If We Are What We Sexually Desire, How About These Curious People?

You may not get a lot of comments (I’m late, I know—overslept! 🙂 )

Bottom line, we always arrive at people saying anything “they”approve of is okay and everything else is not. A tangle web of loose excuses are presented for why what “they” want is okay is presented —no consent, it’s not natural, harms no one—all which are easily countered and the discussions goes downhill from there.

The reality is once you drop the male/female only designation (for the moment, we’ll not argue about the age thereof), there is no possible way to exclude any sexual behaviour as other than “natural” and “born with it”. None. Then if you decide some acts should be illegal because “we don’t like them”, everything to the right of the male/female line becomes a matter of same-sex, polygamy, “woofies”, necrophilia is defined by the speaker. This means the beloved homosexuality gets challenged, so we cannot go there. There is no rational discourse of acceptance of the reality of sexuality. Much like global warming, this is all politics.

Another frightening idea: From some of the forums I have seen, people honestly think the dog or the duck or the cat is their child. Pet food companies advertise that way. How long before the dog, cat, duck, chicken, whatever, legally becomes a child? You can already get health insurance on your pets. How long before life insurance, tax credit, etc appear. Don’t laugh. Unless a miracle occurs and someone stops the insanity, it will come.

Briggs

I knew you were not speaking out of your hat.

I knew this post was not a parody of the Synod post from last week.

It’s just too painful to try to consider commenting on.

Sheri did a bang up job – I’ll just ditto

Well maybe I’ll add: Obama Care for the critters?

This is nothing new. There is this saying in Holland about a farmer and a female pig. And almost all of them are still happily married.

That gender theory is a load of rubbish, BTW. If people were their desires, nobody would ever need to buy a car, for instance.

Mmmm. That post is not quite specific enough. Dutch farmers are still marrying women, in case people are wondering. Except the women farmers, they are marrying men.

My memory goes back around 35 years, or so… I was working as a security guard to go to school.

Just about every security guard is either putting themselves through school or they are wanna be cops.

One of my supervisors was on his way to be a cop in Houston. He took a lie detector test and one of the questions was on beastiality (we think he would have flunked out with a yes – who knows today).

Sheri, “Unless a miracle occurs and someone stops the insanity, it will come.” I am not following you at all. You don’t think that valuable animals should be insured (thoroughbred race horses or show dogs for example)? Would you deny the elderly of their one remaining comfort, an affectionate lapdog or cat and subject them to some sort of psychological test? What does “legally becomes a child” mean?

This reminds me of an old newspaper cartoon series called “There oughta be a law”:

http://miamiarchives.blogspot.ca/2012/04/there-oughta-be-law-comic-strip-1948.html

Hey, here’s an old joke that’s apropos. A sheepherder comes into a Western bar, and says,” well I’m going out on the range”. Bartender says,” after a couple months those sheep will begin to look pretty good to you”…The sheepherder says nah…”that’s awful…I’d never do that”. …A couple months pass and he walks back into the bar leading a very pretty ewe…. as he comes in, the bartender ducks behind the bar and everybody scatters for the exits… the sheepherder asks, “what’s the matter?..you said everybody did this around here.” The bartender answers from behind the bar “That’s the sheriff’s gal you got there, sonny!”

I was not referring to horses or show dogs—I am referring to the mutt or cat you can now buy “health” insurance for to cover the cover of vaccinations, surgeries and office visits, exactly like it does for human beings. Actually, though I think that insuring race horses or show dogs will vanish since that makes the horse or show dog a “possession” and not a real, living being with rights. Racing and showing will end. PETA already has that belief and will continue to push for legislation on this.

I have no idea what you mean about the elderly—they can have a PET if they want. It’s calling that pet a child that I object to. It frightens me that human beings have lost the ability to tell the difference between a two year old human child and a dog.

Legally becomes a child means tax deductions, “human rights” that include charging people with child abuse if they discipline their dog or cat incorrectly, calling the dog a human child and applying the same rules to the dog as the kid. Simply put, your dog is now equivalent to your child and all the same laws that apply to your child apply to your dog. Health care, vaccinations, maybe even doggy schools. There’s already doggy day care and cat fat farms. It’s coming.

As I’ve opined before, we are now on the slippery slope and there’s no going back.
This is what happens when courts decide the issue. It’s a matter of privacy, or preference, or civil right. Who’s to say what is right or wrong?

Next up is polygamy. After that we’ll have bestiality.

I predict here that parent + child will be harder to crack, as there are very good reasons to challenge it. And I don’t see NAMBL ever gaining ground.

Sheri, I assume that your comments represent parody or satire. It would frighten me if I thought you were serious. 🙂

Scotian: Be afraid. Be very afraid. 🙂

Yawrate,

I predict here that parent + child will be harder to crack, as there are very good reasons to challenge it.

While the child is still a minor I fully agree. After that point the case gets weaker. Here’s something to think about: which is more potentially damaging, same-sex or opposite-sex sibling marriage? What about both combinations of half-sibling marriage? Same for step-sibling matrimony? Step-parent and adult step-child unions?

As for polygamy, polygyny is the most common form. Neither it nor its opposite, polyandry, is sustainable in practice. The only thing that might work is polyamory, and indeed from a genetic diversity standpoint it makes sense in small, cloistered breeding populations.

While the child is still a minor I fully agree. After that point the case gets weaker.

The case is non-existent given the thinness of the conception Matt is mocking in this post.

Here’s something to think about: which is more potentially damaging, same-sex or opposite-sex sibling marriage? What about both combinations of half-sibling marriage? Same for step-sibling matrimony? Step-parent and adult step-child unions?

They are all equally damaging because they undermine the intimacy and chastity we expect in relations between parents and their siblings, between siblings, and between other close relations.

As for polygamy, polygyny is the most common form. Neither it nor its opposite, polyandry, is sustainable in practice.

They are certainly more ‘sustainable’ than same-sex relationships.

“Well, the animal that turned into my breakfast sausage probably wasn’t consulted about that, either. But let that pass. ”

… and “pass” it will … nice double entendre there….

On a [somewhat] serious concept, one ought be careful not to jump to conclusions about every case of bestiality or similar human/animal “relationship” — something else might be afoot entirely. Example; the famous Roman poet, Virgil, had a funeral (43 BC) for a beloved pet, a housefly, which was ceremoniously buried on the premises, thereby rendering his home a tomb that was thus tax-exempt (or exempt from being confiscated in a then-Roman version of eminent domain, or something like that).

Animal Trials: In the medieval ages secular & ecclesiastical courts put animals on trial for various offenses, complete with juries, witnesses, defense & prosecuting attorneys–all at the community’s expense (the hangman, when death was the verdict, was paid as for a human convict).
References:

http://www.medievalists.net/2013/09/08/medieval-animal-trials/

https://www.animallaw.info/article/historical-and-contemporary-prosecution-and-punishment-animals

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2013/02/medieval_animal_trials_why_they_re_not_quite_as_crazy_as_they_sound.2.html

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Media/CourtTrialsofAnimals.htm

http://animalsmattertogod.com/category/medieval-europe-civil-trials-of-animals/

Bible; e.g. Exodus 21:28: “If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit [acquitted].”, and, Genesis 9:6 (generic–applicable to both other humans or animals should a human [at least a male human] be victimized).

One cannot help but wonder what it is wrong with beef when the only distinguishing characteristic is that the animal it formerly was had been convicted of the vile deed of goring a human…sure seems like the Divine Inspirer was applying flawed cannibal philosophy whereby the eater attains characteristics of the eaten; so a person eating a killer ox would, apparently, incorporate murderous tendencies as a result [we know that some behavior inducing some attribute to the meat reflects flawed philosophy thanks to science, not philosophical superstition, by the way — even though that philosophy is, facts aside, logically self-consistent!].

Ken: Stoning an ox is not kosher.

dover_beach,

The case is non-existent given the thinness of the conception Matt is mocking in this post.

Yeah, well, he’s up to his usual trick of rooting out the unusual cases — which isn’t difficult since outliers are the most newsworthy by definition — and then sliding down every slippery slope his vivid imagination can conceive of.

They are all equally damaging because they undermine the intimacy and chastity we expect in relations between parents and their siblings, between siblings, and between other close relations.

Sure, but how much of that expectation is strictly societal? It would “feel” wrong to me for two step-siblings who had been raised under the same roof to fall in love as adults and get married, but two step-siblings raised in separate households doing the same thing as adults “feels” qualitatively different to me — as in not wrong. Eyebrow-raising? Yes. Wrong, no. Full siblings in a procreative relationship always “feels” wrong to me, but there are objective biological reasons for that.

I suspect that part of the reason “pseudo-incest” feels wrong to us is that actual incest is so often (usually?) not consensual.

They are certainly more ‘sustainable’ than same-sex relationships.

Tell that to fundamentalist Mormon polygamist men who leave their communities because there aren’t enough women for them to marry. It gets unsustainable in a hurry, and not just because of the inherent reduction in genetic diversity. OTOH same sex female couples can still get pregnant via artificial insemination. I don’t think the day is too far off that the nucleus of one human egg will be used to fertilize another one on a routine basis, rendering human males biologically redundant from their perspective. Two men getting married is pretty much the last thing on my list of unsustainable non-procreative practices. Heck, one in five opposite-sex couples in the US don’t have kids and intend to remain that way — should we revoke their marriage licenses?

Besides, with 7 billion of us worldwide, and still ticking upward, low birthrate is probably the least of our existential threats.