Mary started it all

[CCTAU 3,536]

In light of all we've talked about regarding what could become legal, whether it was likely, and so on, this article is rather interesting (and gross):

INCREASING PROBLEM: Swedes have more and more animal sex

Av Øyvind Ludt  og Carin Pettersson

26.01.04 12:24

Animal sex is not illegal in Sweden, and every year between 200 and 300 pets are injured because of sexual assaults. 

The estimate was presented by Svenska Veterinärforbundet, the Swedish veterinary organization, and it is now trying to make the authorities and the public more aware of animals’ suffering. The organization claim the problem has increased during the last couple of years, even if most people are unaware of it. 

“We have seen an increase since 1999 when child pornography became illegal,” said Johan Beck-Friis. “It appears, in other words, as there are some people who have replaced children with animals. In both circumstances, it is sex with defenceless individuals.”

The injuries inflicted on animals after sexual assaults are of the same character of those children get. Beck-Friis said that the most common injuries are wounds on the sex organs and blisters. 

Animal porn

The fact that animal sex is becoming an increasing problem can be indicated by the mere fact that there is an increasing selection of animal porn at video rentals and there an increasingly number of websites with animal pornography is surfacing. 

No one knows for sure how many animals that are abused, but a British study from 2001 indicates that every 20th dog or cat that receives treatment at veterinaries, the injuries are not a result of a direct accident, but the animal has been inflicted the injury as a result of a sexual assault. 

According to the Swedish paper Expressen, if the same estimate can be used in Sweden that will indicate that 200 to 300 dogs and cats every year are injured as a result of sexual assaults. 

Not illegal

In contrast with most other countries, animal sex is not illegal in Sweden. It was decriminalized in 1944 in connection with the decriminalization of homosexual sex. 

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article177749.ece

Ya. Ya. I tole you dat me an fido were tight, ya. I vant to marry my vunderfole dawgy. Woof. Woof.

What's next?

[Tiger Al 0]

if that were the case, can't most (if not all) these things be achieved already through seeing a lawyer? gay couples have already legally adopted children, haven't they?

CT, the problem with this, as I've read it, is that most if not all of the things that can be done now regarding inheritance rights, major medical decisions, etc. are that they are basically worthless if challenged in court. Remember the ping pong game in Florida between Terri Schiavo's husband and parents? Had this been Terri's female partner instead of her husband, even with the documentation you believe is available, the partner would have zero input. Any inheritance that might've gone to the partner at death could be challenged in court. I liken it to buying an insurance policy and paying on it for years, but, when the time comes to use it, the company refuses to pay. It's fool's gold.

As for adopting children, sure, the Rosie O'Donnell's of the world can because they are rich beyond imagination, live in liberal California and can hire the best legal council available. For the average homosexual, this isn't possible. In fact, our own Roy Moore removed a mother's biological daughter from her custody because she was a lesbian, berating her along the way.

i believe most gays desperately want the approval of society for their lifestyle...and this stems from a moral desire, not a legal desire (i add this based on TA's response to my most recent post on this thread).

The homosexuals I've known well enough to talk about such things with don't care whether we "approve" of their lifestyle or not. They don't want to be discriminated against or have to lie or live in fear because of it, but, whether we approve, condone, promote, like or legitimize is not what they seek any more than you would want MY approval of the woman you married. That really and truly isn't their goal. I'm sure that if it happened along the way they'd be thrilled about it, but, my friends have said that it wasn't necessary.

TA: you seem to be intimating that, as long as "it" (whatever it is) doesn't affect me, then why should i care? that's a pretty selfish philosophy.

I don't see it that way. I would see a selfish philosophy as being one that forced people to abide by MY religious standards even though those religious standards weren't the law of the land.

i am personally unaffected by lots of things -- therefore i shouldn't care about them? to what extreme do you carry this philosophy? if you, TA, are not gay, then why do you even care whether gay marriage is legalized or not? you won't be affected. and that's your viewpoing, then great...you can dismiss yourself from this (and a lot of other) threads, can't you?

I carry it to the extreme that I deem appropriate where the application of our laws are concerned. I don't see America as the great Christian experiment, I see it as a country where everybody should have equal recourse to the law, where the minority is legally protected from the majority and have their rights upheld as fervently as the majority's is upheld. I don't see America as a country that is controlled by religious doctrine and the people who formulate it.

No, I'm not gay and would not have been affected one iota by any of this until president Bush declared his intention to amend the U.S. Constitution. Now, as a citizen, it very much does affect me because one segment of our citizenry is trying to be marginalized by the law of a supposedly free country.

i believe the homosexual lifestyle will lead someone straight to hell. now, given yours & TA's mindset, as long as that someone isn't me or my kid, then why care, right? yet, if you believe as i do, then you care. to the extent that 'legalizing gay marriages/unions' promotes the notion that homosexuality is a valid option for a 'normal' lifestyle, then i oppose that stance.

My mindset is that I'm not the custodian of your salvation, nor are you mine. Neither is the U.S. government or the State of Alabama. I believe in social welfare, not spiritual welfare. My mindset is that I've never seen anybody, myself included, change their behavior because someone was pointing a finger at them and calling them a sinner. My mindset is that God gets to judge other people, I don't.

[channonc 466]

1. we aren't talking about 'straight' marriages here, we're talking about gay unions. anything to do w/ 'straight' marriages is irrelevant. the appropriateness of a man & woman getting married isn't being challenged or questioned. that's an institution that's been around for centuries. yet, you are right in your assessment. i certainly could have gone and done the 'legal' stuff only, but i absolutely wanted to express my commitment in front of my family/friends, etc. i wanted to get "married". yet again, that's not relevant to the issue at hand. we're discussing gay "marriage" or unions.

I guess for starters I am curious how you don't see how these legal "privlages" that come with getting married are what's at issue here. Yes, a traditional marriage is one b/w a man and a woman. There will be tons of people that will agree that this is the "correct" or "moral" way. But like I said about the smoking/drinking senario, you don't have to like it, or participate in it. This will not affect your own moral standards.

2. not totally unrelated to #1, marriage is between a man and a woman. in fact, the very definition of the word dictates as much. gay couples can't get married because they're different. the very thing that makes them different from 'straight' couples is also the very reason they can't get married, even as much as they wish they could. if homosexuals weren't different, then they wouldn't be gay and wouldn't be precluded from getting married. redefine the word if it makes you feel better, but it won't change the fact that marriage is between a man & a woman, and therefore a same-sex couple cannot truly 'married'.

According to dictionary.com:

Marriage can also mean "A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. "

The "different" argument can be used with a variety of different marriages. This was often used as an argument against interracial marriages. Everyone is different, especially when it comes to love and relationships. What determines what is normal.

i believe the homosexual lifestyle will lead someone straight to hell. now, given yours & TA's mindset, as long as that someone isn't me or my kid, then why care, right? yet, if you believe as i do, then you care. to the extent that 'legalizing gay marriages/unions' promotes the notion that homosexuality is a valid option for a 'normal' lifestyle, then i oppose that stance.

As far as public policy is concerned, there is no fair way to legislate according to moral or religious codes. Would we take a poll and see what is considered moral and go with that? Or how about the majority religion? If it is Christianity, which denomination? Does majority rule on that as well?

You have every right to believe homosexuality is wrong, but how would allowing them to marry even related to that? Its a public policy vs. religion/moral situation.

[CCTAU 3,536]

It ain't normal. It ain't right. So quit making laws just to allow them to feel like they are normal. What's wrong with telling someone they are wrong. AND THEY ARE WRONG!

edited by moderator: no name-calling.

[TitanTiger 21,241]

As far as public policy is concerned, there is no fair way to legislate according to moral or religious codes.

I disagree. Every law on the books is a reflection of the morals of a society...what we value as good/right or bad/wrong; activities we want to promote/encourage and those we want to forbid/discourage. The idea that you "can't legislate morality" is utter nonsense. But you are right on one point...the rub is who's morality we're going to go with.

[Tiger Al 0]

As far as public policy is concerned, there is no fair way to legislate according to moral or religious codes.

I disagree. Every law on the books is a reflection of the morals of a society...what we value as good/right or bad/wrong; activities we want to promote/encourage and those we want to forbid/discourage. The idea that you "can't legislate morality" is utter nonsense. But you are right on one point...the rub is who's morality we're going to go with.

TT, you can legislate behavior, not morality. There is a difference. Laws, while they may coincide with religious doctrines, are not necessarily the exclusive product of those doctrines. You could start a purely atheistic society and it may adopt many of the laws that a theocracy would have. The reasons for opposing murder aren't exclusively religious. One may feel that to allow one person to kill another is just bad public policy or that property rights are a good idea and would, therefore, oppose theft, totally void of any "moral" or religious reasonings.

[CCTAU 3,536]

As far as public policy is concerned, there is no fair way to legislate according to moral or religious codes.

I disagree. Every law on the books is a reflection of the morals of a society...what we value as good/right or bad/wrong; activities we want to promote/encourage and those we want to forbid/discourage. The idea that you "can't legislate morality" is utter nonsense. But you are right on one point...the rub is who's morality we're going to go with.

TT, you can legislate behavior, not morality. There is a difference. Laws, while they may coincide with religious doctrines, are not necessarily the exclusive product of those doctrines. You could start a purely atheistic society and it may adopt many of the laws that a theocracy would have. The reasons for opposing murder aren't exclusively religious. One may feel that to allow one person to kill another is just bad public policy or that property rights are a good idea and would, therefore, oppose theft, totally void of any "moral" or religious reasonings.

Links please!

[TitanTiger 21,241]

TT, you can legislate behavior, not morality. There is a difference. Laws, while they may coincide with religious doctrines, are not necessarily the exclusive product of those doctrines.

I didn't say that they were the exclusive product of religious doctrines. I simply said that laws are derived from the morality of some person or a group of people. The reason the law is made is to regulate behavior based on some concept of right or wrong.

You could start a purely atheistic society and it may adopt many of the laws that a theocracy would have. The reasons for opposing murder aren't exclusively religious. One may feel that to allow one person to kill another is just bad public policy or that property rights are a good idea and would, therefore, oppose theft, totally void of any "moral" or religious reasonings.

Going with this line of thought, what makes killing bad public policy?

[channonc 466]

Links to what exactly? He posed a hypothetical situation.

[Tiger Al 0]

TT, you can legislate behavior, not morality. There is a difference. Laws, while they may coincide with religious doctrines, are not necessarily the exclusive product of those doctrines.

I didn't say that they were the exclusive product of religious doctrines. I simply said that laws are derived from the morality of some person or a group of people. The reason the law is made is to regulate behavior based on some concept of right or wrong.

You could start a purely atheistic society and it may adopt many of the laws that a theocracy would have. The reasons for opposing murder aren't exclusively religious. One may feel that to allow one person to kill another is just bad public policy or that property rights are a good idea and would, therefore, oppose theft, totally void of any "moral" or religious reasonings.

Going with this line of thought, what makes killing bad public policy?

It reduces the taxpayer base. It reduces the workforce. It reduces defense capabilities. It causes undue fear in the community. It promotes societal instability.

[TitanTiger 21,241]

It reduces the taxpayer base. It reduces the workforce. It reduces defense capabilities. It causes undue fear in the community. It promotes societal instability.

Why are those good aims? Who are they good for?

[Tiger Al 0]

It reduces the taxpayer base. It reduces the workforce. It reduces defense capabilities. It causes undue fear in the community. It promotes societal instability.

Why are those good aims? Who are they good for?

Society and the individual.

[TitanTiger 21,241]

It reduces the taxpayer base. It reduces the workforce. It reduces defense capabilities. It causes undue fear in the community. It promotes societal instability.

Why are those good aims? Who are they good for?

Society and the individual.

You still didn't answer why these were good aims.

But as to your second answer, how are you determining that these things are good for society and the individual?

[Tiger Al 0]

It reduces the taxpayer base. It reduces the workforce. It reduces defense capabilities. It causes undue fear in the community. It promotes societal instability.

Why are those good aims? Who are they good for?

Society and the individual.

You still didn't answer why these were good aims.

But as to your second answer, how are you determining that these things are good for society and the individual?

Because a stable society free of chaos with a large workforce providing adequate revenues to support its' defense would be a healthy society. That's why these are good aims.

I am using my common sense to determine that these things are good because I'd like to have a healthy society. Allowing people to run around killing others willy-nilly would be counterproductive to my healthy society.

[TitanTiger 21,241]

A healthy society according to whom?

[CCTAU 3,536]

Links to what exactly?  He posed a hypothetical situation.

According to Big Al, you have to have links to everything. If he posed a hypothetical situation, then he needs to give a hypothetical link.

[Tiger Al 0]

You say that pedophelia and incest, etc. are abhorent and the general public would never get behind that idea - well, wasn't homosexuality in that same category just ten or twenty years ago.

Laws against homosexual acts were borne out of prejudice. There is no actual crime committed. Pedophilia is a crime, not because it is misunderstood, but because a person, a child, is being forced to engage in sexual acts against his or her will.

But what about my other comment - about the ADULT father/daughter sexual relationship? Pedophilia aside, these were two consenting adults - why shouldn't they be involved, provided that they cannot reproduce - no victim!

My point is simply that there will be exceptions to every rule - for example, in Alabama, I think you can still be married at 14 with a parent's permission - how is that any different than statutory rape or pedophilia? Simple - the law says it's okay. There are bastardizations of every law (no pun intended) but my concern is that we may not be able to see right now all the ways this law could come back to haunt us later, once it gets twisted and manipulated by some plantiff's attorney and some bench-sitting, powerhungry, agenda pushing activist judge.

What are the reasons why you couldn't marry your father, aside from the law? Why is it illegal? Tiger88 has mentioned the scientific reasons regarding having children, but your example is about a childless marriage.

I find it kind of interesting that you have actually facilitated a gay marriage (short of a certificate) but you now seem to be against it. Have you had a genuine change of heart or are you being partisan? When this topic came up, I really expected you to be a conservative voice of reason on the matter since you have at one time endorsed the idea.

Jenny, I really was asking you this. Maybe you accidently overlooked it.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

You are right , AL - I did overlook it - sorry.

I did as my friends asked me to do - they availed themselves of the rights they DO have under the law - and I was happy to participate in that. They had a wedding, and that is their perogative to celebrate any way they see fit. But I do stop short at calling this a marriage. They even called it a holy union, not a marriage.

My stance on this so far has been to endorse the recognition of legal rights for people named as a dependent or "next of kin" or designated representative, etc. One examples is a man and woman who live together without benefit of marrriage, and maybe have not reached the threshhold for "common law marraige" status. They live in a home that is in the man's name. He is killed in a car wreck. The woman has very little legal claim to that house, and will not be entitled to inheritance or his insurance, etc. - a lot of the same problems same sex couples are having. What if the woman had kids from a previous relationship that this man had been raising for many years and they considered him to be their dad? If the woman was killed, the man would have NO claim to those kids legally.

Or another example - an unmarried woman who has her elderly mother living with her. The woman could get benefits through her job for a husband or children, but not for her mother. Why couldn't she be allowed to designate her mother as her dependent?

These are the important equality issues that need to be addressed - equality for ALL KINDS of situations and relationships, and tying them to some kind of "gay rights" movement is hurting their chances of being considered seriously.

I still take a stand on marriage being defined as one man, one woman. Define the extension of legal rights to different situations any way you want to, but not marriage.

[channonc 466]

Define the extension of legal rights to different situations any way you want to, but not marriage.

Jenny, this is precisely why I said before that the term "marriage" should not be a legal term. I believe the term "marriage" is a religious term and should not be used to define state or federal rights/privlages. A marriage is something that you have between you, your spouse, and God. The state is only involved in your legal union.

[Tiger Al 0]

Jenny, if I'm understanding you correctly, your opinion is that it's just a semantics issue, correct? You don't want it called marriage because that's a religious covenent made between a man and a woman only, but all of the secular rights, benefits and responsibilities would be the same, as Channon and I believe?

Is this a fair representation?

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Jenny, if I'm understanding you correctly, your opinion is that it's just a semantics issue, correct? You don't want it called marriage because that's a religious covenent made between a man and a woman only, but all of the secular rights, benefits and responsibilities would be the same, as Channon and I believe?

Is this a fair representation?

I believe so. I think that this should all be handled by a legislative act, NOT a court. The law should not single out gays. The law should address equality of rights for ALL. Singling out gays opens the door for other fringe groups, like we have discussed, to use this as a precedent, and that is what we need to avoid.

[channonc 466]

Jenny, if I'm understanding you correctly, your opinion is that it's just a semantics issue, correct? You don't want it called marriage because that's a religious covenent made between a man and a woman only, but all of the secular rights, benefits and responsibilities would be the same, as Channon and I believe?

Is this a fair representation?

I believe so. I think that this should all be handled by a legislative act, NOT a court. The law should not single out gays. The law should address equality of rights for ALL. Singling out gays opens the door for other fringe groups, like we have discussed, to use this as a precedent, and that is what we need to avoid.

Just curious though... how would you write a law about "civil unions"/"marriage" that does not single out gays, gives rights to all, but protects the country from "extreme" groups.

[MDM4AU 338]

Will this thread become the longest running thread on AUNation.com?

Story at 11!

[Tiger Al 0]

Jenny, if I'm understanding you correctly, your opinion is that it's just a semantics issue, correct? You don't want it called marriage because that's a religious covenent made between a man and a woman only, but all of the secular rights, benefits and responsibilities would be the same, as Channon and I believe?

Is this a fair representation?

I believe so. I think that this should all be handled by a legislative act, NOT a court. The law should not single out gays. The law should address equality of rights for ALL. Singling out gays opens the door for other fringe groups, like we have discussed, to use this as a precedent, and that is what we need to avoid.

Just curious though... how would you write a law about "civil unions"/"marriage" that does not single out gays, gives rights to all, but protects the country from "extreme" groups.

That's what I was wondering, too.

I just don't think that any kind of legislation that we've talked about (marriage/CU's/DP's) opens the door for child molesters or incesters (?) to legalize their behavior. It would take an argument much, much, much stronger than "The gays get to, why can't we?" to change society's view on that criminal behavior.

[TitanTiger 21,241]

More issues with liberal laws regarding sex and sexuality in Europe:

Dutch Politicians Want Bestiality Banned

Thu Mar 11, 8:13 AM ET

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) -  Two Dutch political parties called Wednesday for laws prohibiting sex with animals after a man suspected of having sex with a pony was set free. 

Wearing nothing but a T-shirt, the man was arrested by police in Utrecht Monday after the pony's owner caught him by surprise in his stable. 

"He was caught in the stable, busy with the pony, and was arrested for animal mistreatment," Mary Hallebeek, a prosecution spokeswoman said. 

The prosecutor set him free because there was no evidence of a crime. Dutch law does not prohibit bestiality. 

"There were no wounds or traces of violence. The man may have had sex with the animal, but there is no article in law which says this is liable to punishment," Hallebeek said. 

Both List Pim Fortuyn and the Socialist Party called for an amendment to the penal code to make bestiality punishable. 

"Sex with an animal is a far-reaching infringement of its physical integrity and the animal can never consent to it. It is pure maltreatment and should therefore be punishable," LPF member Joost Eerdmans said in parliament. 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid..._dc_1&printer=1