Proponents of gay marriage: what about bestiality?

Post Reply New Topic

YOU STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM FUFU!! !! !

i have AS too. i still work on curbing it. don't use AS as an excuse for bad behavior, it just reflects poorly on the rest of us and makes it harder to get jobs and be able to be open at work about the problem.

so, you know, start a new thread for your nitpicking already...jerk.

Man, this is ridiculous.

Animals can't give consent to sexual acts. Period. Anything sexual done to them qualifies as rape. Rape is not, nor ever will be, legal. Same goes for children - because they're underage, any consent they give isn't legal either. In fact, it's completely illegal to marry anything that isn't of age or of the same species. The rules are clear and laid out. It's people like you that keep twisting them around for your anti-homosexual agendas.

Gay adults, however, can give consent. And even if you don't agree with it, it doesn't matter because anything they do behind closed doors doesn't affect you or anyone else. And even if you deny them marriage, they're still going to engage in gay sex. You can't stop them. They've been doing this for thousands of years. It's always been the social norm. Get over it.

At least be happy they aren't molesting Fufu.

All right then, let's end your argument and get it over with.



Now, based on context, to which of these definitions do you think the poster you quoted was referring? According to your age, you still have another year for the SAT- plenty of time to work on that reading comprehension score.

Oh, and don't bother debating the validity of the term "lower animal." I agree many animals are very smart. There was this one collie that knew 200 words. Incredible! But show me a collie that can employ the Socratic method, and then you might begin to have a case.

skafather...I know this thread needs to die, I just don't particularly care to see her start a new one either. I'm done.

This thread to F*@ked up, Ragtime its seems to something your extremely fascinated in, gays and gay sex, and equating it all with bestiality, this whole topic is screwed in the head, it isn't coming from a rational mind, and I am beginning to think your have very deep latent homosexual tenancies, with issues of guilt and anger, because of your fixation on this subject.
And on the subject of bestiality, there is absolutely no excuse for it, people who do it, are truly depraved, animal abusers go on to become serial murders, and belong in a mental asylum

Last edited by spudnik on 10 Apr 2008, 6:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

skafather, different people with AS have it differently. Perhaps your nitpicking isn't as much of a problem for you? Not to mention that I've had no treatment for it at all, while you imply that you've been 'curbing it'.
Also, constant insults is not a good reflection on AS. Please start a new thread if you want to insult me, jerk.

ford_prefects_kid, I've seen plenty of dictionaries that describe animals and include humans in the description ("humans are a social animals"). I don't remember the name, but I can get it uh... tomorrow, probably. It really just depends on the dictionary you're going by.

And please stop rating intelligence in terms of getting a good job and other human-related things. To begin with, dogs are domestic animals--we bred them specifically so they can be stupid and obedient. If you want a 'smart' animal, how about wolves? Perhaps they can't do math, but they don't really need to, do they? Animals are each intelligent in whatever way they need to be.

Scorpio, it isn't illegal everywhere (including america). See here.

Seriously though guys, if you want me to stop, just stop arguing back. I'm actually ignoring a lot of things you're saying that I could be arguing about. I don't get why this bothers you so much though--what am I saying that you find so offensive?

Possibly, Whivit, because you seem to be attempting to refute a legal definition using biological reasoning.

Biologically, "humans" are a subset of the superset "animals". This superset includes quite a wide variety of life-forms, but only the subset "humans" are given legal rights in court. (Even laws against abusing animals have to do with human norms - the fact that you're not supposed to vivisect your neighbor's dog does not mean you can't kill animals, a fact for which I'm thankful every time I eat a steak.)

As I pointed out, however, "marriage" is a human legal construct. Since our legal system was originally all tied up with various religious systems, religion got tied up in the concept of marriage; however, in our modern world, the legal and religious definition of "marriage" seldom occupy the same universe of discourse. (Else you would still see laws forbidding divorce except in cases of adultery, per the Gospels; this is still true in some countries, but not in the one with which I'm most familiar, the US. You would also see laws forbidding interfaith marriage, as many conservative theologians of a number of religious traditions hold this to be anathema.)

Given that animals have no standing in a court of law, and given that marriage is a legal institution, removing gender discrimination from it does not automatically give full human rights to animals, nor does it imply that such should be the case. The legal concept involved here is called "informed consent" - animals cannot give informed consent, nor can humans who don't share a language (you can't drag someone who speaks only, say, Czech into a church, run through a quick ceremony, and be considered legally married, as the Czech-speaker was unable to give informed consent).

"curbing it"



erm....."bad behavior" is a POV. I mean, it's "nitpicking"

When another animal can actually communicate their thoughts on the same level as a human, then we'll talk. Otherwise, reason dictates that the human would exercise complete control over the animal, and since the animal would be unable to communicate its own wishes (i.e. talk), it would not be an equal partnership.

So basically your point is 'animals' can't give consent, thus legally we're not animals? Doesn't that mean that the humans who don't share a language are also animals, and little kids, and non-verbal people?

(It's usually at this point I start giving examples of how animals can give consent, but I feel that would be useless and just spam up the board. So if you're honestly interested in that you can PM me, I guess, but I'm sure you'd just rather me shut up.)

Human laws are based on human standards, basically. As humans, we are generally capable of understanding human signals, verbal and nonverbal. Language barriers can be crossed, both between cultures and between people with various capacities for communication. Our minds are programmed to understand (generally) the young of our own species, until they are capable of communicating on the same level as us.

Other animals have completely different minds and ways of communicating, and there have been few cases in which we've seen other animals capable of communicating in human ways (apes doing sign language, etc). Until it can be substantially proved that an animal can communicate to the same extent as a human, and be engaged in an equal partnership with a human, then we can't consider human laws applicable to it.

It took me a long time to phrase that correctly, so don't you dare contradict it!

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't understand human signals (verbal or non-verbal) at all. Maybe my mind is programmed differently than other people but personally I just can't read humans at all. People tend to say one thing and mean another, or not say anything and expect you to understand what they meant. Or you're supposed to read their faces, which is IMPOSSIBLE.

I can read every other animal that I've come into contact with perfectly, though. My dogs and cats, I always know exactly what they mean, maybe because they always say exactly what they mean and don't lie about anything (I don't mean they 'talk', they just... verbalize, or act, in a way that shows what they want). If they want to go outside, they meow near the door and scratch the door until I let them out. It's all very simple, and seriously, how could anyone not understand that?

I don't know how you can say this hasn't been proven. People have cats and dogs and other pets because they understand them. There's no confusion about what a dog's going to do, they tell you very clearly--touch that and I'll bite your hand off, pet me here, I'm happy, etc. How could you have a member in your family and not understand what they're saying to you?

Not to mention people that study animal behavior--surely they understand what an animal is saying, since it's their life's work.

Really though, when most animals say something, it's always very clear what they mean. When a skunk turns around so you can see its butt--you know what's going to happen next. When a snake hisses, when a dog growls, when a cat purrs, it's all clear. Humans are never clear in what they mean.

*Coughs* Sorry, huge post, uhm. Yeah.

Oh yeah, there's some degree of communication between species.

My concern is how an animal would represent itself in a human legal system. Can a non-human understand human law? If it can't, then how can such laws be applied to it? We're getting into this whole legal issue. In most cases the nearest human is held accountable for an animal's actions. But to what degree can a human decide for an animal? Can a human decide to marry an animal, even if that animal doesn't understand what marriage is? I don't know. I'm tired so I'm not going to take this much farther now.

You may be right.

Yep. The shark, she has been jumped.

Well, you obviously can understand human language though and its meaning as you seek to communicate with us in that language. Frankly, law is not a matter of body language, but rather whether or not a person can understand and accept or reject an explicitly worded document if read by them or perhaps even to them in the cases of illiterates. Animals cannot read these documents nor can they understand if they are read to them.


Yeah, and most of it is non-essential because of the fact that it relates to communication as a whole rather than legal communication, which is what the discussion is about.