Raving Conservative: More on the Dolphin Marriage

Friday, January 06, 2006

More on the Dolphin Marriage

I had planned on a different posting tonight, but I have decided to push it back a day in favor of a follow-up to my last article. I have decided to do a more in-depth analysis of the story of a woman marying a dolphin, and also to integrate some of the comments from the original article. I chose to go with MSNBC in an attempt to stifle any cries of conservative bias and lying sources from my liberal readers.

JERUSALEM - Sharon Tendler met Cindy 15 years ago. She said it was love at first sight. This week she finally took the plunge and proposed. The lucky "guy" plunged right back.

In a modest ceremony at Dolphin Reef in the southern Israeli port of Eilat, Tendler, a 41-year-old British citizen, apparently became the world's first person to "marry" a dolphin.

Dressed in a white dress, a veil and pink flowers in her hair, Tendler got down on one knee on the dock and gave Cindy a kiss. And a piece of herring.

Call me old-fashioned, but an actual marriage ceremony, a real one, not a play act done purely for entertainment, carries a lot weight. I believe that, despite the disturbing tendency for people to divorce, wedding vows cannot be broken, at least not in the spiritual sense. To engage in such a ceromy of union with an animal is a disgusting perversion of what marriage is designed to be.

"It's not a perverted thing. I do love this dolphin. He's the love of my life," she said Saturday, upon her return to London.

Ummmmm, yes it is.

Tendler, who said she imports clothes and promotes rock bands in England, has visited Israel several times a year since first meeting the dolphin.

When asked in the past if she had a boyfriend, she would always reply, "No. I'm going to end up with Cindy." On Wednesday, she made it official, sort of. While she acknowledged the "wedding" had no legal bearing she did say it reflected her deep feelings toward the bottlenosed, 35-year-old object of her affection.

I love my dogs, but that doesn't mean I'm warped enough in th ehed to want to marry one of them.

Reader CJB had the following to say about this:
"This is just a crazy British woman expressing here love for her ‘pet’. Other crazy people buy ‘marriage certificates’ from MarryYourPet.com. It just shows that there are plenty of crazy people in the world."

I totally agree with him on this point. There ARE plenty of crazy people in this world, and it seems like every one of them wants his "rights" protected in the sense that they want whatever insane thing they are inclined to do legalized and politically sanctioned. Prooof of this is seen in the homosexual community who succesfully lobbied to have homosexuality stricken from the list of mental illnesses in spite of the fact that no scientific or phychiatric evidence supported this move, and in spite of the fact that mounting scientific and psychiatric evidence indicates that really IS a phycholocal abberration rather than a biological drive.

This is, of course, totaly denied by the homosexual activists, their advocates, and their allies.

This also begs the question of how long it will take for people to use the exact same arguments of "what happens in my bed is none of your concern" to successfully defend acts of pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, sexual torture, and other abberrant behaviors.

"It's not a bad thing. It’s just something that we did because I love him, but not in the way that you love a man. It's just a pure love that I have for this animal," she said.

Ummmm, yes it is.

While she still kept open the option of "marrying human" at some stage, she said for now she was strictly a "one-dolphin woman."

Well, at least she's fathful.

She's hardly the jealous type, though.

"He will still play with all the other girls there," she said, of their prenuptial agreement. "I hope he has a lot of baby dolphins with the other dolphins. The more dolphins the better."

A woman who doesn't mind if her husband makes babies with other women? Where can I getm me one of those? better yet, where can I get me about twenty of those. I feel a bout of polygamy coming on! (Sarcasm)

An anonymous reader left this comment due to some confusion regarding whether the dolphin "Cindy" was a male or a female.

"I searched 'woman dolphin' in Fox News and found both the O'Reilly article and the Associated Press piece. In the O'Reilly one, he did say that it was a female. But in the Associated Press piece, it said that it was a male. The quotes in the AP story made it seem like the dolphin was definitely male. Either way, the sex of the dolphin seems insignificant, really."

This is very true. It really doesn't matter what the sex of the dolphin is . . . IT'S A DOLPHIN! regardless of gender interspecies marriage is just insane and unnatural. Does anyone here truly believe that there will never be a push for such marriage sto legalized?

Let me answer for you. There already is, and there is an equal push to legalize polygamy, and to legalize pedophile marriage as well. These movements, while young and small, have modeled themselves after the homosexual movement and plan on using the exact same legal arguments and political tactics to push their agenda on America th eway the homosexuals are doing now. One such group, the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) has the ACLU fighting for it already.

43 Comments:

Daniel: There ARE plenty of crazy people in this world, and it seems like every one of them wants his "rights" protected in the sense that they want whatever insane thing they are inclined to do legalized and politically sanctioned.

She has no rights in this matter; nor does the dolphin. It isn’t legally binding. And I don’t see her or anyone else clamouring for the right to marry animals. Who, specifically, is asking for it to be legalised or politically sanctioned? It’s just a crackpot besotted with a pet and most people would simply laugh at her eccentricity.

Daniel: the fact that mounting scientific and psychiatric evidence indicates that really IS a phycholocal abberration rather than a biological drive.

Please provide some references so that we can check this dubious claim. Please try to stick to objective scientific references. I’m sure there are plenty that are religiously motivated.

Daniel: A woman who doesn't mind if her husband makes babies with other women?

No, a woman doesn’t mind if a dolphin mates with other dolphins and the fact that she would say this should tell you that she isn’t seriously considering this to be a marriage.

Daniel: One such group, the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) has the ACLU fighting for it already.

This is a misrepresentation of the truth. The ACLU is not fighting for NAMBLA or their sick agenda. The ACLU is fighting for freedom of speech. In no way do they advocate pædophilia.

ACLU: The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

By Anonymous, at 7:01 PM
"There already is, and there is an equal push to legalize polygamy, and to legalize pedophile marriage as well."

The thing is, we the people can decide that we don't want to legalize either of those and we can do so without negating anyone's God-given rights as a human being.

Is it a slippery slope? You could consider it as such. But we deal with it in a rational and just basis.

After all, there are those that think people of different races should not marry and allowing them to do so will destroy the sanctity of marriage.

Further, some churches would say that people who are divorced should not get married because to do so would be to destroy the sanctity of marriage.

And yet, we traveled down that slippery slope and rightfully so. Gay marriage or civil unions of some sort is a step such as these. Society can decide where we want to stop the slope but we should do so in a manner that is consistent and not promoting/rewarding one group and penalizing another based purely on religious grounds.

I say we can make a rational argument for disallowing marriage of minors and polygamy but no such rational (ie, non-religious) reason exists for disallowing gay marriage, your claims that it is a psychological aberration nothwithstanding.

By Dan Trabue, at 10:24 PM
CJB,

Two of my references are th ebooks "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" and "The Homosexual Agenda". Both have extensive references listed in their bibliographies, a few of which I have cross referenced to ensure the studies cited were no misinterpereted. I find them to be factual.

By Daniel Levesque, at 12:17 AM
Okay, let’s see. Your first reference is Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, written by Jeffrey Satinover, a Christian apologetic and published by Baker Books, part of the Christian vanity press. This is a great start.

Jeffrey Satinover is also the author of Cracking the Bible Code and The Truth Behind the Bible Code. He was a board member of Focus on Family, whose mission is:

To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible, and, specifically, to accomplish that objective by helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family.

And he’s a member of the board of trustees of Toward Tradition.

Toward Tradition is a non-profit (501.c.3), educational organization working to advance our nation toward the traditional Judeo-Christian values that defined America’s creation and became the blueprint for her greatness.

The very first reviewer of this book on Satinover’s web page had this to say about it.

Satinover presents a scientific perspective on homosexuality interpreted through a traditional Judeo-Christian viewpoint. – Joseph Nicolosi, PhD

Is this your idea of objective and scientific; interpreted through a traditional Judeo-Christian viewpoint?

Your second reference is The Homosexual Agenda. Just the name of it raises suspicions that this will be another piece of Christian fundamentalist propaganda, but hey, I could be wrong. Oh, I just found it on Amazon.com and what do you know, the full title is The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. Do I need to look any further into it?

I specifically asked you to provide references that were objective and scientific and you come back with these. I’m disappointed, but not surprised, that this is your response.

By Anonymous, at 3:31 AM
CJB,

I DID tell you that I cross referenced what was contained in the books with several of the studies listed in the bibliography, you know, the neutral studies, and found th einterperetations of those studies contained in the books to be accurate and truthful.

You not agreeing with the people writing a book doesn't make those people liars. Perhaps if you checked out their reference materials, don't even bother with the books themselves if you don't want to, you would see that what I am aserting here is true.

Incidentally, you DO realize that almost every reference regarding the subject of homosexuality is going to have some level of bias, right? Unfortunately, such a politically charged subject creates an air of eontention around itself that results in a level of bias that even goes so far as to frequently affect even those who are supposedly neutral. Just to prove my point, I am challenginf you to name 1 source of information that you have based your opinion on this matter that I would consider neutral and trustworthy.

By Daniel Levesque, at 8:40 AM
I don't think you can equate two adults who can consent to marriage with a woman and a dolphin. It doesn't make sense. The dolphin cannot say "I do" and has no capacity to understand what marriage is. Same-sex marriage involves two adults that have the capacity to consent to share their lives together.

You seem to grossly misunderstand homosexuality as it has nothing to do with "pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, sexual torture, and other abberrant behaviors." The first three involve sex that cannot involve consent as children, dead people and animals lack the ability to provide informed consent. Sexual torture is based on violence, not intimacy. And the fact that you need to discuss same-sex relationships only on the basis of sexual activity and deny that same-sex couples feel love for each other, shows that you really don't have a very firm grasp on the topic.

By Anonymous, at 10:28 AM
Daniel: I DID tell you that I cross referenced what was contained in the books with several of the studies listed in the bibliography, you know, the neutral studies

Then why didn’t you provide those neutral studies as references so that we can check for ourselves? Please provide some of these neutral references because you can be sure that I’m not going to buy these religiously motivated books.

Daniel: Incidentally, you DO realize that almost every reference regarding the subject of homosexuality is going to have some level of bias, right?

Even the neutral studies you just mentioned? If so then they aren’t neutral. I find it difficult to believe that a scientific study based solely on evidence will have a significant level of bias. If you are correct that all references on the subject are biased then you shouldn’t be using any of them to come to a conclusion.

Daniel: Just to prove my point, I am challenginf you to name 1 source of information that you have based your opinion on this matter that I would consider neutral and trustworthy.

I have no opinion on the cause of homosexuality. It exists and I am indifferent towards it because it doesn’t affect me. I treat people based on their individual merits and whether they are gay or not is immaterial to me.

Again, you seem unwilling to admit that your sole objection to homosexuality is due to religion.

By Anonymous, at 12:12 PM
"Again, you seem unwilling to admit that your sole objection to homosexuality is due to religion."

You obviously have not read m y argument in opposition to homosexuality based on science and nature. HOWEVER, the bulk of my opposition is religious in nature. I will never deny that.

By Daniel Levesque, at 4:06 PM
Wow.
I didn't look anything up or cross reference anything, and I still know the woman is sick.

And the ACLE DOES promote pedophelia, cjb.

By The Conservative UAW Guy, at 4:41 PM
Daniel: HOWEVER, the bulk of my opposition is religious in nature. I will never deny that.

Thus we see how religion teaches intolerance.

CUAWG: And the ACLE DOES promote pedophelia, cjb.

Really? Can you provide us with any evidence of that or are we to take this assertion as true without looking up anything or cross referencing anything?

By Anonymous, at 5:29 PM
Actually, thus we see hoe religion teaches proper, safe, natural behavior while condemning that which harms us.

By Daniel Levesque, at 12:47 AM
I've just noticed the Google ads on this blog. I guess it must be galling to you, Daniel, that gay marriage is being promoted on your site. The two current ads are for same-sex wedding rings and cohabitation agreements. People might get the wrong idea. Perhaps if you stop talking about it, the ads will go away.

By Anonymous, at 3:44 PM
"Intolerant"??? It's. A. Dolphin. Do you really want to live in a place where things like this can happen legally?

By Rebekah, at 3:59 PM
rebekah: Do you really want to live in a place where things like this can happen legally?

Wow, rebekah, three logical fallacies in the one short sentence.

First, you distort our arguments to create a straw man. No one said we want this.

Second, you engage in a slippery slope. There is no evidence to suggest that interspecies marriage could ever be legal or that it would lead to pædophilia or other evils. I’d suggest that forcing a group of men to be celibate and them placing them in charge of young boys is much more likely to lead to pædophilia.

Third, you make and appeal to consequences. You imply that if we tolerate this then the world will be an evil place.

It’s just an example of a lonely woman who is a little batty. It’s another of those shaggy dog stories you get on any slow news day, but right wing pundits have blown this one out of proportion because it offends their sensibilities.

By Anonymous, at 6:07 PM
cjb, since you know so much more than every person here, please show us you "neutral" studies supporting your position. In addition, please indicate each foot note in each book so that we may reference all these "neutral" studies so that we may scrutinize them as coming from anti-religious bigots, darwinists and alike since because anyone who is a follower of a Christian belief CANNOT be good scientist according to you, then no one who follows Atheism can have a valid study on it either.

Please also then show your resource that shows that the ACLU has not filed briefs with the courts or offered financial assistance to NAMBLA in favor of their case to prevent them from going to jail for pedophilia. Please include the court references and the court briefs filed as well.

Also, please brush up on your use of "star man" arguements as Rebekah was not using a straw man arguement but rather putting you on the spot asking a question that should have been asked right away.

Slipperly slope arguements happen a lot because the slope always happens. Take a look at English gun control. People over there said "oh thats a slipperly slope arguement, they would never ban guns", yet they did. Then they said the same about knives and yet now there is legislation presented to ban knives. A slipperly slope arguement is completely valid because it always ends up happeneing. The fact that you try to dismiss it shows the weakness of your arguement

Until you can do the above, please dont post your lies here again.

Thank you.

By Haximus, at 8:01 PM
First, I would like to say that this is a very intersting and stimulating debate, and enjoying seeing people persist in their arguments.

Hax, I think that cjb already addressed the studies challenge when it was presented by Daniel. Unless you are asking about other positions, I fear that more detailed requests might be in order.

As far as the ACLU is concerned, I don't always agree with everything that they undertake, but I do think that they might be justified in taking the NAMBLA case. According to their website, it is simply defending their right to speech. And despite the fact that the legislation they are pushing for is clearly terrible, they still have the right to post their website. Here is the link from the ACLU (it is an old one):

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/
11289prs20000831.html

And Rebekah is in fact bringing up an argument that was not previously being discussed. She asked if anyone wants to live in a place where dolphin-marriages are legal. But this 'marriage' that the lady had was clearly not a legal matter. This was a symbolic act completely distinct from a governmentally sanctioned marriage. So it is a misrepresentation of the actual argument that was in progress. Thus, I feel like it could be a straw man. But it is a minor issue.

I personally find that cjb is a very thoughtful individual, and contributes a lot to this website's debates, and hope that he continues to speak his mind.

By Anonymous, at 9:26 PM
CJB,

Thanks for pointing out the pro-gay mariage adds. I shall block those sites from advertizing here tomorrow. It's late right now and I am tired.

By Daniel Levesque, at 10:28 PM
Dear me, haximus, where to begin…

haximus: please show us you "neutral" studies supporting your position.

If you look at my post above (nine above yours), you will see that I specifically said that I have no opinion on the cause of homosexuality. I have no position to support. It was Daniel who mentioned that he had neutral studies supporting his position.

Haximus: Please also then show your resource that shows that the ACLU has not filed briefs with the courts … Please include the court references and the court briefs filed as well.

I’m wondering, do you go back and read what you’ve just written? I cannot provide evidence for something that doesn’t exist. And I can hardly provide references to court briefs to prove that those very briefs don’t exist.

Paul neatly addressed your complaint about rebekah’s straw man. Thank you, Paul, for your kind words. I was beginning to wonder whether it was just Daniel and me who read this blog.

haximus: Slipperly slope arguements happen a lot because the slope always happens.
A slipperly slope arguement is completely valid because it always ends up happeneing.

It is rarely a good idea to use absolutes such as always, never, all or none because all we have to do to refute your argument that slippery slopes always happen is find an example of a slippery slope that hasn’t come to pass: just one. I’ll leave this as an exercise for the reader.

haximus: please dont post your lies here again.

If I were Christian, I might take offence at this, but being one of those atheists that we all know constantly lie, I guess I just have to accept it as the truth. But, to really put me in my place, could you please point out exactly where I’ve deliberately misrepresented the truth with an intention to deceive.

By Anonymous, at 1:49 AM
you do realize that the "right to free speech" the ACLU is defending for nambla is to be able to own child pornography right?

By Dr. Phat Tony, at 9:14 AM
Thank you Dr. I was waiting for someone to point that out.

By Daniel Levesque, at 12:30 PM
dr. phat tony: you do realize that the "right to free speech" the ACLU is defending for nambla is to be able to own child pornography right?

Wrong. Child pornography is illegal and the ACLU was not defending it in the NAMBLA case.

Jeffrey Curley was raped and murdered by Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sciali, who were convicted of the crime. Curley’s parents then sued NAMBLA for damages claiming that they were responsible for their son’s death because they advocate child sex. The ACLU did not condone or advocate for child sex or child pornography, but defended NAMBLA on the grounds that seeking damages for an expression of ideas contravened the First Amendment. However, the court disagreed with the ACLU on the interpretation of the Curley’s claim and denied their motion for dismissal. The court also rejected a RICO claim by the Curley’s against NAMBLA. Finally, the court dismissed the Curley’s claim against NAMBLA because it is an unincorporated association and cannot be sued in its own name. The Curley’s are now pursuing claims against some individual members of NAMBLA. I don’t know whether or not the ACLU is defending or will defend the individual members.

The point is that the ACLU did not defend anything that NAMBLA stands for and neither do I or, I’m guessing, anyone else here. The ACLU was defending what they saw as a contravention of the First Amendment. The fact that the defendant is a vile pariah is what generated the emotional response to this case, but as the ACLU says:

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.

In those cases, it is easy for people to slacken in their defence of First Amendment rights and allow a legal precedent to be set that says it is okay to limit people’s expression of ideas. This is what the ACLU fights against.

By Anonymous, at 1:20 PM
CJB,

"Wrong. Child pornography is illegal and the ACLU was not defending it in the NAMBLA case."

Wrong. The ACLU IS defending the "right" for NAMBLA to engage in child pornography. You won't fing it on their website because it would cost them support ot admit. Try checking the case briefs they have filed on behalf of NAMBLA. You will see the truth.

By Daniel Levesque, at 4:15 PM
No one said we want this

Maybe you're the one who's misconstruing my arguments. I didn't say you wanted it; I was pointing out what happens when you redefine marriage. Something - I assume - you do want.(p.s. you don't have to link to Wikipedia. I know what straw-man means.)

There is no evidence to suggest that interspecies marriage could ever be legal
Really? Recently, in the Netherlands, a trio was married in a Civil Union as a result of Civil Unions for anything but a man and a woman. No, it wasn't interspecies, but what's to stop it if polygamy is legal in all but name?

You imply that if we tolerate this then the world will be an evil place.

First, to change the subject a bit, "tolerance" does not equal bowing to demands of gay activists. Now that's bad logic. I can tolerate Democrats, but I'm not going to vote Democrat.
Second, this in itself doesn't really mean anything. But, if you define marriage as anything but one man and one woman, anybody(or anything...) could be "married". Fair's fair, after all.

right wing pundits have blown this one out of proportion because it offends their sensibilities

*sigh*. Not to be redundant, but we have "blown it out of proportion" because of what this indicates gay marriages could lead to.

By Rebekah, at 4:40 PM
For what it's worth, I encountered a lot of people like cjb while earning my useless Philosophy degree. Some people think they are so blasted smart...oops,ad hominem. HeHe - I enjoy watching my 15 year-old spar.

By Anonymous, at 4:50 PM
That really was my Mom, you guys. :)

By Rebekah, at 4:51 PM
Rebekah-

I think what you are missing is the distinction between the capabilities of animals and humans. The reason that we have no reason to suspect that interspecies marriage will ever be legal is that it is pretty much impossible for an animal to grasp the concept of marriage, agree with it in concept, and give knowing consent to engage in it. This is possible with three adult humans, but not with, say, a dolphin. I think it is not that hard to grasp that those three poeple knew perfectly well what they were getting themselves into when they were joined together in the civil union. I think that the issue of consent is something that cjb has already pointed about before.

By Anonymous, at 5:12 PM
"I think that the issue of consent is something that cjb has already pointed about before."

Actually he has not because the woman has claimed that the dolophin consented to the marriage, along with a slew of other things.

cjb, as is already pointed out there are court briefings that you can read about the case that were filed on behalf of NAMBLA by the ACLU, I suggest you read them before trying to pose as the smart ass...erm guy that you pretend to be.

As to the studies, you did not present any "neutral" studies to refute what Daniel has posted, to the opposite, you deny taking a position. Clearly when you assault one mans sources because of who they are and not the research involved you clearly have taken a stance. Very weak ground to be standing on.

As for the slipperly slope, you said that you could simply point out one instance where it was untrue yet you didnt and instead put out your own straw man to attach to it. Are you so vain as to admit that you are a habitual liar and would lie to promote an agenda? If you have no stance on this issue at all you would not have even taken the time to go into such depth to post and refute every single person here, yet you still do.

Atheist or not, you are a liar and a crook, purporting to be something you are not and I hope that someday you can make peace with that fact. Until then, you have shown your colors and by continuing this rant of your have highlighted the very ignorance of your leftist mentality.

Good day sir

By Haximus, at 6:26 PM
Okay, I agree with you that animal/human marriage is a bit far-off. But, even 30 years ago, would anyone have dreamed of making gay marriage a political issue?

By Rebekah, at 6:45 PM
Daniel,

Okay, I’ve read the ACLU’s first motion to dismiss (192KB PDF) which is, incidentally, on their web site and I cannot find any mention of NAMBLA’s “right to engage in child pornography”. It is filled with dry legal arguments, some of which concern the First Amendment. I also found the judge’s ruling (119 KB PDF) on their second motion and it also contains no mention of child pornography. I cannot find any other case briefs on the matter. Could you please give me some links to those that do show the ACLU is arguing for the “right to engage in child pornography”.

rebekah: I was pointing out what happens when you redefine marriage. Something - I assume - you do want.

This is another incorrect assumption on your part.

rebekah: No, it wasn't interspecies, but what's to stop it if polygamy is legal in all but name?

If it isn’t interspecies then it isn’t evidence that interspecies marriage is likely or even possible and Paul has explained succinctly what’s to stop it.

rebekah: But, if you define marriage as anything but one man and one woman, anybody(or anything...) could be "married".

Who says? This is a false dichotomy; yet another logical fallacy. There is nothing to say that if it isn’t just one man and one woman then it’s open slather. In some countries around the world, marriage already can be between a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman, but not any animate or inanimate object, which immediately belies your statement.

rebekah: we have "blown it out of proportion" because of what this indicates gay marriages could lead to.

This is sheer slippery slope supposition on your part. You have no evidence whatsoever to back this up.

rebekah’s mom: HeHe - I enjoy watching my 15 year-old spar.

She’s not doing too well. Is this an indication of your training?

haximus: Atheist or not, you are a liar and a crook

Oh, now I’m a crook as well. How is it that you know me so well? Please share with us your evidence to support these accusations.

By Anonymous, at 6:53 PM
Okay, 2 things.

First, haximus, I see no evidence of illegal activity on th eoart of CJB. I think calling him a crook went a bit far.

Second. CJB, given your argument regarding knowing consent, do you also support incest? Wht about incestuous marriages? What about polygamous incesyuous marriages? Will you still be supportive when a father mariies all of his daughters and/or sons on their 18th birthdays? What about the fact that children can enter into both legal contracts and marriage with their arents written consent. Does the parent then have the ability to marry his or her children before they hit middle school? Well?

By Daniel Levesque, at 11:35 PM
Daniel: I think calling him a crook went a bit far.

I don’t know what to make of this. It implies that calling me a liar is okay. If you think I’ve been deliberately deceiving you, could you please point out what evidence has caused you to come to this conclusion?

Daniel: Second. CJB, given your argument regarding knowing consent, do you also support incest?

You’ve lost me here. What argument regarding knowing consent? Are you confusing me with someone else? I don’t remember saying anything about knowing consent.

Just to set the record straight; I see no problem with gay marriages, but I certainly don’t condone incest or any other similar relationship between an adult and a child precisely because I don’t think a child can give knowing consent in such a situation. Polygamy is a different matter; it’s between adults. In some societies it is acceptable, but it wouldn’t be my personal choice.

By Anonymous, at 1:03 AM
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I think marriage to anything non-human is either crazy or a joke. It isn't legal now, nor is it ever likely to be.

By Anonymous, at 1:21 AM
CJB,

Based on your arguments, Haximus thinks you are lying. That is an opinion he is entitled to have, just like you are entitled to your opinions. Crook was too much to asert, so I defended you on that point, and you aparently missed it.

Further, you used the consent argument when deffending all unions between adults. That is why I asked you about incest. You avoided actually answering that by refusing to address incest among adults, hich I mentioned before takin it into pedophilia.

Finally, as far as animal mrriage never happening . . . 20 years ago nobody would have imagined that homosexual marriage would ever even be considered, much les legalized. Not even homosexual "civil unions" (Faux marrigaes) were a consideration. It was just too far-fetched. Look at us now. Never say something can never happen.

By Daniel Levesque, at 6:07 AM
I think the case you are referring to cjb is a civil case where nambla was sued for dispersing literature that incited criminal acts. ACLU said they were defending free speech and that nambla did not condone rape. nambla does condone children having sex with adults (what the literature was about, explicit description would constitute pornography for most)which does constitute rape though. This goes hand in hand with other cases where the aclu has filed briefs claiming that 14 should be the age of consent. I'm looking for those briefs but can only find references to them now.

By Dr. Phat Tony, at 6:32 AM
Daniel,

I didn’t miss that you were defending me and I thank you for that. But if you think I’ve been deliberately deceiving you then I would like you to point out what has led you to that conclusion. I may occasionally and unknowingly give you information that is false (though I strive not to), but I am not deliberately deceiving people.

Daniel: Further, you used the consent argument when deffending all unions between adults.

No, I didn’t, that was andy. You really ought to read more carefully. That’s the second time you’ve confused me with someone else who disagrees with you. Paul also confused me with andy in his response to rebekah when he said that he thought I pointed out the issue of consent, but haximus immediately corrected him on it. If you look back over my comments, you will see that I haven’t used the word ‘consent’ until my response to your claim immediately above. I don’t think any of my arguments were even based on the notion of consent.

I didn’t deliberately avoid answering the question of incest between adults; I just didn’t think of it. Is it really that common? Anyway, I don’t condone it, but purely because it is a bad idea genetically, which is one reason why we have laws against marrying close relatives.

You cannot compare gay marriage to interspecies marriage. They are two entirely separate things for many reasons, legally, biologically and philosophically. If you must maintain a slippery slope argument against gay marriage then you would do better to stick to the pædophilia angle, but I think the evidence is against you even there. If anything, the marriageable age around the world has been increasing over time rather than decreasing.

dr. phat tony,

You appear to be grudgingly admitting that the ACLU was fighting for free speech and did not condone rape or child pornography in the NAMBLA case. I agree with you that NAMBLA does condone these things, but the ACLU does not.

Then you bring up an entirely new argument concerning the age of consent. What are you trying to say here? Are you implying that this somehow shows that the ACLU supports child pornography? How so?

As an aside, it may interest you to know that the age of consent is already 14 or lower in some states.

By Anonymous, at 1:58 PM
No what I said was that the ACLU was calling the child pornography that nambla was dessiminating was free speech. regailing stories of having sex with minors would be child pornography. I know what I said no need to bend my words.

By Dr. Phat Tony, at 3:01 PM
Dr. phat tony: I think the case you are referring to cjb is a civil case where nambla was sued for dispersing literature that incited criminal acts.

Exactly. NAMBLA was being sued for directly inciting the general public to rape and murder young boys and the ACLU defended them against that charge. The ACLU used the right to free speech as part of their argument in their first motion to dismiss, but that motion was denied on all counts. The ACLU did not defend their right to publish child pornography specifically. The heart of the matter for most people is the emotional recoil from the fact that the ACLU or anyone else would defend something as vile and repugnant as NAMBLA in any court.

What you are trying to do is to denigrate the ACLU because they fight for free speech in general by picking on the specific things protected under that right that you happen to disagree with, such as child pornography. Now I agree with you that child pornography is wrong and I’m glad that it is illegal. But did you know that the ACLU also defends the religious rights of street preachers and others on the basis of free speech? Check out this list of them. If you don’t believe the ACLU’s web site, then here is some independent corroboration of the stories on street preachers from Las Vegas, New Mexico and religious expression in schools from Las Vegas.

By Anonymous, at 4:34 PM
He is a crook because he is misrepresenting everything he says and then has the gaul to say that he has no opinion that he is fighting so hard for.

crook1 Audio pronunciation of "crook" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krk)
n.

4. Informal. One who makes a living by dishonest methods.

It certainly qualifies here

By Haximus, at 9:40 PM
CJB,
"progress" by definition is a slippery slope. Why do you keep attacking my argument skills whether than what I'm arguing about?
No, I don't see Animal/human marriages happening in my lifetime, but I bet people in the 50s never would've guessed that gay marriage would be a political issue.
And as far as the "consent" thing, it has already been said that dolphins have intelligence and can communicate somewhat with humans. "Intelligence in some ways surpassing humans" were the type of terms used.

By Rebekah, at 7:00 AM
Also, are you or are you not for gay Civil Unions and marriages? That would be redefining marriage. I don't think it was an "incorrect assumption".

By Rebekah, at 7:03 AM
Rebekah-

I still don't understand how we could, in the foreseeable future, ever come to the point where we understand that dolphins could grasp the concept of marriage. There is certainly a language barrier, for one thing. Even if it is true that they are more intelligent than us in some aspects, there really is no feasible way for either party to communicate to the other about the issue. We could not explain marriage to it and it could not confirm its willingness to embark in such a thing. This completely ignores the huge possibility that the dolphins would never understand marriage at all in their current stage of development. I very much doubt that even apes or monkeys could grasp the idea of marriage, even though they are our closests genetic cousins (I am excited for the evolution debate, by the way...)

cjb, I apologize for the confusion about the consent argument.

By Anonymous, at 11:05 AM
Paul,

What does the ability to comprehend marriage have to do with the so-called "right" an adult human to marry his or her true love and be happy?

Do try to remember that this entire argument has ben framed as a human rights issue by the homosexuals and their advocates. This has nothing at all to do with sense, rightness, or intelligence. It is purely the selfish desire, the "I want" mindset that demands every desire of the human heart be met and confirmed as a societal norm or right. This is the basis of the legal arguments that have been used successfully by homosexuals regarding marriage so far. It is because the case has been framed this way that the "rights" of other sexual deviants to mary into their deviancy must logically be legaly recognized and allowed.

It sucks, but it's true.

By Daniel Levesque, at 7:07 AM
Daniel, you say "What does the ability to comprehend marriage have to do with the so-called "right" an adult human to marry his or her true love and be happy?"

Surely this answers the question, although in the gay marriage sense and not the ludicrous 'dolphin marriage' comedy story? It's all about the right to marry your true love!
Are you married to your true love?
Are you happy? I certainly am!

By DanProject76, at 9:37 AM

Raving Conservative

Friday, January 06, 2006

More on the Dolphin Marriage

43 Comments:

About

Contributors

Previous

Proud Member of the Alliance