Progressive Marriage Issue....

[Truronian]

They can't consent to being eaten, either. Neither can plants. Ban food.

The question of consent is only relevant for humans.

Eating is natural, marriage is not. As a made-made concept we can set any rules we like about how marriage is undertaken, and (in Western civilization at least) consent is one of them.

 

[warpus]

They can't consent to being eaten, either. Neither can plants. Ban food.

The question of consent is only relevant for humans.

Good point - but I don't think we should be causing animals unnecessary discomfort - sexual or otherwise.

I realize that a lot of the food we eat comes from farms where animals are abused, but I disagree with those practices too.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I certainly hope I am not the only person arond who thinks this is zany.

You would have at least thought she would have married a cute kitty-cat or something instead of a Cobra. Gives a whole new meaning to "my husband is a snake".

It is zany and I can't see it spreading very far or even becoming common in India due to both the legal consent aspect of marriage and that snakes don't have civil rights and don't vote or give campaign contributions.

 

[Atropos]

Eating is natural, marriage is not. As a made-made concept we can set any rules we like about how marriage is undertaken, and (in Western civilization at least) consent is one of them.

And if we want to set that rule, we can ban homosexual/interracial/whatever marriages we choose, simply by defining it as "unnatural?" Also, why is your horse's consent relevant if you want to marry it but not if you want to send it to the knackers?

What you seem to be saying is that there are no universal rules governing marriage (since it is a man-made institutions). But every complex sociological structure is also man-made. It would be just as logical to say that there are no universal rules regarding freedom of religion.

 

[carlosMM]

Now, how long I wonder, until tho...laming all non-members of your American sect.

 

[Sidhe]

Carlos lighten up and get with the humour this is funny, we can't prejudge MB for this it 's patently humorous

 

[blackheart]

However, for those who look at this seriously, if you consider the people from India spritually enlightened, then why isnt this something to be embraced by the rest of the world as well?

Because the rest of the world isn't.... India?

 

[Atropos]

Good point - but I don't think we should be causing animals unnecessary discomfort - sexual or otherwise.

I realize that a lot of the food we eat comes from farms where animals are abused, but I disagree with those practices too.

I seriously doubt that a whale would mind if you attempted to have, uh, intercourse with it. (For that matter, I doubt if it would notice). Maybe we should just legalize whale-human marriages?

Also, consider what happens when a farmer wants more calves. Most modern farmers inseminate their cows using an artificial device containing frozen bull sperm, or so I've read. How is it different from using their own, from the cow's point of view? Either way, she is, so to speak, f---d.

Or maybe it's the "pleasure instead of utility" bit that gets to you? No one asked cats if they wanted to be kept as pets, and I'd like to see anyone get utility out of a cat. Or take horseraces: They don't produce any significant utility, and no one asked the horse if it wanted to be whipped along at top speed for no visible purpose except the rider's pleasure.

The fact is, I've never seen anyone advance a very convincing argument for banning marriage between humans and large animals, although I suppose the next of kin might be a bit hard to discern.

 

[Truronian]

And if we want to set that rule, we can ban homosexual/interracial/whatever marriages we choose, simply by defining it as "unnatural?"

All marriage is unnatural (in that marriage is a man-made construct), and as such we can set any rules society want for it. Partnerships are a different matter, and I don't think we can have a say in such things. (Sorry if I'm being pedantic/nonsensical, but I'm tired)

Also, why is your horse's consent relevant if you want to marry it but not if you want to send it to the knackers?

Well, marriage infers equality, whereas ownership (and what to do with your horse) does not.

What you seem to be saying is that there are no universal rules governing marriage (since it is a man-made institutions). But every complex sociological structure is also man-made. It would be just as logical to say that there are no universal rules regarding freedom of religion.

Yes . There's no such thing as universal social rules, only rules that society enacts. Religion on a personal level has complete freedom (you can believe whatever you want to believe), however on a social level it is subject to the same laws as other human constructs (you practice your religious beliefs according to societies laws).

Sorry if I misunderstood any of that

 

[carlosMM]

Sidhe, this topic has been debated repeatedly, with MBs participation, and he never ever changes his initial posts, despite having had to 'row backwards' each and every time. Thus this is trolling, of the worst idiotic kind.

I am beyond being humored by intolerance, especially religious intolerance.

 

[Atropos]

Well, marriage infers equality.

Except that it hasn't until the past fifty years.

Yes . There's no such thing as universal social rules, only rules that society enacts. Religion on a personal level has complete freedom (you can believe whatever you want to believe), however on a social level it is subject to the same laws as other human constructs (you practice your religious beliefs according to societies laws).

Sorry if I misunderstood any of that

Not at all. It sounds as if you understood me perfectly. We're just working from utterly different first principles.

I happen to believe that it is a bad thing for a government to persecute a religious or ethnic group, even if as many in the society believe in it as, say, wanted to burn the heretics in sixteenth-century Spain, or wanted to kill the Jews in twentieth-century Germany. You appear to be denying the validity of universal rules; I view that as, with respect, morally bankrupt.

It's possible, though, that I'm the one misunderstanding you, and you are trying to differentiate between the relationship and the government's recognition of it. In that case, all I can say is that the government does in fact, so far as I am aware, ban animal-human intercourse, not just animal-human marriage.

(To anyone who may think that this position seems odd: It is, and I don't actually agree with it. I'm playing devil's advocate trying to elicit a reasonable justification for the animalism ban. I'm sure there is one, but I've never heard it).

 

[Pyrite]

Once again mobboss, thank you for yr startling insight disguised as humor!

 

[.Shane.]

Because the rest of the world isn't.... India?

The woman who married the dolphin was English! And she married him in Israel! What that means? No idea.

 

[FredLC]

Well, as animals cannot enact consent, I doubt that many western nations will adopt that concept.

Maybe I'm wrong, but can't animals inherit assets in the US? (in Brazil they can't, not even if the owner writes it in a Will.)

Regards .

 

[blackheart]

Maybe I'm wrong, but can't animals inherit assets in the US? (in Brazil they can't, not even if the owner writes it in a Will.)

IIRC, they can. I read somewhere that a millionaire's dog inherited his entire fortune. So then sprung up a company to handle the dog's fortune for it, and to parade around a look-alike, because for "security reasons", no one can ever see the real dog, ever again! Looks like the millionaire dog is going to live to be 100.

 

[malclave]

Looks like the millionaire dog is going to live to be 100.

That's what, 14 or so in "human years"?

Brings up another issue, though... how do you determine at which age individuals of other species have the right to marry, or enter into other contracts?

 

[Pyrite]

"Brings up another issue, though... how do you determine at which age individuals of other species have the right to marry, or enter into other contracts?"

I assume around the age where it is generally assumed members of their species should be able to understand general legal issues. On that point..never.

 

[sysyphus]

Interracial marriages lead to same sex marriages which lead to human-animal marriages. The problem clearly lies with interracial marriages

I say we blame people fo the same race but opposite gender... they're the ones who started this whole marriage thing. Curse them for the fall of humanity!

 

[MobBoss]

Eating is natural, marriage is not.

Now, now, there have been plenty of threads to show how animals can indeed be monogamous and even enjoin in ah, cross species relationships. So, if animals do it, how is it not natural.

 

[blackheart]

Now, now, there have been plenty of threads to show how animals can indeed be monogamous and even enjoin in ah, cross species relationships. So, if animals do it, how is it not natural.

Because apparently when humans do the same thing, it's considered not natural!