The Gay Fray

This and that

True dat. Well, maybe.

• • •​

I anxiously await Wollstovine's Vindication of the Rights of Goats.

And, of course, keep us updated on your effort to talk a hungry lion out of eating the goat. I hear the Baldatearing Safari Park in China is a place where you might have that talk. Maybe if you bribe a couple of the staff, you can have that discourse face to face.

Would you assert, Max, that animals are of equal status to humans, and should thus be afforded a full complement of what we call "human rights"?

Also, then, what of their responsibilities?

Should you shoot a goat for trespassing on your lawn? ("It was him or me. I had no choice!")

Perhaps you make the point as some sort of jest, but it is at its root a valid consideration. Are you willing to discuss those aspects in order to establish the inanity of consent?

It is relatively well-established that juveniles think and make decisions according to different processes than adults. We cannot rationally expect that different processes will necessarily produce similar results. For this reason, juveniles are forbidden certain privileges, as well as spared certain responsibilities. Indeed, this was a central theme in the U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of the Missouri Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons, which struck down the practice of executing juvenile offenders.

Furthermore, civilization has a certain merit in this consideration. Consider what we do not allow children to do—drive a car, go to war, consent to sex, consume alcohol—and ask yourself where in the United States Constitution is such blind equality guaranteed? Indeed, the Preamble to the Constitution reads,

Promiscuous child soldiers driving drunk to the battle front are not indicative of domestic tranquility, suggestive of justice, promotive of the general welfare, or symptomatic of a more perfect union (e.g., society) seeking to secure the blessings of liberty for the present or future. Looking back even to the Anarchists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, one does not find such a forfeiture of the species itself in pursuit of liberty.

We might look at the imperfect result of the American endeavor and ask whether its faults are such that we think it best to plunge ourselves into a libertine chaos akin to what we see in Uganda, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. What say you, Max? Does your sense of liberty demand drugged-up juvenile soldiers raping child war brides (after all, if consent is inane, why not?) in place of our imperfect freedom in contemporary American society?

Well, you can talk to the Jews and Christians, whose heritage has been so influential in the building of our American experience. You can also consider the increased risk of birth defects. And you might also stop to consider the purpose of marriage. Incestuous unions do not fulfill the purpose at the root of what the homophobes refer to as "traditional marriage". Indeed, but for bastardy laws—which, incidentally, are few and far between in the twenty-first century—homosexual marriage does fulfill that purpose:

Incest does not regard the larger group; it does nothing to extend cooperative relations beyond immediate family. As British commentator and radio and television host Mark Steel remarked of Darwin's marriage,

Who dares say Darwin wasn't a genius, eh?

See above. You might as well be saying that there is no difference between circles, squares, and triangles because, after all, they are all shapes. Or, indeed, humans and goats, since they're both mammals.

Whatever degree of humor you intended in that passage is its own consideration. However, you have quite aptly characterized the crux of a deep sociopolitical problem that is not without its relevance here. Many people of a libertarian nature resent the idea that their freedom does not extend to the right to willfully harm other people for no better reason than personal inclination. ("He was walking down the street. It was him or me. I had no choice!")

And that's entirely up to you.
____________________

Notes:

United States Constitution. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, a History: from Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking, 2005.

Mark Steel. "Charles Darwin". The Mark Steel Lectures. British Broadcasting Company. Originally broadcast November 4, 2003.

See Also:

Swan. "China Feeds Live Goats to Lions in Zoo - as Children Watch". NowPublic.com. February 9, 2008. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/china-feeds-live-goats-lions-zoo-children-watch

Kennedy, J. Anthony. "Opinion of the Court". Roper v. Simmons. United States Supreme Court. March 1, 2005. http://supreme.justia.com/us/543/03-633/case.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Geez, Tiassa, isn't it interesting that your post spews forth all those old social rules and viewpoints about incest and beastiality ....even while trying to defend gay rights from exactly those same old social standards and viewpoints? ...LOL!

If you hold to those old standards, Tiassa, then why would you try to overturn one of them concerning gay marriage? Are you confused, Tiassa, or in typing up all those freaking words you lost sight of the main topic? ...LOL!

Have you ever posted a comment here without writing a whole slew of useless words?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Welcome back, Max. What's new? Oh, quite obviously, nothing.

When was the last time you failed to miss the point?

One of the problems with individualist obsession is that calls to tradition issued in that context tend to miss the broader point. That a tradition exists is, in and of itself, insufficient to demonstrate or explain anything. An exploration of the root and purpose of the tradition—that is, consideration of its psychological, sociological, and anthropological dimensions—is what makes a seemingly dead fact of history come alive.

Such as:

It is at least as easy for me to reiterate the point as it is for you to ignore it:

And you might also stop to consider the purpose of marriage. Incestuous unions do not fulfill the purpose at the root of what the homophobes refer to as "traditional marriage". Indeed, but for bastardy laws—which, incidentally, are few and far between in the twenty-first century—homosexual marriage does fulfill that purpose ....

.... Incest does not regard the larger group; it does nothing to extend cooperative relations beyond immediate family.​

For all your LOL-ing, you managed to avoid addressing this point, which is unsurprising especially in light of your questions.

It is not a matter of whether I hold to old standards. You are not alone among bigots in appealing to such notions as incest and bestiality in defense of "traditional" marriage, yet there are problems with both of those appeals. In the case of incest, the irony in the twenty-first century is that homosexual unions actually can fulfill the main sociological and anthropological functions of marriage. Incest does not. However, the homophobes generally don't think about it in those terms; for them, the incest proposition is merely an appeal to aesthetics. Admittedly, the anthropological dimension of marriage is a bit more subtle than consent, but how important, really, is this allegedly sacred institution to its purported defenders if they can't be bothered to seek even a basic understanding of its role in society?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hetero males can't marry other males; gay males can't marry other males. Hetero females can't marry other females; lesbians can't marry other females.

Perfectly equal rights under the law.

Oh, but wait ....gays want to change the law ONLY because of their odd, strange, perverted methods of having sex. How odd, huh?

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.

Baron Max

 

Irrational discrimination

Actually, the laws defining marriage as something between men and women are, to borrow a phrase, "of relatively recent vintage". Additionally, they were instituted specifically to discriminate against homosexuals,

As my earlier comments on comparison between homosexual, incestuous, and bestial marriage suggest, I do not see these recent protections of exclusivity for heterosexual marriage as particularly rational. Considering that your point about incest disregards the longer, societal purpose of marriage, and the broader argument against homosexuality has, for years, regarded consent irrelevant to sexual relations, these "defense of marriage" laws don't even meet the demand for a rational basis.

Would you care to assert a rational basis for gender-based discrimination in marriage laws?
____________________

Notes:

Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. "Equal Protection: An Overview". Cornell.edu. Viewed October 15, 2008. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

 

So even tho' you invoked "socially accepted standards" in your argument against beastiality and incentuous marriages, now you're holding out as if those same "socially accepted standards" are just ol' fashioned bullshit?

You want equality under the law, Tiassa, or do you want to change the law or the "socially accepted standards"?

Hetero males can't marry males; Gay males can't marry males. That's perfectly, precisely eqaul under the law.

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?

By the way, citing someone else's opinion about homosexual marriage is just that ....someone else's opinion. And it's worth about the same as mine!

Baron Max

 

That's right Baron Max needs Fluffy by his side. Don't take no for an answer Baron.

Form your political party with your fellow sheep lovers!

Hmm, well you seem to be on your own. I guess unlike gay rights which involve a significant portion of our society, sheep rights is something no one really cares about.

Damn red herring lovers! Don't be down though. I know your love for Fluffy is true and you know marrying Fluffy is the right thing to do, but marrying your homosexual goat Philbert is just wrong.

 

Self-gratification does not a rational argument make

I am questioning the purpose of socially accepted standards—in this case "tradition"—and comparing the homophobes' appeal against the relevant tradition.

The "precise" equality you describe is still discriminatory. You might as well justify anti-miscegenation laws by saying that since black women can't marry white women and white men can't marry black women, it is precisely equal.

Disqualifying a partner from marriage based solely on his or her sex is discriminatory.

Do you still demand that consent is inane? Can you support that assertion rationally?

Which opinion do you refer to? The borrowed phrase comes from Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade, and, aside from being a phrase both useful and aesthetically pleasing, pertains to the Supreme Court's approach to considering laws in a constitutional context. The excerpt from the Legal Information Institute is an analysis of how the Supreme Court regards the concept of equal protection, and describes the factors that will have bearing on future judicial considerations of gay marriage. The earlier quote from Stephanie Coontz is the assessment of an expert who has researched and considered the history and development of marriage. While you are certainly welcome to disagree with her, it should be pointed out that arbitrary perspectives based solely on your whim and unsupported by any data whatsoever generally doesn't hold up to even mild scrutiny.

While it is enough for you to compare gay sex to rape and homosexual lovers to goats, the lack of any rational support for those assertions leaves them to be regarded as nothing more than your own spiteful denigration of your fellow human beings for no better reason than satisfying your own hatred and bigotry.

On the one hand, I would ask if it really is too much to ask that you come up with something better than the arbitrary. To the other, I would think that, if this issue actually had any significant meaning for you, and you actually had something better to work with, you would have offered it up by now.

Simply reiterating your argument without addressing the counterpoints in a somewhat rational manner is nothing more than the self-gratifying repetition of hatred.

 

Baron, you really need to give up. You are just an angry old bigot, you've said as much yourself. None of your claims have any basis. There is no slippery slope, and there is no comparison between homosexuality and beastiality.

And for the record, your kind are the ones trying to change the laws. You're the ones who want to change the constitution to define marriage, not the other way around.

 

I just noticed we have a surprisingly large number (at least 4x from the studies I've seen before) of bi people compared to the norm.

I've alway been a bit envious of bi, at least in theory. Of course reality often fails to be as cool as theory.

Its too bad the "its just a choice" people are so wrong or I'd have been choosing away and doubling my playing field back in the day when that was needed.

 

JDawg, don't dis the barron's polyamory. His sheep love is pure and he keeps his goat satisfied!

 

Tiassa, I have noticed over and over that people who are desperate to control another's sexuality, like the baron, do so because they want those people, but think they can't have them and so don't want any one else to have them either.

No one I've met who was comfortable with their own sexuality has ever cared what some one else wants to do with another consenting adult.

My mom is a good example. She grew up being taught that sort of thing was wrong back in the 30's and to her dying day never really understand why some one would want to do that, but supported my brother's lesbian friend's choices for forty odd years and never once gave her a hard time about it.

 

Yeah, consent ...I've thought about that some. I'm sure that you think my goat and sheep would probably willingly consent to being killed, cut up and eaten, huh? So from your perspective, being killed without their consent is okay, but caring for them in my airconditioned home, and enjoying sex with them bad? ...and requires their consent?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So if we changed the laws to make homosexuality illegal, you'd abibe by those laws?

And why are you so against incest? If the siblings are of "legal" age, and it's consenting sex, you should be happy for them. Ditto for a mother and her legal-age son. What's the matter, Bells, is the yuk-factor a little much for you?

Because I said it was, that's how!

Baron Max

 

I just got a mental picture of the goat bringing you a nice glass of lemonade and the sheep knitting up a sweater for you from his own backside. All in the comfort of your air conditioned home.

:roflmao:

None the less a valid point. When was the last time an animal signed a consent form to be killed and put on someones barbeque ? So this whole consent to do whatever with them kinda goes out the window.

 

Look noobs.

Goats and sheep are irrelevant to this argument and need to be removed from it for the sake of clarity.

Brotherly/sisterly/fatherly/daughterly/motherly/sonly sexual love vastly increases the probability of deformity, disease and mental illness in offspring. Baron y'all should know that especially in your alleged neck of the woods.....

Homosexual love between two consenting adults, on the other hand, leads to absolutely nothing aside from presumabely two sexually sated people.
Heterosexual love between two consenting adults leads two presumably sexually sated people and potentially one or more offspring.

Sex can and does happen between consenting adults whether or not marriage exists as a legal entity. There is no physical reason why two people of the same or different sex should not be married; or not; or have sex; or not. Sex and marriage between close relatives is at least frowned upon and illegal in many countries because of the dangers to any offspring as mentioned above.


FFS!

 

What if they didn't want to produce any offspring, is it ok then?
Don't say well accidents happen. What if she has her tubes tied and he has a vasectomy.
Then is it ok for blood relatives to have sex with eachother?

 

I don't know why don't you ask a few? I certainly wouldn't want to have sex with my brother but I'm picky that way.

 

I have read many times on this board, ppl say it is not ok because of the possibility of producing some screwed up offspring. So I wonder if that is not an issue it is ok then. :shrug:

Personally I find it completely fucked up.

 

Another good point, but bigots like Baron explain it away by saying that it's a choice made by people with no morals. They say it as if sexuality is an acquired taste...jeez, was that a pun?

I agree, though. Bisexuals get to play on both sides of the fence, and I gotta say I envy them. And if I could choose to double my chances, hells yeah I would. I mean, I got the lack of morality part down...so what's the hold up?