Notes Around
Operant conditioning does not make for proper consent. It represents a different process in the brain than a conscious decision.
Because you are not society, and society is not you. The only connection between certain sexual practices in this argument is you. If you were Dictator of the World, then yes, what you say would be what we all say, but it ain't so, Max.
Regarding incest, it is a bit more complicated an issue than refuting bestiality. As homophobic traditionalists appeal to the historic role of marriage, what they are actually referring to is a twentieth-century transformation of the institution that similarly chagrined conservatives of that era. Documented birth defects are, indeed, lower than the argument against the practice would suggest. However, biologically, incestuous breeding weakens a species by constricting diversity. Additionally, in the context of the traditionalist appeal to the historic role of marriage, incest actually defies that value as Stephanie Coontz observed in her examination of the evolution of the marital institution.
And, certainly, you can disagree with Coontz. However, if you're going to dispute the outcome of a rational examination of history, it would be far more effective to use a rational argument than simply to demand that something is because you say so.
Furthermore, incest transforms the notion of what constitutes a healthy relationship. In a society such as ours, this transformation is, indeed, unhealthy. While a part of that psychological detriment is the result of broader social attitudes that generally constitute a form of prejudice, the transformation of social mores and purpose in normalizing incest is dramatically different and greater than that demanded by tolerance of homosexuality. That is, human psychological needs include a concept of refuge; we are conditioned by our social evolution to value certain realms in which we are not burdened by diverse questions and pressures. Without drastically redefining the psychological, anthropological, and sociological values identified in human relationships according to contemporary norms—in effect, without constructing an entirely new basis for social relationships to supplant the present paradigm—incest is psychologically harmful because, especially in parent-child relations, it is inherently exploitative. Siblings naturally develop between them some manner of authority relationship, and this, too, can easily be exploited in order to foster sexual consent. While incest among less-immediate relatives, such as cousins, may or may not feature such explicitly exploitable dynamics, it still presents certain challenges as relates the evolution of the institution. An analogy might be tying shoelaces. When we tie our shoes, we bind two ends of the lace in a manner that helps hold the shoe in place. An incestuous marriage, analogously, would be the equivalent of tying a knot in one end of the shoelace, and never actually tying the shoes.
There are, of course, arguable theses to be found or written about the validity of restrictions against tying a knot in one end of a shoelace, as such, but the simple fact that you might say so is not among them.
There are fundamental differences between homosexuality and bestiality. Chief among these are considerations of species and consent.
Your comparison of people to animals is inherent in the argument:
How, exactly, would a goat or sheep say, "I do"?
Explore this with me, then. First, would it be unfair to isolate, as a thesis, that, "If a human being is allowed to marry another human being of the same sex, then a human being should be allowed to marry an animal"?
That seems to be the underlying point, and the mere connection that "Max finds these practices perverse" is far too general to be of any real use. There are plenty of things in this world that I find perverse, ethically self-contradicting, psychologically corrupting, and otherwise unhealthy. But they go on. And one of the reasons they're able to go on is that the law allows it.
The core argument surrounding homosexual marriage is that, technically, the law allows it. If homophobes and traditionalists did not recognize this, they would not be scrambling to create laws defining marriage. Those few places that, before Lawrence v. Texas, had marriage definitions on the books will not find their standards constitutional because in no case were the laws created specifically in consideration of marriage; rather, they were laws written deliberately to exclude certain people from societal benefit. Yet, you refuse consideration of judicial history regarding equal protection—the het-marriage laws place specific barriers to marriage on the basis of the sex of the participants—and dismiss as useless academic considerations of the history of marriage; e.g., the purpose and function of marriage within a society.
Generally, it seems like you just like comparing homosexuals to farm animals because it makes you feel better in some way about yourself.
Like you said, Max: same discussion, different title.
If, then. Now, how, exactly, does the animal consent to sex and marriage? Operant conditioning, in and of itself, does not make for proper consent. If your goat, upon seeing your exposed, erect penis, turns around and presents itself, this is not the same decision-making process that takes place when two human beings decide to have sexual intercourse. That it is trained by stimulus and response to behave in a certain way does not mean it has given any sort of informed consent.
Sex without proper consent is rape. Sex with an animal is bestiality. Lacking proper consent, it becomes bestial rape.
Thus: If homosexuals are allowed to have sex/marry, then bestial rape should receive equal status in society.
So don't sit there and try to lie to us, Max.
Cock-sucking wives and pussy-licking husbands were covered in Lawrence v. Garner.
To the other, that you find oral sex weird and abnormal is ... well, it's interesting. Much about you can be explained by that point in itself.
Any sex without consent is rape, Max.
The argument about killing and butchering animals is based in separate principles, and is thus not a valid comparison. Needless to say, a goat is not capable of giving proper consent. Whether you choose to rape the goat or not is up to you, Max.
You seem to have a very low view of our Supreme Court justices. Think for a moment of Souter and Thomas. Especially in Souter's case, some conservatives haven't gotten what they seem to have expected. Likewise, Justice Kennedy, Reagan appointee. Indeed, the Roberts court has repeatedly rebuked President Bush on a number of matters in which many conservatives expected judicial sympathy.
Any Supreme Court worthy of the name will stand behind equal protection. Sure, there's Scalia, but he's only one ninth of the Court, and more wrapped up in his own egotism than actually politicking from the bench.
There's also a matter of trial and error; finding the argument that carries all the way to the Supreme Court is not like getting a traffic ticket dropped.
The Court is very cautious about saying, "You are not allowed to do this because you are the wrong sex". Furthermore, given Roper v. Simmons as an example (although not direct precedent), the latest scientific consensus—e.g., the thought processes of juvenile brains—played a tremendous role in overturning the death penalty for minors. (Scalia's dissent is a testament to his egotism, and is worth a read sometime.) The argument for inherent homosexuality is probably not quite as complete, but it is certainly persuasive. Even Roberts and Alito will have a difficult time, were they so inclined, saying that because of deeply-ingrained Judeo-Christian scriptural biases, society should make an exception this one time in granting equal protection to natural characteristics of no harmful consequence to anyone else.
You seem to think the justices on the Court are incapable of reaching such a conclusion. I would disagree. Hell, even Scalia is capable of surprising me from time to time.
To the other, if the California Supreme Court overturns the initiative on the grounds One Raven noted, it is doubtful that the USSC would agree to hear the appeal.
Mr. Hamtastic said:
Operant conditioning does not make for proper consent. It represents a different process in the brain than a conscious decision.
• • •
Baron Max said:
Because you are not society, and society is not you. The only connection between certain sexual practices in this argument is you. If you were Dictator of the World, then yes, what you say would be what we all say, but it ain't so, Max.
Regarding incest, it is a bit more complicated an issue than refuting bestiality. As homophobic traditionalists appeal to the historic role of marriage, what they are actually referring to is a twentieth-century transformation of the institution that similarly chagrined conservatives of that era. Documented birth defects are, indeed, lower than the argument against the practice would suggest. However, biologically, incestuous breeding weakens a species by constricting diversity. Additionally, in the context of the traditionalist appeal to the historic role of marriage, incest actually defies that value as Stephanie Coontz observed in her examination of the evolution of the marital institution.
And, certainly, you can disagree with Coontz. However, if you're going to dispute the outcome of a rational examination of history, it would be far more effective to use a rational argument than simply to demand that something is because you say so.
Furthermore, incest transforms the notion of what constitutes a healthy relationship. In a society such as ours, this transformation is, indeed, unhealthy. While a part of that psychological detriment is the result of broader social attitudes that generally constitute a form of prejudice, the transformation of social mores and purpose in normalizing incest is dramatically different and greater than that demanded by tolerance of homosexuality. That is, human psychological needs include a concept of refuge; we are conditioned by our social evolution to value certain realms in which we are not burdened by diverse questions and pressures. Without drastically redefining the psychological, anthropological, and sociological values identified in human relationships according to contemporary norms—in effect, without constructing an entirely new basis for social relationships to supplant the present paradigm—incest is psychologically harmful because, especially in parent-child relations, it is inherently exploitative. Siblings naturally develop between them some manner of authority relationship, and this, too, can easily be exploited in order to foster sexual consent. While incest among less-immediate relatives, such as cousins, may or may not feature such explicitly exploitable dynamics, it still presents certain challenges as relates the evolution of the institution. An analogy might be tying shoelaces. When we tie our shoes, we bind two ends of the lace in a manner that helps hold the shoe in place. An incestuous marriage, analogously, would be the equivalent of tying a knot in one end of the shoelace, and never actually tying the shoes.
There are, of course, arguable theses to be found or written about the validity of restrictions against tying a knot in one end of a shoelace, as such, but the simple fact that you might say so is not among them.
There are fundamental differences between homosexuality and bestiality. Chief among these are considerations of species and consent.
Your comparison of people to animals is inherent in the argument:
For what its worth I'm straight as a board in terms of my personal choices, but cannot express strongly enough that some people should not be premitted to do certain things in life. Gays and lesbians simply shouldn't be permitted to marry another of the same sex. In exactly the same way sisters can't marry brothers or fathers; in the same way that mothers can't marry their sons; in the same way that underage girls can't marry older men; etc. Some things just should be illegal, plain and simple.
I'm not permitted to marry my goats and sheep, but you don't see us goat and sheep lovers out parading around town demanding equal rights to marry those sheep and goats, do you?
(#2044239/268)
I'm not permitted to marry my goats and sheep, but you don't see us goat and sheep lovers out parading around town demanding equal rights to marry those sheep and goats, do you?
(#2044239/268)
How, exactly, would a goat or sheep say, "I do"?
Y'all won't let me marry my goat and two sheep, so I'm going to work to prevent gays the right to marry other gays. If y'all will support changing the law so I can marry my goat and sheep, then I might, maybe, will support changing the law for y'all.
(#2044997/278)
(#2044997/278)
Explore this with me, then. First, would it be unfair to isolate, as a thesis, that, "If a human being is allowed to marry another human being of the same sex, then a human being should be allowed to marry an animal"?
That seems to be the underlying point, and the mere connection that "Max finds these practices perverse" is far too general to be of any real use. There are plenty of things in this world that I find perverse, ethically self-contradicting, psychologically corrupting, and otherwise unhealthy. But they go on. And one of the reasons they're able to go on is that the law allows it.
The core argument surrounding homosexual marriage is that, technically, the law allows it. If homophobes and traditionalists did not recognize this, they would not be scrambling to create laws defining marriage. Those few places that, before Lawrence v. Texas, had marriage definitions on the books will not find their standards constitutional because in no case were the laws created specifically in consideration of marriage; rather, they were laws written deliberately to exclude certain people from societal benefit. Yet, you refuse consideration of judicial history regarding equal protection—the het-marriage laws place specific barriers to marriage on the basis of the sex of the participants—and dismiss as useless academic considerations of the history of marriage; e.g., the purpose and function of marriage within a society.
Generally, it seems like you just like comparing homosexuals to farm animals because it makes you feel better in some way about yourself.
• I mean the damned courthouse won't give me a marriage license to marry my goat and two sheep. You're pissed off 'cause you can't marry some guy, why can't I be pissed off that I can't marry my goat and two sheep? You're discriminating against me!!
(#2045431/281)
• Why won't you support my right to marry my goat and sheep? If you want me to support the right of gays to marry other males, then you should want to support my right to marry my goat and sheep. Or are you wanting to discriminate against me, yet demand special rights for gays? (#2046331/295)
• So, .....if you can change laws to suit your own special, odd, strange, perverted sex practices, then the law should also change to permit my own special, odd, strange, perverted sex practices. Huh? Huh??? Huh?? (#2046848/298)
• And yet those same gays are actually arguing against my rights to marry my goat and sheep because they don't happen to like my method of having sex. Hmm, damned odd, ain't it. And sorta' hippo-critic, too. (#2049634/304)
• You want the right to have your own perverted sexual habits sanctioned by society, yet you refuse to allow me the right to have my perverted sexual habits sanction by society. Hippo-critters, huh? (#2050145/306)
(#2045431/281)
• Why won't you support my right to marry my goat and sheep? If you want me to support the right of gays to marry other males, then you should want to support my right to marry my goat and sheep. Or are you wanting to discriminate against me, yet demand special rights for gays? (#2046331/295)
• So, .....if you can change laws to suit your own special, odd, strange, perverted sex practices, then the law should also change to permit my own special, odd, strange, perverted sex practices. Huh? Huh??? Huh?? (#2046848/298)
• And yet those same gays are actually arguing against my rights to marry my goat and sheep because they don't happen to like my method of having sex. Hmm, damned odd, ain't it. And sorta' hippo-critic, too. (#2049634/304)
• You want the right to have your own perverted sexual habits sanctioned by society, yet you refuse to allow me the right to have my perverted sexual habits sanction by society. Hippo-critters, huh? (#2050145/306)
Like you said, Max: same discussion, different title.
If, then. Now, how, exactly, does the animal consent to sex and marriage? Operant conditioning, in and of itself, does not make for proper consent. If your goat, upon seeing your exposed, erect penis, turns around and presents itself, this is not the same decision-making process that takes place when two human beings decide to have sexual intercourse. That it is trained by stimulus and response to behave in a certain way does not mean it has given any sort of informed consent.
Sex without proper consent is rape. Sex with an animal is bestiality. Lacking proper consent, it becomes bestial rape.
Thus: If homosexuals are allowed to have sex/marry, then bestial rape should receive equal status in society.
So don't sit there and try to lie to us, Max.
Cock-sucking wives and pussy-licking husbands were covered in Lawrence v. Garner.
To the other, that you find oral sex weird and abnormal is ... well, it's interesting. Much about you can be explained by that point in itself.
Any sex without consent is rape, Max.
The argument about killing and butchering animals is based in separate principles, and is thus not a valid comparison. Needless to say, a goat is not capable of giving proper consent. Whether you choose to rape the goat or not is up to you, Max.
• • •
Madanthonywayne said:
You seem to have a very low view of our Supreme Court justices. Think for a moment of Souter and Thomas. Especially in Souter's case, some conservatives haven't gotten what they seem to have expected. Likewise, Justice Kennedy, Reagan appointee. Indeed, the Roberts court has repeatedly rebuked President Bush on a number of matters in which many conservatives expected judicial sympathy.
Any Supreme Court worthy of the name will stand behind equal protection. Sure, there's Scalia, but he's only one ninth of the Court, and more wrapped up in his own egotism than actually politicking from the bench.
There's also a matter of trial and error; finding the argument that carries all the way to the Supreme Court is not like getting a traffic ticket dropped.
The Court is very cautious about saying, "You are not allowed to do this because you are the wrong sex". Furthermore, given Roper v. Simmons as an example (although not direct precedent), the latest scientific consensus—e.g., the thought processes of juvenile brains—played a tremendous role in overturning the death penalty for minors. (Scalia's dissent is a testament to his egotism, and is worth a read sometime.) The argument for inherent homosexuality is probably not quite as complete, but it is certainly persuasive. Even Roberts and Alito will have a difficult time, were they so inclined, saying that because of deeply-ingrained Judeo-Christian scriptural biases, society should make an exception this one time in granting equal protection to natural characteristics of no harmful consequence to anyone else.
You seem to think the justices on the Court are incapable of reaching such a conclusion. I would disagree. Hell, even Scalia is capable of surprising me from time to time.
To the other, if the California Supreme Court overturns the initiative on the grounds One Raven noted, it is doubtful that the USSC would agree to hear the appeal.
Last edited:
)
