Three Men Marry (each other) in Colombia

[ok doser]

Not sure where you're getting this notion that animals can be treat in any given manner and the law is all okay with that....

A bit early to be hitting the bottle, isn't it?

 

[Town Heretic]

So, here I'll set aside beastiality as a separate consideration. Why does society object? Any number of arguments have been propounded and I'll touch on most of them, if briefly. But if you reflect on the whole and consider laws that have similar points to them the principle objection appears to be our response to grossly imbalanced power. What I mean is this, we cast a hard legal stare upon bosses who sleep with fully grown adults under them within a power hierarchy. Why? Because of the inherent coercion we see in the power imbalance even between adults. There are similar protections for children, the mentally impaired and patients in care. And that takes us back to meaningful consent.

Of existing arguments we find the following: mental illness, zoophilia, the classification under which people who desire sexual congress with animals are classified; public health, in that serious cross species disease issues exist and the endangerment of spreading contagion is meaningful; impermissible use, that really reduces to animals may be used for any number of necessary things and their nature is consent, but that sex is different and that consent is neither innate nor possible.

A bit early to be hitting the bottle, isn't it?

But it's apparently never to early for you to troll with imbecilic and pointlessly immature hostility. lain: You should look into a Kangaroo Palace. Jump around. Be with people your own mental age.

It would do you good.

 

[glassjester]

Actually the law does give a darn about animals. It's not legal in the UK to abuse animals, sexually or otherwise. I have a pet cat and if I maltreat it in any way then I'm breaking the law dude. Likewise there are laws in regards to farming livestock and the conditions cattle are kept in etc. Not sure where you're getting this notion that animals can be treat in any given manner and the law is all okay with that because it's simply not the case.

Where did I say the law doesn't give a darn about animals? I didn't.

I said the law doesn't give a darn about animals' consent.
And that's true, isn't it?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Where did I say the law doesn't give a darn about animals? I didn't.

I said the law doesn't give a darn about animals' consent.
And that's true, isn't it?

Well of course it isn't considering animals are incapable of providing it, hence their being protected from cruelty and abuse.

 

[Arthur Brain]

A bit early to be hitting the bottle, isn't it?

Well put it down then ya daft SOD.

:kookoo:

 

[ok doser]

Where did I say the law doesn't give a darn about animals? I didn't.

Of course you didn't

But with Artie's double vision, he thought you did

And you'll never get him to admit he's wrong


ETA: or town, for that matter

 

[Arthur Brain]

Of course you didn't

But with Artie's double vision, he thought you did

And you'll never get him to admit he's wrong


ETA: or town, for that matter

Says the gossipy, rumour spreading bridge dweller...

 

[Town Heretic]

Says the gossipy, rumour spreading bridge dweller...

What's funny is that is that people like sod who say that sort of thing can never produce a quote of them admitting to being on the wrong side of an argument. Classic doofi.

 

[ok doser]

Where did I say the law doesn't give a darn about animals? I didn't.

That's right, you didn't

 

[Arthur Brain]

What's funny is that is that people like sod who say that sort of thing can never produce a quote of them admitting to being on the wrong side of an argument. Classic doofi.

Hmm, I seem to recall a thread where some silly little man made a really daft claim that someone here wasn't a lawyer, and when presented with credentials that were verified, kept maintaining that it still wasn't the case. Sad that...

 

[Rusha]

What's funny is that is that people like sod who say that sort of thing can never produce a quote of them admitting to being on the wrong side of an argument. Classic doofi.

I am not sure that *funny* is the correct word to characterize such willful dishonesty and a lack of willingness to own up to his intentional, alternative facts ... :think:

 

[glassjester]

There's almost always a shift in the willingness of a society to self-examine preceding challenges on significant Constitutional grounds. True of slavery (though less successfully) and true now. But the litmus will always be a Constitutional and not social one. Essentially, you can't open a door that you don't or won't see, but once someone walks through it an argument over its existence becomes harder to manage.

What was the litmus for the SC ruling on abortion?

Again though, it's not being redefined. We still know exactly what we mean by marriage with or without the legal inclusion. The thing itself remains.


I doubt people entering into it considered their orientation as a part of it. It meant either a secular or religious (or likely both for most) joining of two lives to form something new and promising, as an expression of love and an intent to hold one another and that relationship apart from any other.


Again, the marriage contract is pretty explicit in terms of what it required. Those terms indicate what people considered important and necessary about it. There were any number of reasons why sexuality/gender wouldn't be a consideration, from cultural/social/contextual assumption, to religious objections, to legal impediments (homosexuality itself being outlawed in many jurisdictions) to simple phobia, etc. But no one established gender as a requirement by law. Once the assumption or bias was challenged many states scrambled to do it, but that overturns any legal tradition argument that can be advanced. Meaning the remaining arguments need another approach.

I think we can agree that where the word "marriage" appears in states' laws, the contemporaneous definition of the word "marriage" could be substituted to accurately reflect the intent of the law. Later, when states "scrambled" to include gender-based language they were most certainly clarifying the laws' true intent, not altering it.

Religion isn't going to work and that was the inevitable problem with the anti side of things. Religious objection, however veiled, was largely it. Legally, to the extent you could argue it, the foundational objections were atop equally objectionable law, like laws that criminalized homosexual sex, themselves rooted in religious belief.

That might depend on how loosely you define "religious." Are murder laws religious? Is the idea of unalienable rights religious?

Worse to whom and in what way? Or, that's what many people said and believed about race mixing laws being abolished. And many of them predicated their views on faith as well.


It's varied, really. Looking at gallup data from 75 to present day there hasn't been dramatic variations. F

Let's look at the three principle divisions of opinion on abortion, highly restricted, unrestricted, and completely forbidden.

Highly restricted: In 1975, 54% of the public said abortion should be allowed only in very particular circumstances. That opinion was weakest in 94, when only 48% agreed, and strongest in 98, when around 68% agreed with that level of restriction. By 2010 it was 57% and today around 50%. Or, a little stronger today than in 75. So it's been a cycle of sorts, with the overwhelming majority of the time spent in the low 50s.

Unrestricted: in 75 that would have translated to around 22% and today it's 29%. The high point of that belief is in 94, when 34% of the public had that degree of hands off approach to the topic. So it's higher than 75 and significantly lower than 94.

Forbidden: Illegal in any circumstance was at 21% in 75 and is at 18% now. Between 91 and 99 it was at its lowest ebb, around 15%.

So it doesn't really appear that Roe has softened public opinion, which has cycled up and down since. Forbidden is three pts weaker now after 42 years, or 3% stronger than it was for nearly a decade, a couple of decades after Roe. Similarly, unrestricted is 7% higher than it was right after Roe, or 5% lower/weaker than it was in the 90s, while strict limitations is 4% weaker now than 75, or 2% stronger than it was in 94...or much weaker than 98.

Doesn't appear to be much of a causal impact.

Self-reported attitudes don't always match actual attitudes. I think behavior might be a better measure of actual attitudes toward abortion. For example, if you want to know how many people are willing to get abortions, just look at how many people actually get abortions.

Certainly being brought up in an environment in which the government allows and even provides abortion, will lead people to believe certain things about it. The opposite must also be true. If someone were brought up in an environment where abortion were illegal, they would think differently of it.

Government does have something of a social engineering effect, intentionally or not.

Affronts to one expression of what a family should be. Some people wouldn't credit a family without kids. Some would have problems with interracial families. Some might object to adoptive families. But each family once denied and now allowed wouldn't see it that way.

So what is family, then? And what is its value and role in society? Should we define it to mean anything and everything, and therefore nothing?

That's peculiar to me. How can a union predicated on a lack of belief in God be sanctified? Or is it just those who have another belief in a different idea about God? And if that's the case what about homosexuals who have a different belief about what God is or sanctions?

The Church distinguishes between natural and sacramental marriage. If an atheist man and woman, for example, marry - they have entered into what the Church would call natural marriage. Just because they don't recognize God, doesn't mean God doesn't recognize their marriage.

This is maybe a little off-topic, but I don't mind talking more about Catholic doctrine.

Then keep it where it's actually parallel, with people.

I am. It's illegal for people (not animals) to engage in bestiality, even in the privacy of their own bedroom, even when no people or animals are harmed. Why?

Dragging animals into the mix smacks of the old let's compare blacks to monkeys business. Best left alone and if you can't make the case using law and people it's not much of one to begin with, is it?

This is nothing like comparing black people to monkeys. Seriously?

 

[glassjester]

So, here I'll set aside beastiality as a separate consideration. Why does society object? Any number of arguments have been propounded and I'll touch on most of them, if briefly. But if you reflect on the whole and consider laws that have similar points to them the principle objection appears to be our response to grossly imbalanced power. What I mean is this, we cast a hard legal stare upon bosses who sleep with fully grown adults under them within a power hierarchy. Why? Because of the inherent coercion we see in the power imbalance even between adults. There are similar protections for children, the mentally impaired and patients in care. And that takes us back to meaningful consent.

But the law does not give a darn about animals' consent. For anything. At all.

Of existing arguments we find the following: mental illness, zoophilia, the classification under which people who desire sexual congress with animals are classified;

Today's "mental illness" is tomorrow's "orientation."

public health, in that serious cross species disease issues exist and the endangerment of spreading contagion is meaningful;

Is it? That's an entirely non-rhetorical question, by the way.
Additionally, is disease an objection against bestiality qua bestiality? Or can it be practiced safely? Is the risk anymore inherent to bestiality, than it is to, let's say, eating chicken?

impermissible use, that really reduces to animals may be used for any number of necessary things and their nature is consent, but that sex is different and that consent is neither innate nor possible.

Consent is not innate or possible for any use of an animal. And many uses we have for them can hardly be considered necessary. We hunt them for sport, we keep them against their will in houses, cages, zoos - for fun. We wear their skins, for fashion.

These non-necessities are permissible by law, and they undoubtedly harm animals. I don't see any justification for the government to dictate what a person does sexually, in private, without harming any people or animals.

Unless, of course, sex has some special role and function in society, and must be regulated, for the good of society. In which case, what is that function, and how should it be regulated, accordingly?

 

[Town Heretic]

A few things that got lost in the moment...

Otherwise sixteen-year-olds should go to jail if they sex with each other. Mutual rape.

Yeah, that's wrong. Neither party is capable so neither party is at fault. It's like suggesting two three year olds should be able to sue each other over a contract they wrote in the sand. Rape requires one party that knows or should know better.

Since when do we require an animal's consent to use it for our own ends?

Sex always involves consent, to be legal. It's a distinct kind of use. There are all sorts of activity that you can't do with things you own, legally.

What was the litmus for the SC ruling on abortion?

Too serious and off topic for me to spend the time here on it. If you don't know and want to discuss it I'd be happy to in a thread dedicated to that particular.

I think we can agree that where the word "marriage" appears in states' laws, the contemporaneous definition of the word "marriage" could be substituted to accurately reflect the intent of the law. Later, when states "scrambled" to include gender-based language they were most certainly clarifying the laws' true intent, not altering it.

It's a bit of a semantic point we're playing at, so I'll say this: they "clarified" an unconstitutional point.

That might depend on how loosely you define "religious." Are murder laws religious? Is the idea of unalienable rights religious?

It really doesn't depend on one's view of religious. We live in a society bound by secular law. An atheist may feel as strongly about rights as a fundamentalist. What you're speaking to is motivation. It may be that the framer of a law is motivated by his moral or religious understanding. But what is certain is that understanding, as it is expressed in law, must meet the qualifications of the secular institution it serves.

Self-reported attitudes don't always match actual attitudes.

Which wouldn't be the question. The question would be, "Do they mostly?" An exception that doesn't become the rule doesn't negate the value of the data presented in support of it. The data doesn't support your notion of impact. People seem to carry their own notions, largely.

I think behavior might be a better measure of actual attitudes toward abortion. For example, if you want to know how many people are willing to get abortions, just look at how many people actually get abortions.

That would preclude any number of people who might never find the choice in a moment, but who might yield to the temptation of it were it presented. At best it invites all sorts of speculation. Absent reason to believe otherwise, I'll take the word of people asked an honest question and hope they give me the same latitude.

Certainly being brought up in an environment in which the government allows and even provides abortion, will lead people to believe certain things about it. The opposite must also be true. If someone were brought up in an environment where abortion were illegal, they would think differently of it.

I definitely think legality impacts a thing, though largely among people who are rudderless on it. That is to say, if you have a moral code by which fornication is forbidden and you invest yourself in that belief, the fact that there's a legal brothel in the next town won't lead you to its use.

Government does have something of a social engineering effect, intentionally or not.

In ways good and bad. Sure.

So what is family, then? And what is its value and role in society? Should we define it to mean anything and everything, and therefore nothing?

The family will always be something personal to those involved in it and something literal to the law. To the state it's manifest in a contract between two parties who mean to be legally bound to one another in a reflection of an internal commitment.

The Church distinguishes between natural and sacramental marriage. If an atheist man and woman, for example, marry - they have entered into what the Church would call natural marriage. Just because they don't recognize God, doesn't mean God doesn't recognize their marriage.

This feels semantic. Are you saying that God blesses the marriage of those who hate Him? Or just that he would recognize their intent?

I am. It's illegal for people (not animals) to engage in bestiality, even in the privacy of their own bedroom, even when no people or animals are harmed. Why?

Answered in the first or second bit above this one.

 

[Town Heretic]

But the law does not give a darn about animals' consent. For anything. At all.

Hopefully I clarified in my last. You're mistaken on the point. Where sex is concerned consent governs in every operation. And as permitting it violates that consideration and works no good for either species while lending itself to harm for both...

Today's "mental illness" is tomorrow's "orientation."

Or, social norms can and have impinged on both law and science, but over time it tends to shake out. It really depends on how you approach it. In our compact we approach the formation or preservation of law rationally and in relation to right, with an attempt to minimize intrusion upon it absent a compelling interest on the part of the state that can be reduced to argument.

Is it? That's an entirely non-rhetorical question, by the way.

It is.

Additionally, is disease an objection against bestiality qua bestiality? Or can it be practiced safely? Is the risk anymore inherent to bestiality, than it is to, let's say, eating chicken?

I was noting a number of objections. I'd say consent as an issue is sufficient once you understand we don't grant an absolute license in relation to animals. Torturing them for fun, by way of, is a criminal offense.

Consent is not innate or possible for any use of an animal.

We don't use consent for every particular. By way of, I can make my son go to bed, contrary to his will, and the state will not object.

And many uses we have for them can hardly be considered necessary. We hunt them for sport, we keep them against their will in houses, cages, zoos - for fun. We wear their skins, for fashion.

PETA would say a lot of that. The answer is that one rendering or reading is not necessarily the same as another. Sport thins herds, which is good husbandry. Zoos are both educational and help to make the preservation of species removed from populations that can impact their future a more likely experience.

These non-necessities are permissible by law, and they undoubtedly harm animals.

Arguable. Most of what harms for harms sake isn't permissible, and where it is can be said to benefit the species and man. That's why we won't let hunters hunt a particular animal to extinction. We place limits on that as we do on fishers.

I don't see any justification for the government to dictate what a person does sexually, in private, without harming any people or animals.

Answered prior and to a lesser extent herein.

 

[ok doser]

And it's totally legal to force animals to mate, anyway. So an animal's consent doesn't matter. Even when it comes to sex.

yep

Where sex is concerned consent governs in every operation.

well, no


i helped my friend breed his purebred chocolate lab with another purebred chocolate lab

no consent was asked or given during the whole "operation"


perhaps you have a different concept of "governs" :idunno:

 

[Arthur Brain]

And it's totally legal to force animals to mate, anyway. So an animal's consent doesn't matter. Even when it comes to sex.

How are you defining 'force' here? Or how are animals forced to have sex exactly? You can encourage animals to mate easily enough sure, but that's not the same thing at all.

 

[Town Heretic]

yep

well, no

i helped my friend breed his purebred chocolate lab with another purebred chocolate lab

no consent was asked or given during the whole "operation"

perhaps you have a different concept of "governs" :idunno:

It helps if you understand what the topic is instead of just rushing in to say "no" to me. lain: Hint, it's bestiality.

 

[ok doser]

It helps if you understand what the topic is instead of just rushing in to say "no" to me. lain: Hint, it's bestiality.

it helps if you're actually paying attention instead of just rushing in to give a retarded response. Hint, it's whether animals can give consent

 

[Town Heretic]

it helps if you're actually paying attention instead of just rushing in to give a retarded response. Hint, it's whether animals can give consent

Copying a little of my form without appearing to understand it is typical, but it's not really useful.