18 can really consent to sex. Can they decide to have sex? sure, but what is that decision based on? probably not the best foundation, kids have sex for fun or to "fit in" they don't have the capacity to understand the various consequences. (hell, most 18 year olds don't either, but if you can vote and join the army you might as well be allowed to have sex)

We shall have to see what society's limit is. I could see there being a problem with the whole bestiality thing in terms of consent, but polygamy is much more reasonable. Mormons and Muslims could argue that banning it violates their religious freedom or something.

i'm pretty sure that in the mormon-bible-belts around usa (other places too i guess) that mormon families do live in multiple partner/wives situations. and even though it IS illegal the local authorities cant/wont do much about it because most of the community is mormon and dont see anythign worng with it.

in theory - i'm sure it's great to be able to have more than one long term partner at any one time but in reality, how many couples can even survive a threesome without being split up over jealousy, insecurity etc. in my opinion the multiple partnered religious couples only "survive" because the females in the equation are not given a voice and do not have much say in the matter.

most of my information came from oprah though - so dont judge too harshly.

xov

And the tax revanue from marijuana, among others. The hell is wrong with our government?

Couldn't tell ya... But if we taxed the hell out of anything that was fun.. OH man the things this country could pay for... Universal healthcare, free higher education, ohhhh the good things that come from immorality lol

"Aye, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of Death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil
Must give us pause"

Ha, I'm being pretentious and profound while at the same time not answering your questions.

Buit seriously: WHAT'S WRONG WITH SEX FOR FUN??? IF YOUR NOT GETTING PREGNANT, NO ONE IS BEING HARMED, unless your raping someone, in which case that is NOT CONSENT.

A dog humping a leg does not constitute consent. :rolleyes: For one thing, arousal does not constitute consent. For another, dogs have the intelligence of what, 5 year olds?
As for the gorilla instance, is there a way to prove that the gorilla knows what it's consenting to? But then again, if someone wants to try to have sex with an unwilling gorilla, I say go for it, just play fair and don't use sedatives so s/he can tear you into pieces for it.


Initiating sexual content (ie. leg humping) and arousal are different.
If intelligence is a factor, should consenting adults be required to take an IQ test before doing anything? Would certain sex acts require different IQ scores?

i'm pretty sure that in the mormon-bible-belts around usa (other places too i guess) that mormon families do live in multiple partner/wives situations. and even though it IS illegal the local authorities cant/wont do much about it because most of the community is mormon and dont see anythign worng with it.

in theory - i'm sure it's great to be able to have more than one long term partner at any one time but in reality, how many couples can even survive a threesome without being split up over jealousy, insecurity etc. in my opinion the multiple partnered religious couples only "survive" because the females in the equation are not given a voice and do not have much say in the matter.

most of my information came from oprah though - so dont judge too harshly.

xov

As I mentioned earlier, you can be married, religiously, to as many people as you want. You can only, however, be married to one, civilly. Consequently, there are many Mormons men who are religiously married to more than one woman. The government doesn't do anything about this because they can't.

If the man and his wives all had civil marriages, say under different aliases, then that would be illegal and the IRS would boot their ass for tax evasion.

But then again, if someone wants to try to have sex with an unwilling gorilla, I say go for it, just play fair and don't use sedatives so s/he can tear you into pieces for it.]

LOL, just imagine trying to hump a traumatized female gorilla. she'll slap your head loose :D

as for the question, multiple marriages could be accepted, i mean so many marriages already allow for intra-marital affairs, i think a few more steps down the liberal line could happen.

To be honest I'm not sure I'd mind being married to a guy who's married to another woman, so long as I get to marry other men as well.

Although the thing then becomes, what's the point of marriage? Why wouldn't I just enter a polyamorous relationship where we are kinda loosely together, but are free to date other people?

Initiating sexual content (ie. leg humping) and arousal are different.
If intelligence is a factor, should consenting adults be required to take an IQ test before doing anything? Would certain sex acts require different IQ scores?

Excellent point. Witty, and yet insightful. Alas, the law came to late, and thus Tom Green was allowed to breed. Actualy I don't think he has kids (Thank GOD). Correct me if I'm wrong.

What about necrophilia? If someone's partner left consent in their will, would that be acceptable as well?

Bestiality is a completely different matter. Like pedophilia, an animal cannot consent to venereal relations with an adult human.


Nope, you're wrong. Apparently, animals CAN consent!

Read and weep: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10694972/



Well, that blows you're argument out of the water, doesn't it?

Couldn't tell ya... But if we taxed the hell out of anything that was fun.. OH man the things this country could pay for... Universal healthcare, free higher education, ohhhh the good things that come from immorality lol

Government already taxes cigarettes, gambling, alcohol, guns, ammunition, cars, &c. that it mightn't add that much to government revenues.

But because they would be regulated by the government and so long as the government's regulations didn't lead to prices so high that the untaxed alternatives still looked enticing to people. Tax MJ, tax prostitution. Moreover, regulate those industries. Not only that but the revanue made by the companies that provide the services of prostitution and the products of marijuana would be taxable by the government, again. The people who participate in those activities would be much safer than those engaging in the illegal sort, which is beside the medical benefits of both (marijuana for cancer patients, prostitutes hired by pshrinks to help a client deal with a sexual psychosis, &c.).

Buit seriously: WHAT'S WRONG WITH SEX FOR FUN??? IF YOUR NOT GETTING PREGNANT, NO ONE IS BEING HARMED, unless your raping someone, in which case that is NOT CONSENT.
nothing is wrong with sex for fun unless you are unwilling or unable to deal with the consequences, most children that are 13 or 14 are unable to deal with the emotional, medical, or financial consequences of sex. There is no contraception that is 100%, if a 13 year old were to get pregnant or get herpes, you can't really say that they are ready and willing to deal with that.

Nope, you're wrong. Apparently, animals CAN consent!

Read and weep: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10694972/



Well, that blows you're argument out of the water, doesn't it?

Wow. Thank you so much. We need well informed people like you.

Nope, you're wrong. Apparently, animals CAN consent!

Read and weep: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10694972/



Well, that blows you're argument out of the water, doesn't it?

I don't recall there being any mention of the dolphin consenting. Moreover, I don't recall reading anything about sex.

And, most importantly:

While she acknowledged the "wedding" had no legal bearing she did say it reflected her deep feelings toward the bottlenosed, 35-year-old object of her affection.
Emphasis added.

nothing is wrong with sex for fun unless you are unwilling or unable to deal with the consequences, most children that are 13 or 14 are unable to deal with the emotional, medical, or financial consequences of sex. There is no contraception that is 100%, if a 13 year old were to get pregnant or get herpes, you can't really say that they are ready and willing to deal with that.

No, your right. That is true. However, remebering my own time observing my randy peers at that age (aprox. 2-3 years ago), no seemed to care, and sex went on like crazy (around me, that is. I seemed to have missed it all). Even those girls who got pregnant did nothing to change the attitudes of others.

Buit seriously: WHAT'S WRONG WITH SEX FOR FUN??? IF YOUR NOT GETTING PREGNANT, NO ONE IS BEING HARMED, unless your raping someone, in which case that is NOT CONSENT.

Hell, why is consent such a big deal? She probably doesn't even know what's good for her! Besides, it's fun!

What about necrophilia? If someone's partner left consent in their will, would that be acceptable as well?
So long as the coroner's done with the body (i.e. if an autopsy needed to be done) I don't see why not.

i'm pretty sure that in the mormon-bible-belts around usa (other places too i guess) that mormon families do live in multiple partner/wives situations. and even though it IS illegal the local authorities cant/wont do much about it because most of the community is mormon and dont see anythign worng with it.
In the main Mormon branch,(Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) it's banned by order of clergy, like in Judaism. There are Mormon branches that haven't banned it though.

Hell, why is consent such a big deal? She probably doesn't even know what's good for her! Besides, it's fun!
...and now I have the sudden urge to kick your ass into next week.

To be honest I'm not sure I'd mind being married to a guy who's married to another woman, so long as I get to marry other men as well.

Although the thing then becomes, what's the point of marriage? Why wouldn't I just enter a polyamorous relationship where we are kinda loosely together, but are free to date other people?

As a very public version of sex: You're showing your affection for the person in a way that (ideally) is lasting and binding.

And, more importantly, the tax incentives, quoth Cynic!

Except it doesn't. Nowhere in either religions' holy books does it say that polygamy is OK. Well, it might in the Book of Mormon. And Mormons have (several times) attempted to argue that exact same thing in the courts when they've been arrested for having multiple wives: they still go to jail. (Or whatever the hell the punishment is for polygamy.)

Oh, and polygamy is fine, inside of a religion. It's just not kosher by the government (the government won't recognize it), just as they don't recognize unions between two men or two women.

I have asked my Mormon friends about that before and they say it isn't part of their religion and they're not ok with it. People jut say that Mormons are ok with polygamy because people in parts of Utah and Colorado are polygamist (i.e. Colorado City) but they said their religion isn't ok with it.

Hell, why is consent such a big deal? She probably doesn't even know what's good for her! Besides, it's fun!

Sigh. My sarcasm detector just broke. You seem to give thirteen year olds a very low IQ (only partially true). I think your confusing them with all those poor eight year olds who are screwed by there parents on the grounds that "You'll like it. Trust me".

I don't recall there being any mention of the dolphin consenting. Moreover, I don't recall reading anything about sex.

Are we talking about sex or marriage? Because the this thread started out talking about marriage.

What about necrophilia? If someone's partner left consent in their will, would that be acceptable as well?

Sure.

Are we talking about sex or marriage? Because the this thread started out talking about marriage.

I thought the point of marriage was to have a Honey-Moon two-way orgy.... Is my head stuck too deep in the gutter?

on the side of the buyers, they are going to be guaranteed that the drug they buy is clean and unadulterated, taking away problems like the soapbar issue in the UK. the users will also have wide access to better ways of intaking marijuana (i.e using vaporizers instead of just] burning the leaves/hash which would take out the disadvantage of having to smoke anything -which is really the biggest concern in taking t]he drug.



]Government already taxes cigarettes, gambling, alcohol, guns, ammunition, cars, &c. that it mightn't add that much to government revenues.

But because they would be regulated by the government and so long as the government's regulations didn't lead to prices so high that the untaxed alternatives still looked enticing to people. Tax MJ, tax prostitution. Moreover, regulate those industries. Not only that but the revanue made by the companies that provide the services of prostitution and the products of marijuana would be taxable by the government, again. The people who participate in those activities would be much safer than those engaging in the illegal sort, which is beside the medical benefits of both (marijuana for cancer patients, prostitutes hired by pshrinks to help a client deal with a sexual psychosis, &c.). ]]]]]]

Are we talking about sex or marriage? Because the this thread started out talking about marriage.

True, but you can have sex and be married, so they (in classic NS style) merged together. By the the end of this, we will all be discussing something like "Do you think Harry and Ron are Gay?". Dammit. Now I've probably started that, even if it makes no sense.

Sigh.

...and now I have the sudden urge to kick your ass into next week.

I love you people. ^_^

I love you people. ^_^

We love you too, in a kind of condisending, adressing-a-small-child sort of way. :)

True, but you can have sex and be married, so they (in classic NS style) merged together. By the the end of this, we will all be discussing something like "Do you think Harry and Ron are Gay?". Dammit. Now I've probably started that, even if it makes no sense.

Sigh.

Oh, man, Harry and Ron are completely gay!


Hesitate... plunge

We love you too, in a kind of condisending, adressing-a-small-child sort of way. :)

So, are you now going to say, "You'll like it. Trust me"?

Oh, man, Harry and Ron are completely gay!


Hesitate... plunge

Ah well, no rest for the wicked: "Of course there not, Ron is like so with Hermione, but like, Harry, like, he's like, Ginny Dude."

6C6574277320676F2C20776869746520736F782100 my ass.

So, are you now going to say, "You'll like it. Trust me"?

Damn straight. Trust me, you'll like cod, it's just like tuna.

Ok, maybe I shouldn't have deleted that message.
And now after that pointless detour, back to the original topic.

Everyone, check out my great new motto.

Ah well, no rest for the wicked: "Of course there not, Ron is like so with Hermione, but like, Harry, like, he's like, Ginny Dude."

6C6574277320676F2C20776869746520736F782100 my ass.*

Truth be told, I didn't even know who you were talking about. I just playing devil advocate. I could care less what happens in those poorly-written, slipshod books. *Also, I love it when people don't even know what they are saying. Then again, that seems to happen a lot with you, doesn't it?

Can Hermione consent because I would so ahhhhh....... nevermind.

*

Truth be told, I didn't even know who you were talking about. I just playing devil advocate. I could care less what happens in those poorly-written, slipshod books. *Also, I love it when people don't even know what they are saying. Then again, that seems to happen a lot with you, doesn't it?

Yes, Yes, I love you too. (Ha! He can't even recognise his own national motto. HA HA HA HA HA HA...


I am so alone.)

marriage is a social contract, the only government role should be to hold all parties to the terms of the contract. the number of people involved in the contract, or their genders, should be as irrelevant as in any other legally binding contract such as car leases or mortgage agreements.

at the heart of the issue is the seperation of church and state - allowing religions to dictate legal definitions is bound to chafe at some point.

bestgiality (did i spell that right?) ought not be regulated either. if you can own a cow, put it out to breed, molest it's mammaries daily, steal it's bodily fluid, kill it if it becomes ill, or slaughter it for it's flesh, for yourself to ingest or for profit, why should anyone cry foul when the beef gets porked?

Yes, Yes, I love you too. (Ha! He can't even recognise his own national motto. HA HA HA HA HA HA...


I am so alone.)

Yes, but do you know what it means?

P.S. I love you, too.

Yes, but do you know what it means?

P.S. I love you, too.

No (and boy do I feel stupid). Please tell me oh great one of knowlage,

marriage is a social contract, the only government role should be to hold all parties to the terms of the contract. the number of people involved in the contract, or their genders, should be as irrelevant as in any other legally binding contract such as car leases or mortgage agreements.

at the heart of the issue is the seperation of church and state - allowing religions to dictate legal definitions is bound to chafe at some point.

bestgiality (did i spell that right?) ought not be regulated either. if you can own a cow, put it out to breed, molest it's mammaries daily, steal it's bodily fluid, kill it if it becomes ill, or slaughter it for it's flesh, for yourself to ingest or for profit, why should anyone cry foul when the beef gets porked?

What the HELL! WHO THE HELL ARE YOU? How DARE you try to reestablish the original topic! In case you're not up on current events, this is mine and Mad Poop...I mean, Poodle Eating Dave's (sorry, dave. I still love you) personal rant-at-each-other thread! So, get lost, loser!

Can Hermione consent because I would so ahhhhh....... nevermind.

I keep forgetting if it's sixteen or seventeen in Britian. Anyway, no, not until April, at the very least.

My dear The Perfect Number, it is now to late for me continue. Sleep well, all of you, I'll be just as whiney later.

"Mad Dave"

I keep forgetting if it's sixteen or seventeen in Britian. Anyway, no, not until April, at the very least.
It's 14 in Canada.

marriage is a social contract, the only government role should be to hold all parties to the terms of the contract. the number of people involved in the contract, or their genders, should be as irrelevant as in any other legally binding contract such as car leases or mortgage agreements.

Nah, the only marriage contract the government should ever involve itself with is the marriages that are liable to produce children, the only legitimate excuse the government has any interest in marriages at all for.

Yes, I know, so people that never had children or are too old to have children when they get married or people that refused to have children would lose their benefits etc., and people that can't have children would NOT be able to enjoy the benefits of government recognized marriage. Yes, that IS exactly what I'm saying.

Everyone else should get married in a church or whatever civilian service they want, but the government shouldn't give a rat's butt about those. No interest in it whatsoever.

at the heart of the issue is the seperation of church and state - allowing religions to dictate legal definitions is bound to chafe at some point.

bestgiality (did i spell that right?) ought not be regulated either. if you can own a cow, put it out to breed, molest it's mammaries daily, steal it's bodily fluid, kill it if it becomes ill, or slaughter it for it's flesh, for yourself to ingest or for profit, why should anyone cry foul when the beef gets porked?

These rules (not laws as addressed by me above) should be up to the people in the community to decide as a community. If they want to put up with it, so be it, if they want to kick you ass for fucking their dog, so be it.

Nah, the only marriage contract the government should ever involve itself with is the marriages that are liable to produce children, the only legitimate excuse the government has any interest in marriages at all for.

Mehercules! A logical arguement against government recognizing marriage!

However, does the government then have the right to force both partners to take tests of intelligence and genetic stability (lack of disease, &c.) before they can copulate? More over, does the government then have the right to control how many births can result from a marriage? And should the government then mandate abortions for all children concieved out of wed-lock?

Nah, the only marriage contract the government should ever involve itself with is the marriages that are liable to produce children, the only legitimate excuse the government has any interest in marriages at all for.

Yeah why the fuck should old people or sterile people be allowed to enter in a civil contract with one and other

There is no benifit in it

Mehercules! A logical arguement against government recognizing marriage!

However, does the government then have the right to force both partners to take tests of intelligence and genetic stability (lack of disease, &c.) before they can copulate? More over, does the government then have the right to control how many births can result from a marriage? And should the government then mandate abortions for all children concieved out of wed-lock?

Depends. In china where they want to limit the number of new children, they punish you for having them, have one, pay a thousand bucks, have two, pay ten thousand bucks, if you can raise the ‘license’ fee and can come up with payment, etc., you will have the right to raise your children without going to jail (or whatever)...

Or, adversely, in Germany or Australia (for example), where they want more children to be born, you would be rewarded with greater and greater benefits for each child you raise.

But anyone who has children outside of wedlock would be mandated for legal purposed to be married (not saying they have to live together, but ‘married’ to the responsibility of the proper raising of the child they produced, punished harshly or lax but enough to get support for the kid as needed, whatever is needed by the government.

As to deciding who can or cannot, or who must, I say no, no need to go there. Just punish or reward for child rearing as it should be enough to accomplish the governments concerns.

Yeah why the fuck should old people or sterile people be allowed to enter in a civil contract with one and other

There is no benifit in it

Why do they need the government to interfere with a contract that they have or make with each other? They simply need a lawyer who is good at writing contracts, marriage laws are not required for them. They are not harmed by not having a marriage license.

So is poligamy and beastiality really all that bad? I mean if 4 chicks and a guy want to live together forever why shouldn't they? Maybe I just want one chick or want to marry a guy as well, we'd be just one big loving family. I wouldn't want to hurt nobody.

I agree, there is no problem with this.

Also, if pigs and dogs are your thing so be it, it'd be a one sided relationship so your loss

Eh, animals can't consent, so I disagree here.

Why do they need the government to interfere with a contract that they have or make with each other? They simply need a lawyer who is good at writing contracts, marriage laws are not required for them. They are not harmed by not having a marriage license.
Currently they are ... they are not afforded the same opertunities or rights just because thereis a possiblity (or lack thereof) of ofspring (the CHANCE not the EXISTANCE)

Depends. In china where they want to limit the number of new children, they punish you for having them, have one, pay a thousand bucks, have two, pay ten thousand bucks, if you can raise the ‘license’ fee and can come up with payment, etc., you will have the right to raise your children without going to jail (or whatever)...

Or, adversely, in Germany or Australia (for example), where they want more children to be born, you would be rewarded with greater and greater benefits for each child you raise.

But anyone who has children outside of wedlock would be mandated for legal purposed to be married (not saying they have to live together, but ‘married’ to the responsibility of the proper raising of the child they produced, punished harshly or lax but enough to get support for the kid as needed, whatever is needed by the government.

As to deciding who can or cannot, or who must, I say no, no need to go there. Just punish or reward for child rearing as it should be enough to accomplish the governments concerns.

So the government could pull a Nazism and deny people the ability or right (depending) to marry on the grounds of genetic disease?

Shouldn't gay couples then be allowed to marry if they are to take care of a adopted child?

Moreover, wouldn't polygamy still have to be recognized by the government for the vast number of children such a marriage might create?

Currently they are ... they are not afforded the same opertunities or rights just because thereis a possiblity (or lack thereof) of ofspring (the CHANCE not the EXISTANCE)


Exactly, why should people without children get a household tax break designed to benefit households raise their children?

Why should people be allowed to use loop holes to take advantage of laws and benefits designed to encourage behaviors they are not willing or able to do?

If I'm not a farmer, why should I get a farm benefit? If I'm not a senior citizen, why should I get a senior citizen discount? If I can't, don’t or won’t have kids, why do I need the government to recognize my marriage? I don’t and I shouldn’t.

My point was more that the government not recognizing either can be interpreted as problematic for very similar reasons, and thus that the government probably should recognize both.

And I'm pretty sure there's a passage in the Quran that establishes specific conditions under which one can have multiple wives. I could be wrong though.

Under Islam it was ok, but only with the coscent of the females AND all must be given equal attention, if the male could not garantee harmony in the house hold, he wasn't allowed to take anothe wife.

As for the reasons for polygamy - there was no social welfare system, so a male provider from the tribe was one way, it was also used to cement ties with other tribes a well. Marriage was alot more than just 'love' back then, it was seen as a powerful tool in foreign relations - same situation in the west with royal families/gentry and the like.

So the government could pull a Nazism and deny people the ability or right (depending) to marry on the grounds of genetic disease?

I already answered that, I said the government doesn't need to go there now didn't I. What did you do? Have the answer all typed up regardless of what I might say?

Shouldn't gay couples then be allowed to marry if they are to take care of a adopted child?

No, they can't have kids. If a gay couple wants to adopt a kid, and the community wants to let them, why do they have to be married? Civil adoption laws are sufficient. But ideally, there would be very, very few orphans in need of homes. In an overpopulated country, children would be restricted and valued highly by the few allowed to have them, and in a under-populated country, they would be worth their weight in gold.

Moreover, wouldn't polygamy still have to be recognized by the government for the vast number of children such a marriage might create?

Goes back the country in question. Do they need more kids, can the government reward the families enough to support a dozen children? Do they have too many children and no one could afford to have so many children, and thus, less spouses (birthing possibilities).

Goes back the country in question. Do they need more kids, can the government reward the families enough to support a dozen children? Do they have too many children and no one could afford to have so many children, and thus, less spouses (birthing possibilities).

Is it the roll of government to 'reward families', no, it isn't the roll of government to give tax breaks/cuts/credits and what have you.

Give an accross the board tax cut, and let the individuals/couples decide what to do with the money.

If you want that sort of communist encrochment onto peoples lives, then may I suggest moving to North Korea.

I already answered that, I said the government doesn't need to go there now didn't I. What did you do? Have the answer all typed up regardless of what I might say?

Who determines where the government goes, but the government? Need has nothing to do with it. And if it does, perhaps a government feels the "need" to reduce their nations healthcare costs as a result of inhereted diseases.

No, they can't have kids. If a gay couple wants to adopt a kid, and the community want to let them, they why do they have to be married? Civil adoption laws are sufficient. But ideally, there would be very, very few orphans in need of homes. In an overpopulated country, children would be restricted and valued highly, and in a under-populated country, they would be worth their weight in gold.

Last time I checked, a homosexual couple adopting meant that they had kids. It also doesn't cover the possibility of one of the partners (in a lesbian couple) heading down to the sperm bank.

Goes back the country in question. Do they need more kids, can the government reward the families enough to support a dozen children? Do they have too many children and no one could afford to have so many children, and thus, less spouses (birthing possibilities).

I would think that five (or more) working dads and mothers could easily support three traditional housewives and/or non-traditional househusbands and their unholy legions of manlings and womanlings.

Exactly, why should people without children get a household tax break designed to benefit households raise their children?

Why should people be allowed to use loop holes to take advantage of laws and benefits designed to encourage behaviors they are not willing or able to do?

If I'm not a farmer, why should I get a farm benefit? If I'm not a senior citizen, why should I get a senior citizen discount? If I can't, don’t or won’t have kids, why do I need the government to recognize my marriage? I don’t and I shouldn’t.
Why associate thoes rights with marrige rather then with the birth of their kids?

Is it the roll of government to 'reward families', no, it isn't the roll of government to give tax breaks/cuts/credits and what have you.

tax breaks/cuts/credits ARE a reward.


Give an accross the board tax cut, and let the individuals/couples decide what to do with the money.

Why would you get a child tax credit if you don't have a child?

If you want that sort of communist encrochment onto peoples lives, then may I suggest moving to North Korea.

LOL, :p

What part of what I said was an encroachment into protecting the child's rights? In your version the government doesn’t see to the child’s wellbeing whatsoever and lets any and every old moron have as many children that can, even when they never support any of them? That’s not liberty, that’s slavery. Who's freedom was encroached upon in my version? Certainly not the child citizen’s rights, they are being protected from idiot parents (as the case may be).

Why associate thoes rights with marrige rather then with the birth of their kids?


I already said, if a couple has a kid out of wedlock, they should be 'forced' to a government marriage simply for the sake of the responsibility of raising the child if nothing else, or punished severely if they won't or can't. If they are cruel, they should be in prison and the child put somewhere better.

...
Last time I checked, a homosexual couple adopting meant that they had kids. It also doesn't cover the possibility of one of the partners (in a lesbian couple) heading down to the sperm bank.
..

Having children outside of marriage should be a set of different laws, depending on reward or punishment, depending on the communities needs of wanting more or having too many already etc., but the tax breaks of raising a child go with the child, not the couple raising them. So adoptive parents would get their tax breaks as needed, still no need for marriage laws to be introduced into this relationship, (the marriage laws govern the creation of new children - in my system anyway).

Having children outside of marriage should be a set of different laws, depending on reward or punishment, depending on the communities needs of wanting more or having too many already etc., but the tax breaks of raising a child go with the child, not the couple raising them. So adoptive parents would get their tax breaks as needed, still no need for marriage laws to be introduced into this relationship, (the marriage laws govern the creation of new children - in my system anyway).

But marriage laws presently prevent a homosexual couple raising a child (either sperm-banked or adopted) from recieving the same tax break as a heterosexual couple.

Edit: They also prevent groups of polygamists married to each other from getting said tax break.

It does, however, cover the "single" mothers who are religiously married to one man, but not civilly married.

Nah, the only marriage contract the government should ever involve itself with is the marriages that are liable to produce children, the only legitimate excuse the government has any interest in marriages at all for.

Why is that "the only legitimate excuse" ? Are things like shared property rights, the right to make decisions on behalf of your partner(s) if he/she/they is/are incapacitated (including life/death decisions), taxation based on shared income and so on irrelevant to the functioning of society ?

Why is that "the only legitimate excuse" ? Are things like shared property rights, the right to make decisions on behalf of your partner(s) if he/she/they is/are incapacitated (including life/death decisions), taxation based on shared income and so on irrelevant to the functioning of society ?

And inheretence and visiting rights in case of one of them needing to visit the hospital for a prolonged period.

I already said, if a couple has a kid out of wedlock, they should be 'forced' to a government marriage simply for the sake of the responsibility of raising the child if nothing else, or punished severely if they won't or can't. If they are cruel, they should be in prison and the child put somewhere better.
Did not answer my question why do you feel like defining marrige as only with offspring

Generaly that is not the common use nor purpose of marrige so why do you feel like defining it as such. Why not let marrage be any union between two individuals bound by the state with the general responsiblilities rights and privalages currently entrusted to marrage

Did not answer my question why do you feel like defining marrige as only with offspring

Generaly that is not the common use nor purpose of marrige so why do you feel like defining it as such. Why not let marrage be any union between two individuals bound by the state with the general responsiblilities rights and privalages currently entrusted to marrage

Why restrict it to two, though?

what i don't see is what bussiness it is of any government, reguardless of idiology, economics or belief, what anyone does or does not 'go to bed' with, where, when or how often.

=^^=
.../\...

Why is that "the only legitimate excuse" ? Are things like shared property rights, the right to make decisions on behalf of your partner(s) if he/she/they is/are incapacitated (including life/death decisions), taxation based on shared income and so on irrelevant to the functioning of society ?
Exactly marriage as it stands is so much more then just child bearing families
I can see giving benefits to those that choose to do so (even if I do not agree with it)

But those rights can be associated without restricting the rest of the stuff associated with marriage (as well is who is allowed in a marriage)

Why restrict it to two, though?
Lol because I am tired and forgot to generalize it enough lol
Change that to just *consenting adults

Now that homosexuality and homo marriage are becoming yesterday's news in terms of destroying the nuclear family, poligamy and eventually bestiality are the next big family destroying evil.

So is poligamy and beastiality really all that bad? I mean if 4 chicks and a guy want to live together forever why shouldn't they? Maybe I just want one chick or want to marry a guy as well, we'd be just one big loving family. I wouldn't want to hurt nobody.

Also, if pigs and dogs are your thing so be it, it'd be a one sided relationship so your loss
My *REALLY SHORT RESPONSE* ...:

Read a little into it, there's foreshadowing and everything ...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=462749

Oh, the horror! Won't SOMEONE think of the children? ;)

Now that homosexuality and homo marriage are becoming yesterday's news in terms of destroying the nuclear family, poligamy and eventually bestiality are the next big family destroying evil.

So is poligamy and beastiality really all that bad? I mean if 4 chicks and a guy want to live together forever why shouldn't they? Maybe I just want one chick or want to marry a guy as well, we'd be just one big loving family. I wouldn't want to hurt nobody.

Also, if pigs and dogs are your thing so be it, it'd be a one sided relationship so your loss

I don't see any problems with polygamy, if all involved are happy with the situation. It all comes down to "consenting adults", really.
Beastiality is not about consenting adults, though, and therefore should not be made legal.

Bestiality is a completely different matter. Like pedophilia, an animal cannot consent to venereal relations with an adult human.

Everything's fine, so long as there's consent. I don't care about polygamy or polyandry (spl?) or any form of other polyamorous marriage (ie: 3 girls and 5 guys). Why? Because it doesn't hurt my family. But if that's your thing (and you can afford it), go ahead.

If we can eat them why can't we fuck them? I would rather be fucked then eaten.

Any man stupid enough to want to be married to four women, deserves to be.

This informed consent thing when it comes to animals is odd to me. Does a dog become anerexic after a bestiality encounter? Does a horse become withdrawn after a bestiality encounter. Will we ever find an animal in therapy after a bestiality encounter?

Now that homosexuality and homo marriage are becoming yesterday's news in terms of destroying the nuclear family, poligamy and eventually bestiality are the next big family destroying evil.

So is poligamy and beastiality really all that bad? I mean if 4 chicks and a guy want to live together forever why shouldn't they? Maybe I just want one chick or want to marry a guy as well, we'd be just one big loving family. I wouldn't want to hurt nobody.

Also, if pigs and dogs are your thing so be it, it'd be a one sided relationship so your loss
As long as all parties are consenting, I see nothing wrong with individuals choosing the form of their own romantic and sexual relationships.

However, keep in mind: minors cannot consent, nor can animals.

As long as all parties are consenting, I see nothing wrong with individuals choosing the form of their own romantic and sexual relationships.

However, keep in mind: minors cannot consent, nor can animals.
They cant consent to become food for us either ... we obviously as a society do not hold them to have the same rights as humans, so why put them on the level of humans for consent just for sex?

They cant consent to become food for us either ... we obviously as a society do not hold them to have the same rights as humans, so why put them on the level of humans for consent just for sex?

Because we're not just rational beings, but also visceral, emotional ones. It stops us fucking up completely even when our reason says it's OK :)

I make that argument in blissful ignorance of the potential physical health risks of sex-with-animals, and I'm not even starting on the potential emotional damage...:eek:

Now that homosexuality and homo marriage are becoming yesterday's news in terms of destroying the nuclear family, poligamy and eventually bestiality are the next big family destroying evil.

So is poligamy and beastiality really all that bad? I mean if 4 chicks and a guy want to live together forever why shouldn't they? Maybe I just want one chick or want to marry a guy as well, we'd be just one big loving family. I wouldn't want to hurt nobody.

Also, if pigs and dogs are your thing so be it, it'd be a one sided relationship so your loss

Seeing as animals never want to have sex with humans, bestiality should remain illegal. Besides, it's a good way to catch and spread many diseases. And who would want to do it anyway? (Of course, it still amazes me that some people actually want to have sex with members of their own gender.)

As for pologamy, I personally have all I can do to manage one wife, but if others think that they can handle multiple spouses and it's OK with everyone involved, that's up to them, of course. Yes, Islam already allows for it, but surprising few Muslims have more than one wife.

Seeing as animals never want to have sex with humans, bestiality should remain illegal.

Which animal did you ask?

The horses seem to get it up for it.

Which animal did you ask?

.

I wouldn't. So, you have experience with horses, eh?

Seeing as animals never want to have sex with humans

I've seen plenty of dogs try it on with various humans. They never got anywhere, of course, but I have little doubt that the doggies would have gone for it if the human had also been willing. Then there's dolphins. They'll take sexual pleasure wherever they can get it, it seems, humans included. A lot like humans, in that regard.

Bestiality is a completely different matter. Like pedophilia, an animal cannot consent to venereal relations with an adult human.[*puts on hat that reads "Devil's Advocate"*]
dunno... let the animal go... should it return to you, doesn't that show love and acceptance?

and when your male dog starts humping around, doesn't that imply desire to mate?

and if an animal truly objected to the forced intrusion... wouldn't they defend themselve by oh... I dunno... Biting and clawing perhaps?

Animals like dogs and cats don't communicate a desire to be spayed or neutered, yet we force that upon them. Restricting their Reproductive Freedoms. We inact laws to keep them leashed and chained up... caged and confined... forced to do duties to benefit us without compensation... did they consent to have that done to them?

Edit to add: oh, and animals can be the benificaries of Wills, and didn't someone post an article about a woman marrying a dolphin a while back?

[*takes off Hat*]

I don't see any problems with polygamy... don't know why men would put themselves in that situation anyway... I mean in a normal relationship they're outnumbered one to one anyway, have more than one wife and you'll really see a hen-pecked husband... especially when the women's "time of the month" synch up. :p

don't know why men would put themselves in that situation anyway... I mean in a normal relationship they're outnumbered one to one anyway, have more than one wife and you'll really see a hen-pecked husband... especially when the women's "time of the month" synch up. :p

<does the killjoy bit by pointing out that...> Nah, can't bring myself to do it :)

Elgesh']Because we're not just rational beings, but also visceral, emotional ones. It stops us fucking up completely even when our reason says it's OK :)

I make that argument in blissful ignorance of the potential physical health risks of sex-with-animals, and I'm not even starting on the potential emotional damage...:eek:
Yeah but not all law should be based off of emotion ... there should be some logic associated with it

Either an animals consent matters or not in all things.

1) Beastiality: Lack of consent. Like pedophilia, it ends right there: nonsapients are never capable of giving consent, therefore there's a clear, strong logical, moral, and legal barrier.

2) Polygamy: The difference between this and homosexual marriage is that homosexuality is an innate biological trait - it's discrimination against people based on inherited characteristics, and the people involved have no choice in the matter. On the other hand, there's no can't-love-just-one-person gene. That's just lust, greed, and/or indecisiveness.

Yeah but not all law should be based off of emotion ... there should be some logic associated with it

Either an animals consent matters or not in all things.

It's not really the animal _I'm_ concerned about - except in the case of the abuse of animals, lots of sick folk out there that animals and people alike need protecting from - but what it does to and says about humans. Plus, remember that the law is, rightly, regarded as reflection of morality as well as logic, there's never been a 1:1 ratio between the law and either of those concepts :)

They cant consent to become food for us either ... we obviously as a society do not hold them to have the same rights as humans, so why put them on the level of humans for consent just for sex?
I was thinking more about the subject of marriage. An animal cannot enter into a legally-binding contract, so an animal cannot participate in a civil marriage contract.

As for beastiality, one could theoretically make a case for it being inhumane. For instance, many people are comfortable eating meat only so long as the animals are subjected to a minimum of suffering. An animal might experience greater suffering when subjected to sexual activity with a human than it would if it were killed as quickly and painlessly as possible. For those individuals, the complaint against beastiality could be as valid as the complaint against inhumane treatment of food-animals, depending on the animal and the type of sexual contact. Some people (myself included) believe that death is not necessarily the worst thing that can be inflicted upon a living creature.

However, for people who are comfortable eating "industrial" food products...well, I think sex would be a picnic compared to what those food-animals are put through, and I think it's a bit silly for people to get squeemish about the one but not about the other.

One other thought: people are pointing out that we spay pets without their consent, as well as do a variety of other things to them without their consent. However, one could compare this to how we deal with our children...we make them get shots, etc, and we don't view their "consent" as necessary in these cases. Yet we are still prohibited from making certain decisions on their behalf; a parent can get his child a booster shot without her consent, but he cannot decide for her that she is ready to have sex. A parent can force her child to go to bed without his supper, but she cannot overrule his lack of consent to sexual relations.

Domesticated pets are protected from abuse by a variety of laws that are more strict than the laws regarding treatment of food-animals, laws which in some cases are similar to laws prohibiting abuse of children. These laws seem to view pet-owners as custodians of their animals, much as parents are custodians of their children. This might lead us to reason that PETS could be exempt from beastiality, while food-animals are not.

Just some random thoughts.

2) Polygamy: The difference between this and homosexual marriage is that homosexuality is an innate biological trait - it's discrimination against people based on inherited characteristics, and the people involved have no choice in the matter. On the other hand, there's no can't-love-just-one-person gene. That's just lust, greed, and/or indecisiveness.

There is also no "must-only-love-one-person gene". To me it seems there is little objection from a biological point of view to have a tribal construction in which everyone cares for all the kids of the tribe, regardless of who the biological parents are, and where people can have multiple mates. That way there is a high chance your genes will be passed on while the kids will be almost guaranteed to receive enough attention, supervision and playmates.

2) Polygamy: The difference between this and homosexual marriage is that homosexuality is an innate biological trait - it's discrimination against people based on inherited characteristics, and the people involved have no choice in the matter. On the other hand, there's no can't-love-just-one-person gene. That's just lust, greed, and/or indecisiveness.
Actually, there is significant evidence that humans (like most primates) are not biologically inclined to monogamy. Indeed, quite the opposite. If the argument in support of accepting homosexuality is that it is a natural form of human sexual orientation, then non-monogamous groupings should be accepted on the same grounds.

Polygamy is just fine, but bestiality is a completely different matter... yuck.

Polygamy is just fine, but bestiality is a completely different matter... yuck.

Honesty

I think we have here the real reason people are against bestiality. It disgusts them. Rather than suggest that they would like to limit some one elses freedom as a matter of taste the make up an excuse as to why the practice should be banned.

I commend Heavenly Sex for honesty.

This making up an exscuse you don't believe in thing is a common lie.

Honesty

I think we have here the real reason people are against bestiality. It disgusts them. Rather than suggest that they would like to limit some one elses freedom as a matter of taste the make up an excuse as to why the practice should be banned.

I commend Heavenly Sex for honesty.

This making up an exscuse you don't believe in thing is a common lie.

It's degrading and dangerous to both beast and person. We limit individual freedoms as little as possible, but sometimes it's unavoidable.

In this case, there's a human and animal health issue - diseases that cross species can be particularly dangerous, and sex, unforunately, is an excellent way to spread disease.

There's an animal welfare issue; there are a lot of sick people out there who use sex as a method of spreading pain, and animals (or their families) can't complain to the police very easily. Equally, a variety of sex acts between incompatible species can result in injury, even death, to one partner or the other.

Sex with an animal is far outside the 'norms' of most of the human societies I think we're talking about in this context (correct me if I'm wrong, I know some societies have some limited intimacies with animals). That's not, simply in of itself, a reason to ban it _at all_. But it does beg the question 'why does this person feel the need, want, or compulsion to have sex with animals?' What sort of person has such a desire? Do they have this desire as a symptom of a broader problem in their life? In any such relationship, the human is the 'responsible' partner; if they are, de facto, unbalanced, have some sort of problem, then their likely unwilling animal partner is at risk, and unable to solicit help at all.

Sometimes moral and visceral disgust is there for a reason, it's protective. Health, animal welfare, and mental health.

I was thinking more about the subject of marriage. An animal cannot enter into a legally-binding contract, so an animal cannot participate in a civil marriage contract.

As for beastiality, one could theoretically make a case for it being inhumane. For instance, many people are comfortable eating meat only so long as the animals are subjected to a minimum of suffering. An animal might experience greater suffering when subjected to sexual activity with a human than it would if it were killed as quickly and painlessly as possible. For those individuals, the complaint against beastiality could be as valid as the complaint against inhumane treatment of food-animals, depending on the animal and the type of sexual contact. Some people (myself included) believe that death is not necessarily the worst thing that can be inflicted upon a living creature.

However, for people who are comfortable eating "industrial" food products...well, I think sex would be a picnic compared to what those food-animals are put through, and I think it's a bit silly for people to get squeemish about the one but not about the other.

One other thought: people are pointing out that we spay pets without their consent, as well as do a variety of other things to them without their consent. However, one could compare this to how we deal with our children...we make them get shots, etc, and we don't view their "consent" as necessary in these cases. Yet we are still prohibited from making certain decisions on their behalf; a parent can get his child a booster shot without her consent, but he cannot decide for her that she is ready to have sex. A parent can force her child to go to bed without his supper, but she cannot overrule his lack of consent to sexual relations.

Domesticated pets are protected from abuse by a variety of laws that are more strict than the laws regarding treatment of food-animals, laws which in some cases are similar to laws prohibiting abuse of children. These laws seem to view pet-owners as custodians of their animals, much as parents are custodians of their children. This might lead us to reason that PETS could be exempt from beastiality, while food-animals are not.

Just some random thoughts.

Agreed across the board :)

Most people agree that it is okay for "consenting" adults to be in a polygamus relationship, which is good.

On the matter of bestiality, can we equate human rights to animal rights? I say no for the reason that we have no way of truly knowing if animals would consent or not. Just like others have previously said we kill and eat animals so why not fuck them too?

Though getting down with your dog is like getting down with your toaster stupid and wrong, but not a punishable offense.

WoW

World of Whack

Though getting down with your dog is like getting down with your toaster stupid and wrong, but not a punishable offense.well, if the dog takes offense... then you need stitches in some very interesting spots...

and if the toster is plugged in at the time... :D

True, but you can have sex and be married, so they (in classic NS style) merged together. By the the end of this, we will all be discussing something like "Do you think Harry and Ron are Gay?". Dammit. Now I've probably started that, even if it makes no sense.

Sigh.

Maybe not, but Draco so is.

Anyway! On topic, I think polygamy should be legal, but only if all parties are consenting. This would either mean the person's current spouse(s) needs to sign an agreement that he/she can marry another person, or it could be that everyone involved has to marry everyone else involved.

Beastiality, on the other hand, does have consent issues, along with some other problems. Though if you factor sex out of the equation, I can't really see anything wrong with 'platonic' marriage to animals, though I'm not sure what the point would be then.

Elgesh']It's degrading and dangerous to both beast and person. We limit individual freedoms as little as possible, but sometimes it's unavoidable.

In this case, there's a human and animal health issue - diseases that cross species can be particularly dangerous, and sex, unforunately, is an excellent way to spread disease.

There's an animal welfare issue; there are a lot of sick people out there who use sex as a method of spreading pain, and animals (or their families) can't complain to the police very easily. Equally, a variety of sex acts between incompatible species can result in injury, even death, to one partner or the other.

Sex with an animal is far outside the 'norms' of most of the human societies I think we're talking about in this context (correct me if I'm wrong, I know some societies have some limited intimacies with animals). That's not, simply in of itself, a reason to ban it _at all_. But it does beg the question 'why does this person feel the need, want, or compulsion to have sex with animals?' What sort of person has such a desire? Do they have this desire as a symptom of a broader problem in their life? In any such relationship, the human is the 'responsible' partner; if they are, de facto, unbalanced, have some sort of problem, then their likely unwilling animal partner is at risk, and unable to solicit help at all.

Sometimes moral and visceral disgust is there for a reason, it's protective. Health, animal welfare, and mental health.


No, no reason just disgust.

I'm all for disease protection. I wouldn't advocate animal cruelty. I wouldn't dare suggest that animals share human feelings on sexual purity.

Bestiality is (and should be) illegal on the basis of animals being unable to give consent.

Polygamy is illegal based on societal standards (which I disagree with) and the unfair economic advantage it could offer polygamists (a more reasonable one, though limiting all benefits in polygamist marriages to the equivalent of two people would pretty much eliminate the issue).

A weak parallel could be drawn between polygamy and homosexuality, but none exists between homosexuality and bestiality, as much as some hatemongers would like it to.

Bestiality is (and should be) illegal on the basis of animals being unable to give consent.

\devils advocate
But as pointed out before:
- We also slaughter, imprison, mutilate and consume those animals without their consent, and except for mostly scorned groups like PETA there is no call to make that illegal.
- Adult animals do have sexual relations. Equating animals with children is therefor flawed.
\end devils advocate

Bestiality is (and should be) illegal on the basis of animals being unable to give consent.

Polygamy is illegal based on societal standards (which I disagree with) and the unfair economic advantage it could offer polygamists (a more reasonable one, though limiting all benefits in polygamist marriages to the equivalent of two people would pretty much eliminate the issue).

A weak parallel could be drawn between polygamy and homosexuality, but none exists between homosexuality and bestiality, as much as some hatemongers would like it to.

And,,,,You are not a hate monger?

Maybe not, but Draco so is.

Thank you! Some one finaly remebered the original topic of this forum. "Are Harry and Ron Gay?".

The Perfect Number, wherever you are, come back!!!
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10243884#post10243884

Polyamorous marriages are okay with me, but how should divorce work with group marriages? Its already a major headache. Also what happens when children get introduced? Should the nonbiological parents have automatic adoption rights and responsibilties to children of other group members? How should child support and visitation rights be dealt with exmembers? :confused:

Trans-human']Polyamorous marriages are okay with me, but how should divorce work with group marriages?

Easy - if you are the one who wants a divorce you leave the group.
Conversely, if a majority of the group (which can be a weighted average of course) wants you to leave - byebye. This system may actually be more stable than monogamous marriage, since one disgruntled partner would not be enough for a divorce.

Also what happens when children get introduced? Should the nonbiological parents have automatic adoption rights and responsibilties to children of other group members?
Possibly. One could have a system in which if a divorcee wants to take his/her biological children with him/her the rest of the group would have to agree. Groupchildren, not those from a specific group subset. If you do not like that idea - do not join a group with that system.

How should child support and visitation rights be dealt with exmembers?
Same as it is between monogamous couples ? There are still only two *parties* involved: group and divorcee.

Maybe it helps if you just think of it as a very big family living in one home, or as a herd ;)

\devils advocate
But as pointed out before:
- We also slaughter, imprison, mutilate and consume those animals without their consent, and except for mostly scorned groups like PETA there is no call to make that illegal.
- Adult animals do have sexual relations. Equating animals with children is therefor flawed.
\end devils advocate

\the other guy
- We also slaughter, imprison, mutilate, and consume humans without their consent and, excepting various human rights organizations (who no one takes seriously), no one gives a rip
- Adult dolphins (supposedly) have the intelligence of a six year old. On those grounds alone, there is equality
\end the other guy

:p

No, no reason just disgust.

I'm all for disease protection. I wouldn't advocate animal cruelty. I wouldn't dare suggest that animals share human feelings on sexual purity.

How's this for a reason: No species willingly copulates with members of other species. Except humans.

Homosexuality occurs in other animals.
Polyamory(?) runs rampant through out the animal kingdom.

Pedophilia does not occur in other animals.
Bestiality (cross-species sex) does not occur in willing animals.

How's this for a reason: No species willingly copulates with members of other species. Except humans.

Where did we get mules and ligers from then?

Whoever wants to have sex with animals has problems in my opinion. Homosexuality and polygimy (however you spell it) is one thing but at least they are the same damn species as you.

\the other guy
- Adult dolphins (supposedly) have the intelligence of a six year old. On those grounds alone, there is equality
\end the other guy


\devils left paw man
True - but we don't stop dolphins from having sex with other dolphins. Or sheep from making lambs. Ducks from raping eachother in the pond. Dogs from jumping much smaller dogs... well, ok - we do have buckets of water for that ;)

The consent argument is therefor not "animals cannot consent to have sex" but "animals cannot consent to have sex with a human being". The questions then arise: is that true ? And why should they have to ?
\end devils left paw man

Now that homosexuality and homo marriage are becoming yesterday's news in terms of destroying the nuclear family, poligamy and eventually bestiality are the next big family destroying evil.

So is poligamy and beastiality really all that bad? I mean if 4 chicks and a guy want to live together forever why shouldn't they? Maybe I just want one chick or want to marry a guy as well, we'd be just one big loving family. I wouldn't want to hurt nobody.

Also, if pigs and dogs are your thing so be it, it'd be a one sided relationship so your loss

Oh, if only we could control the sexual urges of every person in society and make them conform to one standard decided on by me...the world would be a perfect place!

Where did we get mules and ligers from then?


Ligers are bred for thier skills in magic.

Everyone knows this.

Eh, I support bestiality so long as it doesn't hurt the animal.

And polygamy doesn't bother me, so I wouldn't oppose it.

Now that homosexuality and homo marriage are becoming yesterday's news in terms of destroying the nuclear family, poligamy and eventually bestiality are the next big family destroying evil.

Also, if pigs and dogs are your thing so be it, it'd be a one sided relationship so your loss

I think I have Aids. Do you know if you can catch Aids from the following animals: Dogs, Cats, Hamsters, Geese, Pigs, Cows, Hens, Roosters, Gerbils, Rats, Mice, Pigeons, Parrots, Little Brothers, Horses, Bulls, Ferrits, Ducks, Deer, Pandas, Camels and Britons?

Bestiality is a completely different matter. Like pedophilia, an animal cannot consent to venereal relations with an adult human.

Everything's fine, so long as there's consent. I don't care about polygamy or polyandry (spl?) or any form of other polyamorous marriage (ie: 3 girls and 5 guys). Why? Because it doesn't hurt my family. But if that's your thing (and you can afford it), go ahead.

listen to this guy. he's right

I believe that an animal can consent. If you're doing something to hurt or disturb an animal, it makes a point of informing you; if I pick up my cat when she doesn't want to be picked up, I get a hiss and a nasty scratch for it.

So, one could argue that, say, a horse not donkey kicking someone in the gut could classify as consent.

Just my two cents.

If I'm not a farmer, why should I get a farm benefit? If I'm not a senior citizen, why should I get a senior citizen discount? If I can't, don’t or won’t have kids, why do I need the government to recognize my marriage? I don’t and I shouldn’t.

MARRIGE IS NOT ABOUT BABIES. It is very important to me to get married,but I have absolutely no desire to have children. Marrige is about making a public and legal commitment to your life partner.

How's this for a reason: No species willingly copulates with members of other species. Except humans.


I don't know, I think I've heard that some dolphins are more than willing to get it on with hapless swimmers.

How's this for a reason: No species willingly copulates with members of other species. Except humans.

Homosexuality occurs in other animals.
Polyamory(?) runs rampant through out the animal kingdom.

Pedophilia does not occur in other animals.
Bestiality (cross-species sex) does not occur in willing animals.
Where is your data ?

I can make all the claims in the world but that does not make them true.

Personaly the existance of mules

Or even the neighbors dog that I caught having sex with a cat seem to contradict your statements

Now that homosexuality and homo marriage are becoming yesterday's news in terms of destroying the nuclear family, poligamy and eventually bestiality are the next big family destroying evil.

So is poligamy and beastiality really all that bad? I mean if 4 chicks and a guy want to live together forever why shouldn't they? Maybe I just want one chick or want to marry a guy as well, we'd be just one big loving family. I wouldn't want to hurt nobody.

Also, if pigs and dogs are your thing so be it, it'd be a one sided relationship so your loss

I´m against that homosexuality and in my country there aren´t laws above that..

I believe that an animal can consent. If you're doing something to hurt or disturb an animal, it makes a point of informing you; if I pick up my cat when she doesn't want to be picked up, I get a hiss and a nasty scratch for it.

So, one could argue that, say, a horse not donkey kicking someone in the gut could classify as consent.

Just my two cents.

Consent is much more then not getting mad. If I had sex with someone who was willing but who I knew was actually unaware of what sex was, e.g. completely out of touch with reality or brain-damaged, the court does not recognize that as consent.

Where is your data ?

I can make all the claims in the world but that does not make them true.

Personaly the existance of mules

Or even the neighbors dog that I caught having sex with a cat seem to contradict your statements

Actually, those acts are not actually acts of sex (cats and dogs). It's an act of domination, much closer to rape. It's almost exclusively found in particular types of pack animals, and usually only once domesticated.

Actually, those acts are not actually acts of sex (cats and dogs). It's an act of domination, much closer to rape. It's almost exclusively found in particular types of pack animals, and usually only once domesticated.
And But does that really differ from what humans do with other animals?

MARRIGE IS NOT ABOUT BABIES. It is very important to me to get married,but I have absolutely no desire to have children. Marrige is about making a public and legal commitment to your life partner.

Yes, it is. Don't you know that's why we don't allow two eighty-year-olds to get married, because they can't have babies? We NEVER allow people who can't have babies marry so they can enjoy the securities, priveleges and rights associated with marriage. That NEVER happens. People who have, for whatever, reason been tested and found to be barren, no marriage for them. We never allow that. And all of our marriage laws explicitly say that you must have children or you don't deserve the benefits. /Sarcasm

Actually, considering in some places in western nations it was illegal to have sex outside of marriage, it seems more likely that marriages were about sex, not babies. The fact that sex was ever mentioned regarding marriage evidences. However, I know of lots of laws that actually support rights to children outside of wedlock. Last I checked, these hoMOsexUals are capable of having sex, the clear point of marriage. So, we're all set.

And But does that really differ from what humans do with other animals?

Nope. But we don't allow humans to rape.

How's this for a reason: No species willingly copulates with members of other species. Except humans.

Homosexuality occurs in other animals.
Polyamory(?) runs rampant through out the animal kingdom.

Pedophilia does not occur in other animals.
Bestiality (cross-species sex) does not occur in willing animals.

ive seen a dog hump a cat....

I believe that an animal can consent. If you're doing something to hurt or disturb an animal, it makes a point of informing you; if I pick up my cat when she doesn't want to be picked up, I get a hiss and a nasty scratch for it.

So, one could argue that, say, a horse not donkey kicking someone in the gut could classify as consent.

Just my two cents.
Of course, the same can be said of a human child; for instance, my little brother used to head-butt anybody who tried to pick him up. Does this mean that we should regard sexual intercourse with a child as "consentual" if the child does not physically resist? Many child abuse victims report that they never physically resisted, and some didn't even say "no," so does that mean that it was ok? Many rape victims never physically resist their rapists, and some don't even say "no" because they are intimidated into compliance...are you arguing that such violations do not constitute rape?

MARRIGE IS NOT ABOUT BABIES. It is very important to me to get married,but I have absolutely no desire to have children. Marrige is about making a public and legal commitment to your life partner.
Can I get an "AMEN"?!

I am so sick and tired of people insisting that marriage (or family) is about procreation. To suggest such a thing is to spit on every couple that is childless-by-choice, as well as every single adoptive family.

Homosexuality occurs in other animals.
Polyamory(?) runs rampant through out the animal kingdom.

Pedophilia does not occur in other animals.
Actually, our closest genetic relatives (the bonobo chimpanzees) DO engage in sex between adults and young. Hell, they engage in pretty much every kind of sexual encounter you can imagine.

The thing is, I don't believe that human morality or human law should be dictated by what animals do and do not do. Lions commit infanticide on a regular basis...does that mean humans should feel okay about infanticide? Horses never drive cars, so does that mean humans should be prohibited from doing so?

Whether or not other animals do something shouldn't be our standard for allowing (or banning) any given practice.

Actually, our closest genetic relatives (the bonobo chimpanzees) DO engage in sex between adults and young. Hell, they engage in pretty much every kind of sexual encounter you can imagine.

The thing is, I don't believe that human morality or human law should be dictated by what animals do and do not do. Lions commit infanticide on a regular basis...does that mean humans should feel okay about infanticide? Horses never drive cars, so does that mean humans should be prohibited from doing so?

Whether or not other animals do something shouldn't be our standard for allowing (or banning) any given practice.

Heck, it should practically help to discourage the practice. I'm pretty sure I would feel more than a little barbaric and unevolved if a friend took a rib off my plate and I bit him.

Of course, the same can be said of a human child; for instance, my little brother used to head-butt anybody who tried to pick him up. Does this mean that we should regard sexual intercourse with a child as "consentual" if the child does not physically resist? Many child abuse victims report that they never physically resisted, and some didn't even say "no," so does that mean that it was ok? Many rape victims never physically resist their rapists, and some don't even say "no" because they are intimidated into compliance...are you arguing that such violations do not constitute rape?

A child is not sexually mature, a 3-year old dog (for example) is.

Nope. But we don't allow humans to rape.

We don't allow humans to rape other humans - because a human gets seriously damaged in the proces. That is why we do not allow murder etc either.

Why would those rules apply to animals - even though animals themselves are not expected to obey them and we do not mind harming an animal a little more if it results in a cheaper piece of meat ?

So is poligamy and beastiality really all that bad? I mean if 4 chicks and a guy want to live together forever why shouldn't they? Maybe I just want one chick or want to marry a guy as well, we'd be just one big loving family. I wouldn't want to hurt nobody. Please don't lump these two issues together. I'm all for polygamy as long as the relationships aren't abusive (my caveat in terms of ALL relationships), but I in no way endorse bestiality, which involves those incapable of giving consent.

Please don't lump these two issues together. I'm all for polygamy as long as the relationships aren't abusive (my caveat in terms of ALL relationships), but I in no way endorse bestiality, which involves those incapable of giving consent.
Then we should make sure cow's dont fuck bulls ... neither are capable of giving consent afterall

Then we should make sure cow's dont fuck bulls ... neither are capable of giving consent afterall
How do you know? Animals most certainly have ways of communicating with one another. Unless you can claim to have the ability to speak to animals, you can not get consent.

A child is not sexually mature, a 3-year old dog (for example) is.
There are many children who are "sexually mature." The fact that an individual or animal is sexually mature does not equate to sexual consent.

We don't allow humans to rape other humans - because a human gets seriously damaged in the proces. That is why we do not allow murder etc either.

Why would those rules apply to animals - even though animals themselves are not expected to obey them and we do not mind harming an animal a little more if it results in a cheaper piece of meat ?

Yes, an odd group we are. We're willing to kill animals for sustinance, but we have a problem with torturing them for no real reason. You're also not allowed to set them on fire while they're alive. You're not allowed tie ropes to all of their appendages and pull them apart. We have lots of protections for animals and not raping them isn't the only one.

Then we should make sure cow's dont fuck bulls ... neither are capable of giving consent afterall

Yes, that's exactly the same thing. Exactly the same. For the record, we also let humans have sex with one another that cannot give consent to adults. For example, many laws allow two children to have sex at a certain age provided their ages are close enough, but make it illegal for someone my age to have sex with either child. We don't punish two people with brain damage for having consensual sex in some facility they're in but we would punish one of the doctors for having sex with them. You're really not showing us being inconsistent at all.

i'm pretty sure that in the mormon-bible-belts around usa (other places too i guess) that mormon families do live in multiple partner/wives situations. and even though it IS illegal the local authorities cant/wont do much about it because most of the community is mormon and dont see anythign worng with it.

This is why we don't like using the term 'Mormon'. To clarify: The primary 'Mormon' church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). We allowed polygamy way back in the day (by direct order of God, yes, it is scripture, in reference to post #7) as an emergency measure. It was revoked (and is now emphatically not supported by the Church) a couple of decades later. At that time, various groups split off - the largest is the FLDS, Fundamentalist Church of JC of LDS - and retained the practice. They are not condoned by the Church (in fact, I believe publicly supporting polygamy can get you excommunicated).

Flicking back to post #7 again, I'd say that religious freedom should be allowed within the laws of the land (and I believe this is the official LDS viewpoint, too, although I'm not certain). Thus we can validly object to, eg, being told not to go to church, but if we want to, eg, go downtown and sacrifice every third person we come across, it doesn't matter if God has come down and told us personally to do it, it's still illegal. If we still want to do it, we can try to get the law changed, or leave the country for somewhere which does allow it.

(Note that sacrificing every third person we meet is not, and has never been, LDS doctrine. I made it up as an exaggerated example).

So, at the moment, polygamy is illegal in the US (which I'm not in, but which is under discussion, I guess), and thus no-one can justify doing it by claiming religion as a reason. -- ah, here it is. I was right, obeying the law is official LDS doctrine, in the Articles of Faith:

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

That's also part of the reason we don't allow polygamy - it's illegal and we couldn't get them to make it legal. There are other reasons, but that's the relevant one.

And thus, I leave you.

Then we should make sure cow's dont fuck bulls ... neither are capable of giving consent afterall

It's the other way around for one(bulls fuck cows). And for another how do you know neither of them gives consent?
And besides, even if they don't give consent, we hold ourselves to a higher standard than we do animals.

I think people should just leave other people alone. I hate it when people try to tell someone what to do. :mad: I think that if I want to marry my homosexual partner, I should be able to and noone should tell me
different :fluffle:

Bestiality is a completely different matter. Like pedophilia, an animal cannot consent to venereal relations with an adult human.

I don't think an animal WOULD consent to being killed and eaten, but they certainly, by their actions, could. Though they most often do not, and are killed and eaten anyway.

Most animals can consent, just not with intelligible human vocalisations. Doggies have plenty of communication tools for consent. I have seen a few people get injured because their pets were not in the mood, and they tried to force them.

Also, if an animal proactively mounting (with little encouragement) is not consenting, then I don't know what consent is (other than an arbitrary line at intelligible human vocalisation).

Yes, an odd group we are. We're willing to kill animals for sustinance, but we have a problem with torturing them for no real reason.

If bestiality was torturing an animal for no real reason I would absolutely agree with you. The problem is that it is not. I don't know if you've known any zoophiles (I have, but I am not one), but if you have you would understand the situation much better.

Yes, there are a few examples of animals being tortured in sexual situations, but this is about as indicative of bestiality as rape is indicative of the human sexual experience.

It's the other way around for one(bulls fuck cows). And for another how do you know neither of them gives consent?
And besides, even if they don't give consent, we hold ourselves to a higher standard than we do animals.
I was making an extrapolation on the declaration that animals are incapable of giving consent

I don't think an animal WOULD consent to being killed and eaten, but they certainly, by their actions, could. Though they most often do not, and are killed and eaten anyway.

Well there's the thing: many animals are docile and "consenting" as they go to the slaughter. Do we, therefore, infer that those animals "consented" to being killed for food?

Most animals can consent, just not with intelligible human vocalisations. Doggies have plenty of communication tools for consent. I have seen a few people get injured because their pets were not in the mood, and they tried to force them.

Consent, as it is being used in this discussion, refers to legal consent. Animals, like minor children, are not able to give this consent. Children will often "go along" with inappropriate sex play, but this does not mean that they have given consent...far from it, since children below a certain developmental age are not physiologically capable of giving adult consent.

Animals are, similarly, unable to give legal adult consent. Whether or not they submit to something is irrelevant, because consent is more than submission. Most animals don't even possess the neuroanatomical structures that are essential for giving consent, so it is ludicrous to suggest they are capable of consenting.


Also, if an animal proactively mounting (with little encouragement) is not consenting, then I don't know what consent is (other than an arbitrary line at intelligible human vocalisation).
Human children will sometimes engage in spontaneous sexplay. They will often immitate adult behaviors they have witnessed, without prompting. This does not mean that an adult should take such behaviors as consent to sexual activity...it isn't.

In the same vein, a dog humping somebody's leg is not legal consent to beastiality.

I was making an extrapolation on the declaration that animals are incapable of giving consent
To humans. Incapable of giving consent to sexual relationship with humans.

To humans. Incapable of giving consent to sexual relationship with humans.
So why are they capable of giving consent to one animal but not another?

Now that homosexuality and homo marriage are becoming yesterday's news in terms of destroying the nuclear family, poligamy and eventually bestiality are the next big family destroying evil.

So is poligamy and beastiality really all that bad? I mean if 4 chicks and a guy want to live together forever why shouldn't they? Maybe I just want one chick or want to marry a guy as well, we'd be just one big loving family. I wouldn't want to hurt nobody.

Also, if pigs and dogs are your thing so be it, it'd be a one sided relationship so your loss

Why would you want 4 chicks in a marriage. Marriage should should be in a 1-on-1 Loving Relationship. The funny thing is if you can NEVER marry a pig or a dog. They can't sign the marriage certificate.

So why are they capable of giving consent to one animal but not another?
I don't know why they are unable to communicate consent to humans. That's a question for a biologist perhaps? Or a zoologist.

If bestiality was torturing an animal for no real reason I would absolutely agree with you. The problem is that it is not. I don't know if you've known any zoophiles (I have, but I am not one), but if you have you would understand the situation much better.

Yes, there are a few examples of animals being tortured in sexual situations, but this is about as indicative of bestiality as rape is indicative of the human sexual experience.

We need to eat and we are omnivores. We don't need to have sex with animals. And bestiality is much more similar to rape than sex. We do not allow sex with creatures that CANNOT consent regardless of whether the creatrue suffers. Should we allow doctors to start having sex with brain-damaged patients incapable of consent? I mean the patient often doesn't complain. How about coma patients? They don't know the difference anyway, right? Babies? They can't remember it. All of these things are much more similar to rape than consensual sex.

So why are they capable of giving consent to one animal but not another?
They aren't able to "consent" at all, in the context of this discussion. Legal consent cannot be given by an animal. However, two animals having sex would be--legally speaking--similar to two 13 year old children voluntarily engaging in sexplay. Neither of them could legally consent, so it kind of becomes null. Now, if a person who IS capable of adult consent chooses to have sex with a person (or animal) who is NOT capable of consenting, then that is rape.

Well there's the thing: many animals are docile and "consenting" as they go to the slaughter. Do we, therefore, infer that those animals "consented" to being killed for food?

Yes, if you believe that one can consent to their own death. The current opinion pof psychologists is that anyone (and, by extension, anything) that consents to their own death is automatically mentally unfit to make such a decision, which is doing unknowable harm to the euthenasia movement.

Consent, as it is being used in this discussion, refers to legal consent. Animals, like minor children, are not able to give this consent. Children will often "go along" with inappropriate sex play, but this does not mean that they have given consent...far from it, since children below a certain developmental age are not physiologically capable of giving adult consent.

I am not debating the legal language. An animal is not an adult human being, and as long as there is a ban on bestiality then no amount of consent on the part of an animal will be considered legal.

I also disagree with the notion that anything sexual at all should always be kept from the eyes of children at any cost, but that is another topic entirely.

Animals are, similarly, unable to give legal adult consent. Whether or not they submit to something is irrelevant, because consent is more than submission. Most animals don't even possess the neuroanatomical structures that are essential for giving consent, so it is ludicrous to suggest they are capable of consenting.

Again I ask you for your definition of consent. All I have so far is negatives. "Consent is not..." is not an affirmative definition.

Human children will sometimes engage in spontaneous sexplay. They will often immitate adult behaviors they have witnessed, without prompting. This does not mean that an adult should take such behaviors as consent to sexual activity...it isn't.

And often that sex play is sparked by themselves, and not any behaviors they have witnessed. And again, we have another "Consent is not..."....will we ever see a "Consent IS"?

In the same vein, a dog humping somebody's leg is not legal consent to beastiality.

Oh come the fuck on, you know that is not what I was refering to. Stop being intentionally dishonest (Animals are innocent!!!!!), and be honest for once. Animals are sexual beings, and human animals are no different. That humans can develop loving emotional relationships with some animals, and have those feelings reciprocated, is universally accepted in society. But a loving sexual relationship is frowned upon. Why? Is there something fundamentally more sacred in sex than in love?

We finally have a "Consent is...", but it is an inadequate definition since it automatically disqualifies all but a few adults, and every child and animal. Using this rule, a dog cannot consent to being walked, no matter how eagerly they scratch at the door or bring you their leash. A child cannot consent to going to school, or to eating his/her vegitables.

So, should we expand the legal definition of consent, or simply forego it and find a new one, at least for this topic?

So why are they capable of giving consent to one animal but not another?

They aren't. We don't require animals to get what constitutes legal consent. We do require humans to get that kind of consent. Do you really want the rules of consent to equate to what is expected of animals?

Why would you want 4 chicks in a marriage. Marriage should should be in a 1-on-1 Loving Relationship. The funny thing is if you can NEVER marry a pig or a dog. They can't sign the marriage certificate.
Well, chickens cannot sign marriage certificates either, so I guess you don't have to worry about having 4 chicks in a marriage.

They aren't able to "consent" at all, in the context of this discussion. Legal consent cannot be given by an animal. However, two animals having sex would be--legally speaking--similar to two 13 year old children voluntarily engaging in sexplay. Though I doubt one could deny that animals clearly do have methods of communication consent or lack thereof to one another. As a human, you have no certain way of determining or understanding consent or lack thereof in an animal. So you must assume consent is withheld.

This post screams of both glaring ignorance and intentional dishonesty.

We need to eat and we are omnivores. We don't need to have sex with animals.

And yet killing is regarded as a worse offense than fucking in most societies.

And bestiality is much more similar to rape than sex. We do not allow sex with creatures that CANNOT consent regardless of whether the creatrue suffers.

Have you known any zoophiles? Have you known thier pets? If not, then you have little authority to speak on this issue.

Should we allow doctors to start having sex with brain-damaged patients incapable of consent? I mean the patient often doesn't complain. How about coma patients? They don't know the difference anyway, right? Babies? They can't remember it. All of these things are much more similar to rape than consensual sex.

ANd all of them involve animals which do not actively seek out the relationship. That is wrong. Bestiality is, however, often two animals consenting with one another to enter into a sexual relationship. I have seen it before. If it is rape, it is in the same vein of a 17 year old having sex with his/her 18 year old partner, simply an arbitrary line that makes people feel comfortable.

This post screams of both glaring ignorance and intentional dishonesty.

We need to eat and we are omnivores. We don't need to have sex with animals.

And yet killing is regarded as a worse offense than fucking in most societies.

And bestiality is much more similar to rape than sex. We do not allow sex with creatures that CANNOT consent regardless of whether the creatrue suffers.

Have you known any zoophiles? Have you known thier pets? If not, then you have little authority to speak on this issue.

Should we allow doctors to start having sex with brain-damaged patients incapable of consent? I mean the patient often doesn't complain. How about coma patients? They don't know the difference anyway, right? Babies? They can't remember it. All of these things are much more similar to rape than consensual sex.

ANd all of them involve animals which do not actively seek out the relationship. That is wrong. Bestiality is, however, often two animals consenting with one another to enter into a sexual relationship. I have seen it before. If it is rape, it is in the same vein of a 17 year old having sex with his/her 18 year old partner, simply an arbitrary line that makes people feel comfortable.

Yes, if you believe that one can consent to their own death. The current opinion pof psychologists is that anyone (and, by extension, anything) that consents to their own death is automatically mentally unfit to make such a decision, which is doing unknowable harm to the euthenasia movement.

So you believe that food animals all consent to being slaughtered? Interesting...what do you use to support this theory?


I am not debating the legal language.

Well, that's what this discussion is about, so I don't know what you're trying to accomplish.


An animal is not an adult human being, and as long as there is a ban on bestiality then no amount of consent on the part of an animal will be considered legal.

Whether or not beastiality is legal will have no impact on whether or not animals can give consent. Animals cannot give consent, neurobiologically. This fact will not change if humans pass a law saying it is legal to have sex with animals.


I also disagree with the notion that anything sexual at all should always be kept from the eyes of children at any cost, but that is another topic entirely.

I don't believe "anything sexual at all should be kept from the eyes of children." Indeed, I am often yelled at for stating precisely the opposite. However, sexual activity with any non-consenting person is rape, in my opinion, and children below a certain developmental age are not capable of consenting. This means that sexual activity with children below that age is rape.


Again I ask you for your definition of consent. All I have so far is negatives. "Consent is not..." is not an affirmative definition.

You are as capable of openning a book as anybody else. Feel free to look up your state/nation's laws regarding legal consent.


And often that sex play is sparked by themselves, and not any behaviors they have witnessed. And again, we have another "Consent is not..."....will we ever see a "Consent IS"?

Yes, you see it all the time. Feel free to educate yourself.


Oh come the fuck on, you know that is not what I was refering to. Stop being intentionally dishonest (Animals are innocent!!!!!), and be honest for once.

I never said it was what you were referring to. I was attempting to clarify that an animal's compliance is not the same as legal consent. Chill.



Animals are sexual beings, and human animals are no different. That humans can develop loving emotional relationships with some animals, and have those feelings reciprocated, is universally accepted in society. But a loving sexual relationship is frowned upon. Why? Is there something fundamentally more sacred in sex than in love?

Humans cannot develop the same kind of "loving" relationships with animals as they can with other humans. This is because animals lack the capacity to participate in relationships to the same extent that humans can. A person who claims they can have a fully "loving" relationship with their pet (a "love" that they feel is equal to the love they could experience with another human) is simply incorrect...I've encountered this, and it's usually just a case of one human being so afraid of human relationships that they retreat to the safety of a relationship with a being that will not interact with them on the complex level expected by a human partner. It's almost the same thing that you see with certain pedophiles, who like the "innocence" of children because children are more likely to be compliant, submissive, docile, and non-complex.

I also believe that no sexual relationship involving a non-consenting party is "loving." Many child rapists insist they are merely being "loving" and "tender" with their victims, and I don't believe them any more than I believe somebody who claims to have a deep, loving, "human" sexual relationship with their dog.


We finally have a "Consent is...", but it is an inadequate definition since it automatically disqualifies all but a few adults, and every child and animal. Using this rule, a dog cannot consent to being walked, no matter how eagerly they scratch at the door or bring you their leash. A child cannot consent to going to school, or to eating his/her vegitables.

That is correct, though the definition does not (as you claim) "disqualify all but a few adults." It only excludes adults who are mentally handicapped or mentally ill to a certain degree. No dog can give legal consent. No minor can give legal consent. Why is this a problem for you?


So, should we expand the legal definition of consent, or simply forego it and find a new one, at least for this topic?
Why? We don't need to.

They aren't. We don't require animals to get what constitutes legal consent. We do require humans to get that kind of consent. Do you really want the rules of consent to equate to what is expected of animals?
Not really ... humanity as a whole has made it quite clear they dont give a good goddamn what animals consent to or not ... I just dont see why we would care in the case of sexual contact and not for everything else

Seems to be more picky and choosy like trying to justify something we just dont care for

Not really ... humanity as a whole has made it quite clear they dont give a good goddamn what animals consent to or not ... I just dont see why we would care in the case of sexual contact and not for everything else

Seems to be more picky and choosy like trying to justify something we just dont care for
I happen to agree with you, sort of.

See, I know that animals aren't able to consent to ANYTHING, so the real question has to do with our "custodian" status as the "guardians" of animals. As with our guardianships of children, we have to decide what we believe is and is not okay. With children, we have decided that adults may compell children to follow a bed time, go to school, eat their pease, and a variety of other things that the children may or may not like doing. However, we have ruled that when it comes to sexual activity, legal contracts, and several other areas, a child's inability to consent becomes relavent.

This discussion really should be about what our standards should be for animals; if a child's lack of consent is irrelevant when it comes to his bathtime (but relavent if his babysitter fondles him during said bath), then when is consent relavent and irrelevant for animals?

I happen to agree with you, sort of.

See, I know that animals aren't able to consent to ANYTHING, so the real question has to do with our "custodian" status as the "guardians" of animals. As with our guardianships of children, we have to decide what we believe is and is not okay. With children, we have decided that adults may compell children to follow a bed time, go to school, eat their pease, and a variety of other things that the children may or may not like doing. However, we have ruled that when it comes to sexual activity, legal contracts, and several other areas, a child's inability to consent becomes relavent.

This discussion really should be about what our standards should be for animals; if a child's lack of consent is irrelevant when it comes to his bathtime (but relavent if his babysitter fondles him during said bath), then when is consent relavent and irrelevant for animals?
Very intresting way to think about it

Now while with a child our decision making capability only extends to making good choices for them (it extends into the grey area as well where there may be no clear defined "good")
If we fail that we lose our ability to make thoes choices for them

But with animals we already choose death for them
This is NOT always in the best intrest of the animal
as such
Our guardianship relationship differes from that with minors ... we are not compelled to make good decisions for the animal just decisions

So you believe that food animals all consent to being slaughtered? Interesting...what do you use to support this theory?

I believe that it is possible for an animal to consent to its own death. I will trust you not to twist my words like you have here again.

Whether or not beastiality is legal will have no impact on whether or not animals can give consent. Animals cannot give consent, neurobiologically. This fact will not change if humans pass a law saying it is legal to have sex with animals.

I simply disagree with you.

I don't believe "anything sexual at all should be kept from the eyes of children." Indeed, I am often yelled at for stating precisely the opposite. However, sexual activity with any non-consenting person is rape, in my opinion, and children below a certain developmental age are not capable of consenting. This means that sexual activity with children below that age is rape.

However, this age varies greatly. My wife, for example, never orgasmed until she was 17 years old. I orgasmed first at 10. I had a much higher understanding of sex than she did at the same time (she is 8 years my senior). I would say I was apable of consenting to sex at around 12-14, whereas she was not capable of consentung to sex until she was at the very least 16.

You are as capable of openning a book as anybody else. Feel free to look up your state/nation's laws regarding legal consent.

The legal definition of consent is arbitrary, and often wrong.

I never said it was what you were referring to. I was attempting to clarify that an animal's compliance is not the same as legal consent. Chill.

Why not?

Humans cannot develop the same kind of "loving" relationships with animals as they can with other humans. This is because animals lack the capacity to participate in relationships to the same extent that humans can. A person who claims they can have a fully "loving" relationship with their pet (a "love" that they feel is equal to the love they could experience with another human) is simply incorrect...I've encountered this, and it's usually just a case of one human being so afraid of human relationships that they retreat to the safety of a relationship with a being that will not interact with them on the complex level expected by a human partner. It's almost the same thing that you see with certain pedophiles, who like the "innocence" of children because children are more likely to be compliant, submissive, docile, and non-complex.

I have also experienced certain people who are insecure in their own sexuality or emotional states. But I have also seen people who DO love their pets, and interact with them on a very complex level that is hard to detect from the biased or merely casual observer. For example, I have known of one woman whos dog was the primary partner in the relationship, and she was perfectly fine with this. She seemed reasonably healthy, though I believe a psychologist would label her as "unfit".

I also believe that no sexual relationship involving a non-consenting party is "loving." Many child rapists insist they are merely being "loving" and "tender" with their victims, and I don't believe them any more than I believe somebody who claims to have a deep, loving, "human" sexual relationship with their dog.

Again, it boils down to your own definition of consent. Let me know when you see a dog willingly mount a person and fuck them silly, and then later snap at the person for going too far, and then tell me that they are not capable of even fathoming consent. I'd like to see that.

That is correct, though the definition does not (as you claim) "disqualify all but a few adults."

Yes it does, and I will tell you why.

It only excludes adults who are mentally handicapped or mentally ill to a certain degree.

Because if most people were assessed, greater than 50% of people would have some kind of "mental illness" to a certain degree. This automatically removes the majority of people from being able to legally express their consent.

No dog can give legal consent. No minor can give legal consent. Why is this a problem for you?

So when shall we begin the crusade against dog-walking and forcing children to eat their vegetables? After all (as I outlined in my post) neither of those two creatures are capable of consenting to the actions, so obviously anyone who walks a dog or makes their children eat vegetables is abusing them to no end and must be stopped now!

I have a problem with it because it alienates so many people, and limits responsability of people and of society as a whole. Adulthood is arbitrary, and the way it is being treated now is causing grievous harm to everyone by encouraging people to remain children their entire lives.

Grow up.

Yes, an odd group we are. We're willing to kill animals for sustinance, but we have a problem with torturing them for no real reason.

Arguably the sustenance falls in the "no real reason to torture" either; and some animals would perhaps prefer being set on fire over being used in the bio-industry - but that is another debate.

You're also not allowed to set them on fire while they're alive. You're not allowed tie ropes to all of their appendages and pull them apart. We have lots of protections for animals and not raping them isn't the only one.

Of course, that hinges on the assumption that the experience is detrimental to the animal. It also does not explain *why* animals should be protected in these ways.

Very intresting way to think about it

Now while with a child our decision making capability only extends to making good choices for them (it extends into the grey area as well where there may be no clear defined "good")
If we fail that we lose our ability to make thoes choices for them

But with animals we already choose death for them
This is NOT always in the best intrest of the animal
as such
Our guardianship relationship differes from that with minors ... we are not compelled to make good decisions for the animal just decisions
Indeed. This is the area of discussion that I find relavent and interesting.

Indeed. This is the area of discussion that I find relavent and interesting.
It is also the hardest to make consistant using logic lol

Wow. I can't think of anything good to say about any of this so I'm not even going to try.

I believe that it is possible for an animal to consent to its own death. I will trust you not to twist my words like you have here again.

If you would like to show me where I 'twisted your words,' fine. Otherwise, please just let it go.


I simply disagree with you.

You are free to disagree, of course, but your disagreement also will not change the fact that animals are biologically not able to give "consent" due to differences between their neurobiology and that of a mature human brain.


However, this age varies greatly. My wife, for example, never orgasmed until she was 17 years old. I orgasmed first at 10. I had a much higher understanding of sex than she did at the same time (she is 8 years my senior). I would say I was apable of consenting to sex at around 12-14, whereas she was not capable of consentung to sex until she was at the very least 16.

Whether or not you are able to orgasm, impregnate somebody, become pregnant, etc does not determine whether or not you are able to consent. Physiological sexual maturity is not the only determining factor (though it certainly is a part of the picture).


The legal definition of consent is arbitrary, and often wrong.

In some cases, yes.


Why not?

Compliance is not equal to consent.


I have also experienced certain people who are insecure in their own sexuality or emotional states. But I have also seen people who DO love their pets, and interact with them on a very complex level that is hard to detect from the biased or merely casual observer. For example, I have known of one woman whos dog was the primary partner in the relationship, and she was perfectly fine with this. She seemed reasonably healthy, though I believe a psychologist would label her as "unfit".

Many people find happiness in "unhealthy" relationships. I do not dispute that.


Again, it boils down to your own definition of consent. Let me know when you see a dog willingly mount a person and fuck them silly, and then later snap at the person for going too far, and then tell me that they are not capable of even fathoming consent. I'd like to see that.

I seem to be having trouble communicating to you the concept of "legal consent." Would somebody else like to try?


Yes it does, and I will tell you why.

Because if most people were assessed, greater than 50% of people would have some kind of "mental illness" to a certain degree. This automatically removes the majority of people from being able to legally express their consent.

Mental illness, and even mental retardation, do not necessarily remove the ability to consent. Many people with mental illnesses are perfectly capable of consenting. As you will see if you re-read what I said, I specified that only certain levels of mental defect result in lack of ability to consent. These defects are mercifully rare, and thus the vast majority of the adult human population is perfectly able to consent.



So when shall we begin the crusade against dog-walking and forcing children to eat their vegetables? After all (as I outlined in my post) neither of those two creatures are capable of consenting to the actions, so obviously anyone who walks a dog or makes their children eat vegetables is abusing them to no end and must be stopped now!

I have already addressed this in a separate post. The "debate" over whether or not animals can consent is silly, because they quite clearly and obviously cannot...their brains lack the structures and pathways that are necessary for such functions. The REAL debate is over our "guardianship" of animal life, and what we decree to be our rights and responsibilities within that guardianship.



I have a problem with it because it alienates so many people, and limits responsability of people and of society as a whole. Adulthood is arbitrary, and the way it is being treated now is causing grievous harm to everyone by encouraging people to remain children their entire lives.

I agree that current societal definitions of "adulthood" are very error prone, and often cause more problems than they solve.


Grow up.
I am curious as to why you feel provoked to the point where you feel the need to use such insults, or why you feel that commanding me to "grow up" helps you make whatever point you are trying to make.

It is also the hardest to make consistant using logic lol
Personally, I believe that IF we are going to allow some of the animal husbandry and slaughtering practices that are currently permitted (KFC, I'm looking in your general direction) then we have no ethical ground to stand on when it comes to banning beastiality. If we want to ban the one, then we should also ban the other.

Because if most people were assessed, greater than 50% of people would have some kind of "mental illness" to a certain degree. This automatically removes the majority of people from being able to legally express their consent.

you, sir, are a snarky troll.

the majority of people have mental disorders, correct. does this prevent them from entering legally binding contracts? because it's essentially the same criteria. is the person capable of understanding what they're agreeing to? sadly, the way this is determined is by age.

regardless, it really doesn't matter what the common person thinks the definition of consent is. it matters what the actual legal definition of consent is. if you don't know, go down to your local precinct; i'm sure they'd be more than happy to inform you.

This post screams of both glaring ignorance and intentional dishonesty.

I agree. You should put that disclaimer at the beginning of all your posts. Most of us can get it just from reading your posts, but it helps when you just put it at the top and save us the time of assessing the post itself.

And yet killing is regarded as a worse offense than fucking in most societies.

Dishonest. We're not talking about fucking. We're talking about rape of a creature with the understanding of at best a three-year-old. How do most societies view raping children?

Have you known any zoophiles? Have you known thier pets? If not, then you have little authority to speak on this issue.

Hmmm... I guess this is where I'm dishonest and ignorant, huh? I said they cannot consent at the level we expect for all other creatures. What does have to do with these people and their pets? Nothing. There is a legal definition of consent that children, animals and some people who are crazy or brain-damaged cannot meet. Whether they dislike the act or injured by it has no bearing on the idea of consent. Why I have to know any zoophiles or their pets to know this? Enlighten me and force me to speak the truth. Can you please explain how a dog can meet the legal definition of consent any more than a crazy person or someone with brain-damage or a child can?

ANd all of them involve animals which do not actively seek out the relationship. That is wrong. Bestiality is, however, often two animals consenting with one another to enter into a sexual relationship. I have seen it before. If it is rape, it is in the same vein of a 17 year old having sex with his/her 18 year old partner, simply an arbitrary line that makes people feel comfortable.

Actually, that's a good comparison. An 18-year-old is permitted to have sex with an 17-year-old partner in most states where 18 is considered legal. However, if a 35-year-old has sex with a 17-year-old partner in those same states, it's rape. Having sex with someone who cannot give consent when you are an adult is the same as having sex with an animal who cannot give consent. They are treated equally. Nothing arbitrary about it.

Also, you're wrong. It doesn't matter if a crazy person or brain-damaged person seeks out a relationship. If they have diminished capacity and you know it and still choose to have sex with them, whether they sought it or not, it's rape. Again, nothing arbitrary about it. We treat sex with animals in the same way. They cannot consent and we do not let people who have the capacity for consent to have sex with creatures who do not have the capacity for consent, no matter what species it is.

Not really ... humanity as a whole has made it quite clear they dont give a good goddamn what animals consent to or not ... I just dont see why we would care in the case of sexual contact and not for everything else

Seems to be more picky and choosy like trying to justify something we just dont care for

First, I don't agree with the idea of torturing animals to get a little more food out of them. I believe most people don't agree with it. So that argument of it being legal when most people discussing think it should be doesn't really help your argument.

Second, again, we do not allow people to torture their pets not even for food. Why should we allow them to have sex with them?

Animals should not be raped or tortured. Period. I do advocate killing them humanely because we are omnivores. We eat meat. We eat vegetables (by the way, farming kills a lot of animals too). I have no problem with this. Until you can show me that killing an animal for food is equal to raping it, you're not going to make much headway with me. Arguing what OTHER people think, doesn't have anything to do with me.

Poor Riptide

Of what cosequence is sex to an animal? Informed consent at least has a little sense when it comes to humans not much but a little.

Again you will never be able to figure out which animals did a human from the ones that didn't by picking out the more depressed animals. The is no superstitous spirituality amongest animals. Animals that have sex do not feel dirty, disgusting or whatever. Again the informed consent thing when it comes to animals isn't informed consent at at. Informed consent is a facade for trying to prevent sex with animals out of disgust.

Suggesting informed consent as a reason why bestiality should be prohibited turns, a rabbit into Bugs Bunny, a deer into Bambi, a cat into Garfield etc. etc.

Arguably the sustenance falls in the "no real reason to torture" either; and some animals would perhaps prefer being set on fire over being used in the bio-industry - but that is another debate.

It is another debate, and one I suspect we would not be that far apart on.

Of course, that hinges on the assumption that the experience is detrimental to the animal. It also does not explain *why* animals should be protected in these ways.
No, it really doesn't. I can have sex with a coma patient and may not be detrimental to the patient at all. However, we still don't allow it. Hell, I could have sex, get a coma patient pregnant, she could have a healthy child that definitely benefitted from the experience, and I would still end up in jail.

Poor Riptide

Of what cosequence is sex to an animal? Informed consent at least has a little sense when it comes to humans not much but a little.

Again you will never be able to figure out which animals did a human from the ones that didn't by picking out the more depressed animals. The is no superstitous spirituality amongest animals. Animals that have sex do not feel dirty, disgusting or whatever. Again the informed consent thing when it comes to animals isn't informed consent at at. Informed consent is a facade for trying to prevent sex with animals out of disgust.

Suggesting informed consent as a reason why bestiality should be prohibited turns, a rabbit into Bugs Bunny, a deer into Bambi, a cat into Garfield etc. etc.
Only if the idea makes a child, a brain-damaged person and a crazy person into a functioning adult. It doesn't. Admitting that animals are not capable of consent is no different then admitting that some humans are not capable of consent. Consent requires a certain capacity regardless of species. Some humans are capable of that level of consent and all other creatures (humans are included in creatures) are not.

DAMN IT! why doesn't anyone understand that polygamy is the best thing a man could get in his life!
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

II have also experienced certain people who are insecure in their own sexuality or emotional states. But I have also seen people who DO love their pets, and interact with them on a very complex level that is hard to detect from the biased or merely casual observer. For example, I have known of one woman whos dog was the primary partner in the relationship, and she was perfectly fine with this. She seemed reasonably healthy, though I believe a psychologist would label her as "unfit".
Primary partner? What's that mean? It makes the household decisions?

So if these animals have the neurological capicity to consent (and given your claim that you disagree with Bottle's point that they do not) then they have the ability to enter into contracts and buy houses, live alone, etc. (they all have basically the same criteria as sexual consent). This 'primary' pet would be able to sustain itself in a house, has it's name on the lease, etc.? Can it be left in the car or the house alone for indeterminent amounts of time? I mean it has the mental capacity, right? We place all of these decisions as equal, because they require the same level of commitment, the same level of understanding. Animals don't have that level of understanding and it's pretty clear to everyone not trying to excuse the act of bestiality.

A ten-year-old asked me I wanted a blowjob, but that ten-year-old most assuredly cannot give consent and I would go to jail and belong there if I accepted.

Primary partner? What's that mean? It makes the household decisions?

So if these animals have the neurological capicity to consent (and given your claim that you disagree with Bottle's point that they do not) then they have the ability to enter into contracts and buy houses, live alone, etc. (they all have basically the same criteria as sexual consent). This 'primary' pet would be able to sustain itself in a house, has it's name on the lease, etc.? Can it be left in the car or the house alone for indeterminent amounts of time? I mean it has the mental capacity, right? We place all of these decisions as equal, because they require the same level of commitment, the same level of understanding. Animals don't have that level of understanding and it's pretty clear to everyone not trying to excuse the act of bestiality.

A ten-year-old asked me I wanted a blowjob, but that ten-year-old most assuredly cannot give consent and I would go to jail and belong there if I accepted.

preeeeeecisely. most intelligent post i've read so far.

Well, I'm not sure I would say it's settled entirely. Maybe in Europe, but certainly not in the US.

Well, I'm not sure I would say it's settled entirely. Maybe in Europe, but certainly not in the US.

[Puts on Devil's Advocate hat]
So if these animals have the neurological capicity to consent (and given your claim that you disagree with Bottle's point that they do not) then they have the ability to enter into contracts and buy houses, live alone, etc. (they all have basically the same criteria as sexual consent).except one. ability. they cannot read the contract (written in a different language) and they cannot pay for it. but they can be benificiaries of wills. but who controls the money, the retainer or care giver does. is there any auditing to see that the Money recieved from the will is spent on the animal itself? who pays for the audit?
This 'primary' pet would be able to sustain itself in a house, has it's name on the lease, etc.? if the house was built for the animal in mind, then yes. and even in extreme cases there have been reports of animals living for years in abandoned homes. even when locked inside. can any human live in a home without electricity, heating, gas, automobiles, and other amenities? Can it be left in the car or the house alone for indeterminent amounts of time? I mean it has the mental capacity, right?Mental Capacity and Physical Capacity are different. Pets cannot open doors (unless its built for the animal in question.) they cannot operate the can opener (but they can look for alternate sources of food... something some Adult Humans have difficulty doing.)
We place all of these decisions as equal, because they require the same level of commitment, the same level of understanding. so if you are saying that a child who can live by themselves. Cook food, buy food and even do laundry (watch "Home Alone" even tho it's a movie, it's not too far off... esp, if you take several accounts of children being left alone.) you are saying they can then give consent for sex as well as be liable for signing contracts?
Animals don't have that level of understanding and it's pretty clear to everyone not trying to excuse the act of bestiality.sometimes they have more... Can a human, without aid of electronic equiptment, sense when a family member has a stroke? Can Humans predict natural catastrophies without their precious computers? Can a Human give the same attention to their duty as an Animal does? Animals don't hide their emotions, they wear them as clearly as they do their feathers, fur or scales. if an animal likes you and accepts you, you will know it, if they don't you will also know it.

A ten-year-old asked me I wanted a blowjob, but that ten-year-old most assuredly cannot give consent and I would go to jail and belong there if I accepted.but the 10 year old did give informed consent since the Ten year Old ASKED you if you wanted a Blowjob. thus proving they knew what a blowjob was (or at least thought they knew... for all you know she might just blow air on your face then demanded payment.)

of course you will still go to jail. and its still wrong. But animals can and are capable of love. They devote their whole life to pleasing the humans they live with and they do so without asking much in return. Would you travel, by foot, Hundreds of miles to return to your family and not complain about it when you get home?
[/Puts on Devil's Advocate hat]

Okay just one question, why would ANYONE enter a relationship with an animal? :confused: I mean...:rolleyes:

DAMN IT! why doesn't anyone understand that polygamy is the best thing a man could get in his life!
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
As long as woman can also have many partners, sure.

Okay just one question, why would ANYONE enter a relationship with an animal? :confused: I mean...:rolleyes:
Love does strange things.

I can't understand it myself, but then again, I admit I can't understand Homosexuality either.

Love does strange things.

I can't understand it myself, but then again, I admit I can't understand Homosexuality either.
I am gay...but umm I am in love with a human being. Animals are totally different.

An animal can't communicate on the same level, nor can you really experience sexual intimacy with it. How would one even know if its willing?

I am gay...but umm I am in love with a human being. Animals are totally different.

An animal can't communicate on the same level, nor can you really experience sexual intimacy with it. How would one even know if its willing?I can understand being in love with a human, but having sexual relationship with the same sex is strange to me, but that's my problem, not anyone elses.
[Puts on Devil's advocate hat]
hmmm... the male dog is humping my leg... perhaps it's hungery?
and if the animal isn't willing, I think it will let you know by either running away, or presenting it's argument to you via tooth and claw.

as for experiencing sexual Intimacy... I assume the empathic "sharing of emotion" part and not the physical "monster with two backs" part, for that, I cannot answer... perhaps if someone out there who had experience can answer...
but humans also have sex without the emotional intimacy attached to it.
[/Puts on Devil's advocate hat]

I guess some people are closer to their animal nature than others...

As for having a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex, I guess you can only really understand if you're homosexual yourself ;p

I guess some people are closer to their animal nature than others...

As for having a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex, I guess you can only really understand if you're homosexual yourself ;p
Agreed for both points.

I try to be open minded, and for this topic, it's kinda fun trying to be fair and logical about it even tho the subject does give me the willies...

Agreed for both points.

I try to be open minded, and for this topic, it's kinda fun trying to be fair and logical about it even tho the subject does give me the willies...
When the subject is sex with animals, same here :p

[Puts on Devil's Advocate hat]
except one. ability. they cannot read the contract (written in a different language) and they cannot pay for it. but they can be benificiaries of wills. but who controls the money, the retainer or care giver does. is there any auditing to see that the Money recieved from the will is spent on the animal itself? who pays for the audit?

They can be the beneficiaries as can children, the mentally-disabled, the insane and all of those require someone to control the money. All of them are considered to be incapable of consent.

if the house was built for the animal in mind, then yes. and even in extreme cases there have been reports of animals living for years in abandoned homes. even when locked inside. can any human live in a home without electricity, heating, gas, automobiles, and other amenities? Mental Capacity and Physical Capacity are different. Pets cannot open doors (unless its built for the animal in question.) they cannot operate the can opener (but they can look for alternate sources of food... something some Adult Humans have difficulty doing.)

You get the point. They aren't given autonomy because they are not considered to be capable of interacting with people freely.

so if you are saying that a child who can live by themselves. Cook food, buy food and even do laundry (watch "Home Alone" even tho it's a movie, it's not too far off... esp, if you take several accounts of children being left alone.) you are saying they can then give consent for sex as well as be liable for signing contracts?

Nope. I'm saying they can do neither. As you said, mental capacity and physical capacity are not equal.

sometimes they have more... Can a human, without aid of electronic equiptment, sense when a family member has a stroke? Can Humans predict natural catastrophies without their precious computers? Can a Human give the same attention to their duty as an Animal does? Animals don't hide their emotions, they wear them as clearly as they do their feathers, fur or scales. if an animal likes you and accepts you, you will know it, if they don't you will also know it.

Again, physical capacity is not the measure as you said. You are talking about enhanced physical capabilities, not extended mental capacity. As far as emotions, many times the insane and the mentally-disabled wear their emotions on the sleeve as well. Not a formula for consent.

but the 10 year old did give informed consent since the Ten year Old ASKED you if you wanted a Blowjob. thus proving they knew what a blowjob was (or at least thought they knew... for all you know she might just blow air on your face then demanded payment.)

Informed consent requires they have the ability to truly understand what they're consenting to. A ten-year-old is not capable of this (or at least almost every ten-year-old can't). It's not as simple as just knowing what it is.

of course you will still go to jail. and its still wrong. But animals can and are capable of love. They devote their whole life to pleasing the humans they live with and they do so without asking much in return. Would you travel, by foot, Hundreds of miles to return to your family and not complain about it when you get home?
[/Puts on Devil's Advocate hat]
I understand they can love, so can the mentally disabled and the insane. However, they cannot give consent.

Are there any religions based on homosexuality?

Are there any religions based on homosexuality?
None that I can think of...but I think according to Buddhism its blessed :p

I am gay...but umm I am in love with a human being. Animals are totally different.

An animal can't communicate on the same level, nor can you really experience sexual intimacy with it. How would one even know if its willing?

Your gay?

LOL...I never would have guessed that.....you dont seem to share most gay people's (ones that iv met) views on EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING..lol...

Your gay?

LOL...I never would have guessed that.....you dont seem to share most gay people's (ones that iv met) views on EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING..lol...
Well lets say I don't base my entire existence on being gay. I am individualistic. More feminist than anything else anyway. My views are a little more right wing than the typical gay person's I presume? I actually find many gay people insufferable...

Sorry I've been reading this thread and I just want to clear something up:

Poligamy, were it just the marrige of more than one man to a woman or vise versa, would probably be fine. However in real life, poligamy involves despicable, despicable crimes and if you want to read on the there are a number of good books out.

Heehee! Well, I wouldn't be opposed to polygamy if it's handled properly and not done immorally like it is in some places in the world now, like with kids. More and more people now are in open relationships and some people date in three or foursomes. Maybe even moresomes!

The reason why bestiality is wrong is because it isn't fair to the animals. Leave the poor bastards alone! They can't consent to relationships and, well, I don't want to be chased by some half-man, half-dragon monster like I am so frequently in my dreams. I'd prefer it to be my friend.

everyone can do everyone, who cares?

Well lets say I don't base my entire existence on being gay. I am individualistic. More feminist than anything else anyway. My views are a little more right wing than the typical gay person's I presume? I actually find many gay people insufferable...

Yeah...so thats what I thought, lol.

My views are a little more right wing than the typical gay person's I presume?

Which is totally good...I'm right wing too and all for other people who are

but yeah you nailed it right on the head, lol.

Yeah...so thats what I thought, lol.
Well now you know :p Apperances can be oh-so-deceiving.


Which is totally good...I'm right wing too and all for other people who are

but yeah you nailed it right on the head, lol.
Yeah well its not like I'm exactly silent about my beliefs :p I don't agree with many right-wing beliefs, but most of my own ideas fall under the right.

Who the hell wants more than one wife? Or husband? Masochists. As for animals...it can only be rape. Stick to your species at least. Yeh. I'm a specist.

Well now you know :p Apperances can be oh-so-deceiving.



Yeah well its not like I'm exactly silent about my beliefs :p I don't agree with many right-wing beliefs, but most of my own ideas fall under the right.

Are you sure your gay....?

Its just, im not gonna lie...iv met gay people before and I didnt like them at all...they were nothing like how you are.

how long have you been gay?

Are you sure your gay....?

Its just, im not gonna lie...iv met gay people before and I didnt like them at all...they were nothing like how you are.

how long have you been gay?
Clearly Europa is not gay. He or she? is simply not behaving the way a gay person should. Some one call the police.

Are you sure your gay....?

Its just, im not gonna lie...iv met gay people before and I didnt like them at all...they were nothing like how you are.

how long have you been gay?
Yeah, I am.

I don't like many of them either. As I said, I find most of them insufferable and extremely irritating. So I really get happy when I actually find one who interests me, which is rare. :rolleyes:

I have been more or less since I was born I guess, but I realised (and accepted it) at 16.

They can be the beneficiaries as can children, the mentally-disabled, the insane and all of those require someone to control the money. All of them are considered to be incapable of consent.[puts on Devils advocate hat]but their guardians can give Consent for them. for medical treatment, for legal procedings, even Marriage, a popular form of contract. all can be given (yes even minors in some states can get married if their Parents and Guardians give consent) so why can't owners also give consent for their pets, since they are also responsible for their pets.

You get the point. They aren't given autonomy because they are not considered to be capable of interacting with people freely.so you base Mental Capacity on how animals interact with People... even tho people tend to be more irresponsible with animals than the other way around?

Nope. I'm saying they can do neither. As you said, mental capacity and physical capacity are not equal. yet you give examples of animal's lack of mental capacity by putting them in situation that require a Human's ability to manipulate things according to HUMAN standards.

Again, physical capacity is not the measure as you said. You are talking about enhanced physical capabilities, not extended mental capacity. As far as emotions, many times the insane and the mentally-disabled wear their emotions on the sleeve as well. Not a formula for consent.it can be if emotions are the only things humans understand from their pets. you placed human standards for testing mental capacity, signing leases, entering contracts, all baised on human language. well what about the animal's language? emotions are the only things most humans understand from animals. a dog licking your face/hand and wagging his tail is coveying his love for you. a cat rubbing against your leg, or purring when you handle it is conveying pleasure at your touch. just as when a dog growls at you or a cat runs away, it's simple to understand what they want.

Informed consent requires they have the ability to truly understand what they're consenting to. A ten-year-old is not capable of this (or at least almost every ten-year-old can't). It's not as simple as just knowing what it is.then lawyers should be arrested and fined for most people can't understand lawyer speak thus they are not fully understanding what the lawyers say anyway. :D

and granted a 10 year old may not understand sex, but animals do. It's a primal nature for us, hormonal and instictual for them. when animals have sex, they don't care if the female under them is their mother or sister, they just care that it's a female. in fact they don't even care if it's another species of dog or even if it's a dog at all. yet we deny them that by spaying them, neutering them, because we humans don't want to deal with an animal in heat, or with the results.

I understand they can love, so can the mentally disabled and the insane. However, they cannot give consent.Wrong, they cannot give BINDING, LEGAL CONSENT.[/puts on Devils advocate hat]

Clearly Europa is not gay. He or she? is simply not behaving the way a gay person should. Some one call the police.
:p

he btw...

Stick to your species at least. Yeh. I'm a specist.
at least you're honest about it. :D

Yeah, I am.

I don't like many of them either. As I said, I find most of them insufferable and extremely irritating. So I really get happy when I actually find one who interests me, which is rare. :rolleyes:

I have been more or less since I was born I guess, but I realised (and accepted it) at 16.

How old are you now?

How old are you now?
19...getting old :p

[puts on Devils advocate hat]but their guardians can give Consent for them. for medical treatment, for legal procedings, even Marriage, a popular form of contract. all can be given (yes even minors in some states can get married if their Parents and Guardians give consent) so why can't owners also give consent for their pets, since they are also responsible for their pets.

so you base Mental Capacity on how animals interact with People... even tho people tend to be more irresponsible with animals than the other way around?

yet you give examples of animal's lack of mental capacity by putting them in situation that require a Human's ability to manipulate things according to HUMAN standards.

it can be if emotions are the only things humans understand from their pets. you placed human standards for testing mental capacity, signing leases, entering contracts, all baised on human language. well what about the animal's language? emotions are the only things most humans understand from animals. a dog licking your face/hand and wagging his tail is coveying his love for you. a cat rubbing against your leg, or purring when you handle it is conveying pleasure at your touch. just as when a dog growls at you or a cat runs away, it's simple to understand what they want.

then lawyers should be arrested and fined for most people can't understand lawyer speak thus they are not fully understanding what the lawyers say anyway. :D

and granted a 10 year old may not understand sex, but animals do. It's a primal nature for us, hormonal and instictual for them. when animals have sex, they don't care if the female under them is their mother or sister, they just care that it's a female. in fact they don't even care if it's another species of dog or even if it's a dog at all. yet we deny them that by spaying them, neutering them, because we humans don't want to deal with an animal in heat, or with the results.

Wrong, they cannot give BINDING, LEGAL CONSENT.[/puts on Devils advocate hat]

You keep mentioning rules that we apply evenly to all those who cannot consent. Do you really want to consider changing the rules of consent? Parents tend to be more irresponsible towards children than the other way around. Etc., etc. Do you really want to consider changing the rules of consent? Why should have special rules for consent for children?

EDIT: Dang, that's supposed to say "why should we have special rules for animals?"

19...getting old :p

Are you still living in South Africa?

Are you still living in South Africa?
No, I moved to Cyprus a few years ago, unfortunately, and now I am studying in the UK ^^

No, I moved to Cyprus a few years ago, unfortunately, and now I am studying in the UK ^^

You should move to America....its, in my totally biased opinion, the best country in the world...followed by Switzerland, lol.

You should move to America....its, in my totally biased opinion, the best country in the world...followed by Switzerland, lol.
Thanks for the invite :p I am considering Sweden though...extremely rich, gorgeous people and cold weather (yeah, I like that :p).

Thanks for the invite :p I am considering Sweden though...extremely rich, gorgeous people and cold weather (yeah, I like that :p).

I hear that Sweden is nice but I dont like the government at all.

Switzerland is probably the only European country that I would move to.

But I doubt im moving...Iv lived in Los Angeles, San Siego, Seattle, and Ft. Lauderdale........so far I like bits and pieces of livin in California, hated living in Washington State, and LOVE Florida.

I hear that Sweden is nice but I dont like the government at all.

Switzerland is probably the only European country that I would move to.

But I doubt im moving...Iv lived in Los Angeles, San Siego, Seattle, and Ft. Lauderdale........so far I like bits and pieces of livin in California, hated living in Washington State, and LOVE Florida.
Switzerland is also tiny...and very secluded. Sweden's government may be dumb, but it won't be there forever. So why deprive myself of such an awesome country? :D I will consider the USA, after visiting it, but I doubt I'll wanna settle.

You keep mentioning rules that we apply evenly to all those who cannot consent. Do you really want to consider changing the rules of consent? Parents tend to be more irresponsible towards children than the other way around. Etc., etc. Do you really want to consider changing the rules of consent? Why should have special rules for consent for children? [puts on devil's advocate hat]ah, but the main argument against beastiality is that the animals cannot give consent, and you defined that consent as "a clearly understood and fully informed knowledge of what's to happen" even tho it's totally impossible for a human to convey that to an animal and (by your standards) for that animal to convey that back.

it's like saying "Marriage is for one man and one woman." it's biased and heavily stacked to heterosexuals. the only difference is, that Human Homosexuals can convey and communicate their displeasure at such a ruling while animals, cannot and maybe will never, understand the fuss.

while animals may not be able to say "Yes", I feel they can definately say "No" and in a way humans have no choice but to understand.[/puts on devil's advocate hat]

[puts on devil's advocate hat]ah, but the main argument against beastiality is that the animals cannot give consent, and you defined that consent as "a clearly understood and fully informed knowledge of what's to happen" even tho it's totally impossible for a human to convey that to an animal and (by your standards) for that animal to convey that back.

it's like saying "Marriage is for one man and one woman." it's biased and heavily stacked to heterosexuals. the only difference is, that Human Homosexuals can convey and communicate their displeasure at such a ruling while animals, cannot and maybe will never, understand the fuss.

while animals may not be able to say "Yes", I feel they can definately say "No" and in a way humans have no choice but to understand.[/puts on devil's advocate hat]

No, it's nothing like saying "marriage is for one man and one woman." You're the only one asking for special consideration for a single group. We treat all things that cannot give consent equally, the mentally-challenged, the insane, children, animals. All cannot give consent and with the exception of children will likely NEVER be able to give consent. We hold all things to the same understanding and cognition for consent. You suggest that we define special rules for animals, no? Or are you actually suggesting that we loosen the rules of consent for all creatures and simply because a mentally-challenged person doesn't know any better, we allow orderlies to pass them around like a bag of chips?

[puts on devil's advocate hat]
No, it's nothing like saying "marriage is for one man and one woman." You're the only one asking for special consideration for a single group. like years ago when the government was asked to make a change in the law to allow women to vote? or earlier than that when the government was asked to change the laws to allow black MEN to vote? you asking about that type of Special Consideration for a Single Group?
We treat all things that cannot give consent equally, the mentally-challenged, the insane, children, animals. so we leash up our children, Spay and neuter our insane, mentally-handicapped and children as well? Do humans have a Leash Law for ourselves? (Marriage does not count :p )
All cannot give consent and with the exception of children will likely NEVER be able to give consent. We hold all things to the same understanding and cognition for consent. You suggest that we define special rules for animals, no? Or are you actually suggesting that we loosen the rules of consent for all creatures and simply because a mentally-challenged person doesn't know any better, we allow orderlies to pass them around like a bag of chips? Look how many times the rules have changed for small groups of people. we add laws to bolster minorites, we remove laws that focus on one group.
Are animals mentally handicapped? no.
Are they insane? well, they think differently but not insane.
Are they children? dogs age 7 years to each calander year. so after 2 years and some months, they're adults by human standards.
Can they convey consent? Has anyone tried to listen to them?
I think they can convey what they want and don't want clearly.
[/puts on Devil's advocate hat]

[puts on devil's advocate hat]
like years ago when the government was asked to make a change in the law to allow women to vote? or earlier than that when the government was asked to change the laws to allow black MEN to vote? you asking about that type of Special Consideration for a Single Group?

Um, do you see that you're asking for a different kind of special attention, like the kind we gave white people. See, currently all animals and people are held to the same standard of consent. You are asking for a single group to be allowed to have special consideration (only that group). It's not about making them equal. You admitted that animals are not capable of giving consent at the level that is currently expected.

so we leash up our children, Spay and neuter our insane, mentally-handicapped and children as well? Do humans have a Leash Law for ourselves? (Marriage does not count :p )

Actually, we do treat children and the insane and mentall-handicapped under different rules than regular adults. However, the rules are catered to their general capacity. Animals have rules based on their general capacity.. we treat cats and dogs diffetently in the same ways you're suggesting. Your arguments don't suggest animals have more capacity than children, the handicapped and the mentally ill but less. Are you trying to help me?

Look how many times the rules have changed for small groups of people. we add laws to bolster minorites, we remove laws that focus on one group.

Yes, but we don't have specialized rights or shouldn't. You've heard of equal rights, yes?

Are animals mentally handicapped? no.

Yes, of course they are. They don't have the menal capacity of an adult human. They aren't less capable than other animals, but you are talking about consent which is compared to the average adult.

Are they insane? well, they think differently but not insane.

Nope, not insane, mentally deficient.

Are they children? dogs age 7 years to each calander year. so after 2 years and some months, they're adults by human standards.

They're adult dogs, but again we aren't talking about physically. The mentally-handicapped are adults by physical standards. However, if they have the mental capacity of a child they have the same ability to consent as a child, which is none.

Can they convey consent? Has anyone tried to listen to them?

They can convey consent as well as anyone with the mental capacity of child. However, that has no effect on their understanding.

I think they can convey what they want and don't want clearly.
[/puts on Devil's advocate hat]
You're trying but your argument sucks. You keep trying to act like you're arguing for equal rights, but you're not. All creatures that have the mental capacity of a child, have the rights of a child regarding consent. Show they have the mental capacity of the average adult person and you'd have an argument that they are being treated unequally.

I believe that everyone agrees that bestiality is wrong.

The difference is that it is less wrong then killing and eating animals.

If we won't ban the killing of animals we should't ban bestiality.

Um, do you see that you're asking for a different kind of special attention, like the kind we gave white people. See, currently all animals and people are held to the same standard of consent. You are asking for a single group to be allowed to have special consideration (only that group). It's not about making them equal. You admitted that animals are not capable of giving consent at the level that is currently expected. [puts on devil's advocate hat] but you are denying one group their rights to persuit happiness because of a blanket law that makes no consessions for that which the creators of that law never took into account.

Actually, we do treat children and the insane and mentall-handicapped under different rules than regular adults. However, the rules are catered to their general capacity. Animals have rules based on their general capacity.. we treat cats and dogs diffetently in the same ways you're suggesting. Your arguments don't suggest animals have more capacity than children, the handicapped and the mentally ill but less. Are you trying to help me?according to the laws, animals are given less freedom than those mentally challanged and under-aged. Animals that "fail" to find an owner are put to death. homeless Humans are jailed for vagrency and then released.
Animals are capable of surviving without us, but our laws treat them as property. sound familiar? think slaves.

Yes, but we don't have specialized rights or shouldn't. You've heard of equal rights, yes?Hiring Quotas. heard of them? because of Hiring Quotas, companies need to look at their percentages of minorities and thus need to fill those if they are lacking.

NAACP, UNCF and other groups specializing in the benefits for one particular group.

Yes, of course they are. They don't have the menal capacity of an adult human. They aren't less capable than other animals, but you are talking about consent which is compared to the average adult.baised on laws designed to govern Humans.

Nope, not insane, mentally deficient.yet many people depend on these Mentally Deficient individuals in life and death situations and jobs where normal Humans won't do and they perform them adequetly... and more. don't sound so mentally deficiant to me.

They're adult dogs, but again we aren't talking about physically. The mentally-handicapped are adults by physical standards. However, if they have the mental capacity of a child they have the same ability to consent as a child, which is none.


They can convey consent as well as anyone with the mental capacity of child. However, that has no effect on their understanding.how do you know that? you can only speculate what they understand by their actions.

You're trying but your argument sucks. You keep trying to act like you're arguing for equal rights, but you're not. All creatures that have the mental capacity of a child, have the rights of a child regarding consent. and one one thing you haven't touched upon is that consent for minors in any situation, Contracts, Marriage and Medical can be given by the Parent(s) or/And Guardian(s)
Marriage (http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm)
Medical (http://www.mnmed.org/llp/minorconsentissuebrief.html)
and in some of those cases, the Parent(s) or/And Guardian(s) need not be there at all.
so wouldn't the Owner be the same as the Parent(s) or/And Guardian(s) for the pet, and thus be able to "give Consent" for their pet, making it legal?

Show they have the mental capacity of the average adult person and you'd have an argument that they are being treated unequally.thanks for setting a stacked deck.
you know it's not like we can give them a "Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test"

there are studies that are being done to prove animal intelligence... but again it comes down to comparing them to humans, using human standards and human understanding.
The Question of Non-Human Intelligence (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Ball2.html)
Animal Cognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition)

Human children have education baised on a language system unique to Humans, animals have that same learning ability baised on the language system unique to that species.

and you haven't denied that animals can covey their wants and desires clearly to humans.
[/puts on devil's advocate hat]