I can't believe I need to explain why living together for 2 years with no intention of getting married implies no consent to marriage...
I can't believe I need to explain why living together for 2 years with no intention of getting married implies no consent to marriage...
We're back to implied consent again. I'm happy to see that you've at least learned enough about sentience and consent to stop arguing that dogs can give consent however. We are making progress.
What will it take for you to admit being wrong?
A dog can give implied consent just as well as a person.
So if living together constitutes effective consent for marriage a dog can consent to marriage.
How does a person marrying his dog effect you?
EDIT: Or you could explain why you think the consent of non-humans to a marriage is in anyway relevant
No, we've been over this. Dogs cannot give consent, either explicit or implied, as they are not people and are not sentient.
I imagine your hope is once again that everyone will just give up in frustration.
MrPickins
Diamond Member
- May 24, 2003
- 9,125
- 792
- 126
One simple question:
Can you name a single thing that an animal can legally consent to at this point in time?
An animals consent or non-consent is not typically something that people care about.
As has been my point from the beginning the consent of an animal is a non-nonsensical idea.
I mean if I can slaughter a cow why can't I marry it?
EDIT: Typically an animal would not be capable of performing actions typically associated with consent. Since Canada decided to lower the standard of giving consent to marriage to something an animal is easily capable of...
Last edited:
MrPickins
Diamond Member
- May 24, 2003
- 9,125
- 792
- 126
So, by that you mean that you can't name a single instance wherein an animal can give consent to something?
And yet you still think they can enter into a legally binding marriage contract? Have you really thought this through?
Edit: In response to your edit, who is talking about Canada (besides you of course)?
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
Requiring the consent of an animal for things that happen to it is generally regarded as a silly concept.
The question is whether consent is required for marriage.
I have presented 3 cases
(1) In the past women were considered property (a lot like an animal as it were) and yet marriage to a woman was still possible.
(2) Corporations are capable of consent despite not even being corporal. Consent is given by their owners. Clearly the concept of consent can be extended beyond people. You just choose not to because you are bigoted against those that love animals.
(3) I presented the case of Canada where merely living together constitutes legal "consent". As an animal is capable of living together it is capable of giving legal consent. Typically legal consent would be something like signing your name which an animal is incapable of.
bshole
Diamond Member
- Mar 12, 2013
- 8,315
- 1,215
- 126
Yea Nehalem, you aren't making alot of sense here. You really lost me when you started this business about cows and dogs giving consent.
If I can sit on a chair, why can't I marry it?
It I can breathe the air, why can't I marry it?
If I can take a crap in the toilet, why can't I marry it?
Are you being serious? If so, you might want to review your arguments because they are about the weakest I have ever run across (and that is a GENEROUS way of characterizing them).
If I can sit on a chair, why can't I marry it?
It I can breathe the air, why can't I marry it?
If I can take a crap in the toilet, why can't I marry it?
Are you being serious? If so, you might want to review your arguments because they are about the weakest I have ever run across (and that is a GENEROUS way of characterizing them).
Last edited:
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
Seriously guys, why keep arguing with nehalem? His mind exists outside of reality on this topic. Have you not noticed that every single thing he's said in regards to this has gradually gotten more asinine? He hasn't made a single even remotely intelligent argument, all he's succeeded in doing is making you have to argue against crazy. Which in the end can only succeed in making you angry or crazy yourself.
It's identical to when Juror had his holocaust denial rants. You make an intelligent and well-founded argument based on logic, facts, and sources. He ignores it and makes an absurd claim. You rebuff his absurd claim, he doubles down on it. It's the same thing every time this topic is brought up.
It's identical to when Juror had his holocaust denial rants. You make an intelligent and well-founded argument based on logic, facts, and sources. He ignores it and makes an absurd claim. You rebuff his absurd claim, he doubles down on it. It's the same thing every time this topic is brought up.
Well to borrow arguments used for SSM
How would someone marrying a chair effect you?
If marrying a toilet makes someone happy why do you oppose happiness?
The point is the concept of consent of a toilet is silly. You inherently have "consent" of a toilet you own(or rent) to take a crap in it.
If I try to take a crap in you without your consent I go to jail for a crime. Because it is wrong to do things to people without their consent, but it is not wrong to do things to animals/objects without their consent.
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
You've presented 3 instances of bullshit.
This isn't the past. Women are not property under either the US constitution or any laws.
Fail. An animal can act independently from its owner's wishes, a corporation cannot.
Even if your assertion wasn't absurd (and it is), Canada != the USA.
It shows that consent is not an inherent property of marriage historically
It shows that consent is not an inherent property of marriage currently
It shows that non-humans can legally sign contracts so long as a human owner consents. A very similar idea would exist with the consent of the owner of an animal consenting to the marriage.
So I have shown both that consent is not an inherent property of marriage either historically or currently. And I have shown that non-humans can legally sign contracts so long as its owner consents on its behalf.
The only thing making you oppose human-animal marriage is your bigotry against bestial-sexuals.
Maybe one day you will grow up and apply the ideals you claim to hold about marriage to people other than yourself ^_^
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
Consent is inherent to legal matters, of which marriage is one.
Consent is inherent to legal matters, of which marriage is one.
Not if the animal chooses to leave. Does that common occurrence mean the animal doesn't give consent? Yes.
That would be true, except for one major detail: you haven't shown that at all.
Maybe one day you will grow up and stop making stupid nonsense arguments that have nothing in common with reality.
MrPickins
Diamond Member
- May 24, 2003
- 9,125
- 792
- 126
I'm busy, so I'll only respond to this, but nowhere have you shown that an animal can enter into a contract (just FYI, corporations != animals).
If you can provide one example where an animal can legally do this, then you might have a leg to stand on.
Seriously, just one example of where an animal has entered into a contract.
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
There's also the not-insignificant hurdle of showing that an animal has consented to be bound by laws that we humans make. Laws and government derive their power from the consent of the governed... and with animals that consent doesn't exist.
Historically with regard to women, and currently with regard to Canada this is not ture.
What does this have to do with ownership of an animal?
I have given historical and modern examples where consent is not required for a marriage to be recognized by society/government.
Just because I got tried of trying to explain the difference between obesity and being overweight. As well as presenting the fact it is the liberal demographic that is more likely to be obese does not mean I lost.
It means I got tired of owning your ass.
Corporations are not humans. This clearly shows that idea of consent can be extended beyond humans.
Whether society chooses to extend this to animals is only a question of bigotry.
Again, how does someone marrying their dog effect you? Why are you opposing other people's happiness?
Just checking in to see if nehalem is still using the man-dog marriage argument.. yep, he is. Sad.
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
Nice try, but yes you lost that one. The data I presented from the CDC showed that the huge disparity in obesity between black people and white people was in women only. Women, total, are barely 51% of the state's population, and 37% of the state's population is black. Add the numbers up, combined with an 85% black voter turnout rate that didn't even come reasonably close to giving the Democrats a win and it's plain to see that black people are not what makes MS the reddest and the fattest state.
Fact: Black women are much more likely to be obese than white women.
Fact: Black men are no more or less likely than white men to be obese.
Fact: Women, in general, comprise 51% of Mississippi's population.
Fact: 37% of Mississippi's population is black.
Fact: Mississippi, even after an 85% black voter turnout rate in 2012, remains the reddest (or second-reddest behind Wyoming) state in the country.
Conclusion: Black people are not why Mississippi is the fattest and reddest state.
No one owns my ass. I'm the top; the "pitcher".
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter