From gay marriage to polygamy?

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
A dog does not understand the concept of being a pet, therefore there is no possible way it can consent to it.

At the moment we have no laws that require a consenting animal to being a pet. So this statement wouldn't apply to the topic at hand.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Here is where you are demonstrating why you are so confused. I'm NOT advocating for bestiality to be legal. I'm making it very plain that lack of consent can not be used as reason to prevent it.

Actually, you're not making it "very plain", you're just failing at your arguments. An animal cannot willfully accept a marriage proposal for various reasons we've already discussed. Simple as that.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
We allow people to enter into all sorts of legal and informal arrangements and relationships regarding animals without the animal's consent. You can not use *consent* as the reason. There are good reasons for it keeping it illegal, but they have nothing to do with consent. Despite me repeatedly stating that I am not endorsing animal marriage... you continue to confuse my refutation of consent as being a valid reason with an endorsement of bestiality.

And all those arrangements and relationships don't require the consent through legal action. Marriage, on the other hand, does require consent legally, thus the "lack of consent" argument is perfectly valid.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
There are duties involved in the execution of upholding a contract. A dog (or infant, or table), can not be expected to fulfill the duties. That is the reason it is illegal to enter into a marriage (or any other) type of direct contract with an animal, child, or inanimate object. If a dog, gorilla, or whatever ever did develop the ability to execute their duties as well as a low IQ human who is also allowed to enter into those contracts... then the discussion would have to be re-opened up again.

You are absolutely correct! (no sarcasm, you really are correct). Except the whole consent things still exists.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
I'm pointing out that people say it's because they can't consent... but that doesn't hold up to scrutiny because we allow people to force animals into all sorts of arrangements and behaviors with them they never consent to. Consent is not the reason and to use it as such is to demonstrate a blind spot that *could* be exploited if the subject isn't thought through fully.

Yup, we sure don't give a lot of rights to animals (and if there was a vote, I'd sure vote to give more rights to them. Again, however, there is still a matter of marriage requiring consent. Thus the consent issue still exists, among other issues.

I don't think there is anyone here that solely states consent is the only issue at hand.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Fair enough. And that's what I'm trying to demonstrate. That due to the current supreme court ruling... we now have a condition where based on the same reasoning... there is currently age discrimination between states. The supreme court ruling has basically made it a certainty that the entire subject of Age of Consent, not just for sexual behavior but also for marriage, is a problem between states in the same way that different states recognized gay marriage differently.

I'm not supporting child marriage... I'm saying that the way the decision was made by the Supreme Court has now made it necessary (in order to be consistent) to determine the definition of "child marriage" precisely.

It is not true that no 17 year old can consent... what is true is that you believe they shouldn't be allowed to. That's what this ruling opened up, is we now have an age discrimination issue regarding marriage that will eventually be tested.

I am fully aware that many 17 year olds can - in a solid state of mind - make decisions involving sex and marital status. The question is if the majority can, and if they majority cannot, should we enforce a law that would otherwise assist the majority?

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
And to beat this horse again... what about homosexual incest or sterile incest? Are you ok with those?

Yup! I fully embrace the concept that homosexual incest and sterile incest is 100% acceptable from a legal standpoint. Unfortunately for those that do wish to commit to an incestual relationship, the majority of those people are heterosexuals, and I have my doubts many of them would want to go through with something such as chemical castration.

As stated above, it wouldn't be allowed, and that is simply to protect the majority. (among other reasons of course)

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
At no point have I suggested they should be. I've been challenging the assumptions to demonstrate the weaknesses in the current ruling as it stands... as well as demonstrating that some of the reasons people say certain things are illegal aren't actually true.

I wasn't suggesting you were claiming that they should be, in that sentence.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Kinda depends on the context and nature of the action, doesn't it? No different than the spectrum across self defense, manslaughter, and murder. Not all violence is the same by their nature, not all meals are the same by their nature.

Is this really a point you are willing to go on about? I mean seriously? The vast majority (likely in the 95%+) of death involving an animal eating another animal is due to it being a food source.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Murder is illegal... why is it allowed on animals?

It isn't allowed.... If you physically abuse an animal to the point of death, that is an illegal action. If you eat an animal for food, that is not an illegal action (unless the animal was inflicted unnecessary harm), because animals are a source of food, and eating to survive is not murder.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Slavery is illegal... why is it allowed on animals?

Because our current system doesn't view animals as equals to humans (wrongfully so). Furthermore, most people don't view the keeping of animals as pets (or otherwise) as a form of slavery, hence society itself hasn't done much about it. Lastly, if the animal is being kept in poor conditions or abused at all, again, that WOULD be illegal.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Sexual assault is a crime... why is it allowed on animals?

When is sexual assault allowed on animals? To commit bestiality IS illegal almost everywhere in the world.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Yes, there's a new topic about it

a reply to: Ghost147

Thanks. I saw this thread, did quick news search, and found that story. I'll head on over to the other thread now.

Again apologies to all.

a reply to: Krakatoa

No problem at all. I don't like the search function on ATS, it's not very precise

originally posted by: Ghost147
Actually, you're not making it "very plain", you're just failing at your arguments. An animal cannot willfully accept a marriage proposal for various reasons we've already discussed. Simple as that.

An animal cannot willfully accept a job offer either. However animals do have jobs they are forced to do including benefits they receive only so long as they are doing said job.

Consent is not the factor.

originally posted by: Ghost147
You are absolutely correct! (no sarcasm, you really are correct). Except the whole consent things still exists.

Except it's not the factor because we do enter them into contracts that carry benefits and consequences depending on how well they perform according to the agreement.

Film animals, drug detection, guard duty, sport, etc.

It has nothing to do with consent, and everything to do with the type of duty expected and whether they are capable of performing it or not. They are incapable of fulfilling the obligations of being a part of the financial unit and decision making unit. However other agreements can be made on their behalf where they are expected to perform according to the agreement.

originally posted by: Ghost147
I don't think there is anyone here that solely states consent is the only issue at hand.

Perhaps. What I'm emphasizing is that from a legal perspective the consent of the animal is not a factor and can not be used as one. Otherwise animals would not be able to be named parties in other contracts and agreements. Their consent is no more a factor than a table's when being purchased.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Yup! I fully embrace the concept that homosexual incest and sterile incest is 100% acceptable from a legal standpoint.

Fair enough. This is one of those ones that will create a divide in the gay marriage movement that has been relatively solid up till now.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Unfortunately for those that do wish to commit to an incestual relationship, the majority of those people are heterosexuals, and I have my doubts many of them would want to go through with something such as chemical castration.

Doesn't matter how many, if the ruling is going to be about equality it should actually be so.

originally posted by: Ghost147
...eating to survive is not murder.

We don't eat to survive currently. We eat for pleasure.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Sexual assault is a crime... why is it allowed on animals?

originally posted by: Ghost147
When is sexual assault allowed on animals? To commit bestiality IS illegal almost everywhere in the world.

Forced breeding.

My point behind those pedantic comments has nothing to do with whether you support them or not. It's just a flogging of the fact that we don't take consent into account regarding what we choose to allow animals to participate in or not and at this point I think we both understand where each other is coming from.

It's why I consider the precise word choices to be important when discussing whether the supreme court ruling affects all these *other* factors and exactly how. Because now that the door is this wide open... it's a lot easier for lawyers to find clever ways of phrasing things to make something that was previously obviously not possible now look legal. Needing the consent of the animal or not being a factor is one of those precise concepts that matters when comparing against precedence and other activities which are taken for granted.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Except it's not the factor because we do enter them into contracts that carry benefits and consequences depending on they perform according to the agreement.

Film animals, drug detection, guard duty, sport, etc.

It has nothing to do with consent, and everything to do with the type of duty expected and whether they are capable of performing it or not. They are incapable of fulfilling the obligations of being a part of the financial unit and decision making unit. However other agreements can be made on their behalf where they are expected to perform according to the agreement.

Correct again, Because humans in general don't view animals as equals, there for they have no equal rights. Now, can you please tell me, can an animal consciously consent to a relationship and marriage? No? Then I guess consent is still a factor.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Perhaps. What I'm emphasizing is that from a legal perspective the consent of the animal is not a factor and can not be used as one. Otherwise animals would not be able to be named parties in other contracts and agreements. Their consent is no more a factor than a table's when being purchased.

Again, the rights for humans and animals are entirely different. Can an animal consciously consent to a relationship and marriage? No? Then I guess consent is still a factor.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Yup! I fully embrace the concept that homosexual incest and sterile incest is 100% acceptable from a legal standpoint.

Fair enough. This is one of those ones that will create a divide in the gay marriage movement that has been relatively solid up till now.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Unfortunately for those that do wish to commit to an incestual relationship, the majority of those people are heterosexuals, and I have my doubts many of them would want to go through with something such as chemical castration.

Doesn't matter how many, if the ruling is going to be about equality it should actually be so.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
We don't eat to survive currently. We eat for pleasure.

Yes, we eat to survive. We just additionally eat for pleasure. Pleasure is not the sole component in how and why we eat, generally.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Forced breeding.

Ah I see. In which cas?e, do i really need to say again that humans don't view animals as equals, thus there rights are stripped because of it

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
My point behind those pedantic comments has nothing to do with whether you support them or not. It's just a flogging of the fact that we don't take consent into account regarding what we choose to allow animals to participate in or not and at this point I think we both understand where each other is coming from.

It's why I consider the precise word choices to be important when discussing whether the supreme court ruling affects all these *other* factors and exactly how. Because now that the door is this wide open... it's a lot easier for lawyers to find clever ways of phrasing things to make something that was previously obviously not possible now look legal. The consent of the animal or not being a factor is one of those precise concepts that matters when comparing against precedence and other activities which are taken for granted.

And that's perfectly fine. Nevertheless, it still is, and always will be a factor in the issue.

One more loop around.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Now, can you please tell me, can an animal consciously consent to a relationship and marriage? No? Then I guess consent is still a factor.

Can you please tell me, can an animal consciously consent to being a guard dog? No? Then I guess consent is not a factor.

People have to consent to become a security guard.
Dogs do not have to consent.

People have to consent to get married.
Dogs can not consent.

That doesn't hold up. It's a mismatch and leaves the door open to convince a judge that since a dog can be forced into a relationship with a person to play the role of a guard dog where it might get killed... there is no reason besides personal preference as to whether it has to consent to play the role of partner. To someone in a decision to decide if consent is a factor they might view the forced risk of injury and death as the larger moral outrage... and we have an overwhelming precedence of not requiring consent for that.

It's why it's a net negative as a concept on the legal front. I understand from a personal and humane front it carries weight.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea

Can you please tell me, can an animal consciously consent to being a guard dog? No? Then I guess consent is not a factor.

People have to consent to become a security guard.
Dogs do not have to consent.

People have to consent to get married.
Dogs can not consent.

Again, just a statement on how humans and laws are both extremely screwed up in regards to animal rights.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
That doesn't hold up. It's a mismatch and leaves the door open to convince a judge that since a dog can be forced into a relationship with a person to play the role of a guard dog where it might get killed... there is no reason besides personal preference as to whether it has to consent to play the role of partner. To someone in a decision to decide if consent is a factor they might view the forced risk of injury and death as the larger moral outrage... and we have an overwhelming precedence of not requiring consent for that.

It's why it's a net negative as a concept on the legal front. I understand from a personal and humane front it carries weight.

It would make an interesting case. Although i'm not sure who would dare touch it. I still cannot see how it could not be argued in the case of humans views on animal rights. On one hand, sure, a guard dog might get killed, on the other hand, it is likely well treated and probably wont ever need to actually act on their gaurd dog duties, for instance.

Furthermore, a dogs natural instinct is to be part of the pack, and as a pet, the pack is the family it's with. in a very obscure way, it does consent to a degree.

A dog, however, is not placed in an interspecies relationship in nature, where rights are given to it once it marries, and surely isn't aware of those concepts.

The point is, we can go on forever about all the details because humans suck, and law sucks.

a reply to: Ghost147
/salute and danke for the chat!

a reply to: BinaryGreyArea

Yes, thank you as well And so ends another ATS Debate without a closed topic or total slandering nonsense

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, that rebellious future generation might decide to marry and read the Bible.

Getting married and reading the bible aren't a connected thing. It IS possible that people become more religious in the future though.

One thing that is being left out is something that is already happening ,children being raised without fathers in the home, mothers with children from multiple relationships.

And? This has happened since time immemorial. It's nothing new. I imagine that all the fatherless children growing up after WW1 and WW2 got by just fine. What was their generation called? Oh yeah the GREATEST one.

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: Krazysh0t

My reason for rejecting polygamist marriage is purely a philosophical one. Basically, when two people get married (opposite or same sex) each is dedicating themselves 100% to the other. It is equitable. But in Polygamy marriage, let's say in the case of Sister Wives, you have 1 man married to 4 women. He gives only 25% to each of his wives, but the wives give 100% of themselves to him. That is inequitable.

First, if the relationship works and everyone is happy, who is to say it is wrong. Second, you are defining polygamy like it is defined in the Morman religion. Expand your horizons. A polygamist marriage doesn't just HAVE to be one guy and a bunch of sister-wives. It can be multiple men and multiple women, one woman and multiple men, all men, or all women.

There will probably come a day when my opinion is unpopular and of the dying breed but I'm not going to take offense to it. That is duty of each generation.

I don't know, I don't think your opinion is TOO far fetched; I just think it is defined from a narrow scope of what polygamy is. Like I said, broaden your definition.

a reply to: grandmakdw

The point isn't to get revenge. The point is SUPPOSED to be about letting whatever relationships people find love in prosper and thrive.

Polygamy is the very essence of traditional, biblical marriage.

Should be freely available as a result of Hobby Lobby et. al. because religious faith trumps all human laws.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Some of Robert Heinlein's books have perfectly reasonable versions of what group marriages would be like, particularly, Stranger in a Strange Land, which arguably is one of the scriptures of the 60's counter culture.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yea, like I said, there are many ways that polygamist marriages could work. The problem is that most people's perceptions of "mainstream" polygamy has been soured by Mormans abusing it so that creepy old men can marry as many young women as possible (and depending on the sect of Mormanism, could be against their will too).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, but you're always plain when you talk about marriage ... between consenting adults.

Conversely, "they" always use the pedophile argument against marriage equality ... "they" seem to think about the subject a lot (along with bestiality and necrophilia, of course).

a reply to: Gryphon66

That is what I like to call a red herring argument. Though if you think about it, if your go to argument against an idea is some sort of popular logical fallacy (and you know of no arguments against that idea that AREN'T fallacies), you are probably on the wrong side of the argument.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

As far as I know, in legitimate Mormon belief (not unsanctioned FLDS), the woman can reject the man, but the man can not reject the woman.

The church elders would assign a man to a woman/widow so that no child is fatherless, and no woman is without a head of household. This was before Womens Rights.

Using Warren Jeffs as an example of being Mormon is ignorance.

a reply to: Annee

I found this to be an interesting account of how polygamy works in the Morman religion:
5 Things I Learned as a Mormon Polygamist Wife

Some of the things you are saying are validated, but it should be noted that even if women have the option to reject their spouse, they likely don't know any better since they are usually in the tail end of their teens when they are paired up (is paired the right word?) with their spouse.