Three Men Marry (each other) in Colombia

[Arthur Brain]

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:

How did you force these animals into having sex?

Otherwise, you should have really learned your lesson by now and quit with the obsessiveness.

:AMR:

 

[ok doser]

How did you force these animals into having sex?

I don't believe I mentioned anything about "force" :idunno:

the owner of the male drove him over from a couple of towns away, we shut them in the fenced in run for a an hour or so and finally, when we realized he was never gonna figure it out on his own, we helped guide him

A minor inconvenience compared to what my SIL goes through wrt artificial insemination and her dairy herd.

Let's just say she "procures" the semen from the bull and dons a shoulder length glove to fertilize the cow


And in all of those "operations", nary a single governed consent :chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't believe I mentioned anything about "force" :idunno:

the owner of the male drove him over from a couple of towns away, we shut them in the fenced in run for a an hour or so and finally, when we realized he was never gonna figure it out on his own, we helped guide him

A minor inconvenience compared to what my SIL goes through wrt artificial insemination and her dairy herd.

Let's just say she "procures" the semen from the bull and dons a shoulder length glove to fertilize the cow


And in all of those "operations", nary a single governed consent :chuckle:

You "helped guide him". Ok, don't really want to know any more as to what you and whoever did to be honest. Well aware of artificial insemination too and there's guidelines as to how that should be carried out as well as how livestock are to be treat in general.

 

[ok doser]

... there's guidelines as to how that should be carried out....

And do they include getting consent?

 

[Arthur Brain]

And do they include getting consent?

No, although I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the laws regarding the ethical treatment of animals including those to be culled or inseminated, so go play elsewhere and I hope whatever 'guidance' you and your mate did in regards to 'encouraging' those dogs to breed didn't contravene them.

 

[ok doser]

And do they include getting consent?

No ....

Well how about that

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well how about that

How about what? The whole "consent" angle has been covered along with the laws that protect animals from cruelty and abuse, so either address that, or go do your usual and end up flaming out again. Your act is beyond tiresome now...

 

[ok doser]

How about what?

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.

Do try to keep up

 

[Arthur Brain]

yep well, no.

Do try to keep up

Same to you. Addressed all over.

Bored now.

:yawn:

 

[ok doser]

Addressed all over.

Well, no


I gave two examples (breeding chocolate labs and dairy cows) in which consent does not govern

Where sex is concerned consent governs in every operation.

But perhaps you have a different definition of "every" :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

AB, it's a waste of time. He understands the context. He's just trolling. No point in throwing any more good effort after it.

 

[ok doser]

So apparently "every" means "in a narrow context"

See how easy that could have been? :idunno:

 

[Arthur Brain]

AB, it's a waste of time. He understands the context. He's just trolling. No point in throwing any more good effort after it.

Or any effort at all in fact...

:cheers:

 

[glassjester]

I gave two examples (breeding chocolate labs and dairy cows) in which consent does not govern

But perhaps you have a different definition of "every" :idunno:

Where's the error, here? I'm not seeing it. (Arthur? Town Heretic?)


The other thing worth pointing out is that, even if the male might not have been "forced" to breed - it is almost certain that in many cases (of humans breeding animals) the female was forced.

 

[Town Heretic]

Where's the error, here? I'm not seeing it. (Arthur? Town Heretic?)

If you want to go back to my last response or raise something, I'm game. I've answered on the point and it's just not worth any more.

The other thing worth pointing out is that, even if the male might not have been "forced" to breed - it is almost certain that in many cases (of humans breeding animals) the female was forced.

Has literally nothing to do with the point. It's a trollish side bar. If you can connect it to something substantive I'm interested. If you have anything in response to my last, I'm interested.

 

[jgarden]

Three Men Marry (each other) in Colombia

Does anything that 3 men do in Columbia justify 235 posts!

 

[glassjester]

Three Men Marry (each other) in Colombia

Does anything that 3 men do in Columbia justify 235 posts!

Did it justify the 236th post?

 

[glassjester]

Has literally nothing to do with the point. It's a trollish side bar.

If we define "trolling" as any data point that doesn't confirm your preferred theory...


You said the law requires consent for every instance of sex. But it doesn't. Not when animals are involved. Animals can legally be forced by humans to have sex. The prohibition of bestiality cannot be due to a lack of animal "consent," without prohibiting forced breeding as well.

I believe in my own state bestiality was not, in itself, illegal - as long as the animal was not physically injured - until 2015! And that was because some guy was arrested for having sex with a cow, but was acquitted when, under the then-current animal cruelty law, he could not be shown to have broken any law.

Several other states, I believe, don't outright ban bestiality. Should they?

 

[Town Heretic]

If we define "trolling" as any data point that doesn't confirm your preferred theory...

Which is why I routinely and civilly answered every post you made on the point until you discontinued the conversation?

Stop it.

You said the law requires consent for every instance of sex.

Sorry, but you're just parroting a point you had days to raise and didn't, because when you would have raised it you knew (as I did) that we were talking about bestiality and not whether a wolf could be charged with statutory rape. That's why it's a trollish point. It doesn't address or advance anything. It's just noise.

Several other states, I believe, don't outright ban bestiality. Should they?

So you're saying that outlawing homosexual marriage was an oversight but there's calculation here? Better still, try connecting this back to the issue and topic.

Maybe, instead of committing to this bit of circle our own no matter what they are, you could put some elbow grease into the last two answering posts you left on the vine, aka:

First:

Spoiler

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.

And two:

Spoiler

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]

.... you knew (as I did) that we were talking about bestiality....

...and your contention that the illegality of beastiality was dependent on the animal's inability to give consent


Do try to keep up