The Purpose of Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SextusEmpiricus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ThinkingSapien said:
Various forms of religious animal have occurred between animals and humans (1, 2).

As for the civil contract of marriage, in the western world animals don’t meet the requirements for being contractible (some adult humans don’t meet these requirements either). Entities not meeting these requirements cannot engage in binding contracts. It’s not just specifically that animals can’t marry humans, it’s that animals can’t engage in contracts.

Once you find animals that can engage in contracts then you’ll have less obstacles between animals engaging in the civil contract of marriage.
Click to expand...
I always find the issue of animals and consent curious.

Consent is invoked by secular humanists…yet I never see any meat-eating humanist ever, once, ask for the consent of the cow he is eating before he devours the steak at Morton’s.

NB: please do not ask me how I know if these folks haven’t asked for the cow’s consent. For real.

So consent is required for bestiality–something which involves only pleasure–but consent is never appealed to when killing the animal–a loss of life!–is required.

It appears that you folks have it backwards. Consent ought to be required before an animal gives its life so you can enjoy its flesh. Not so much when it just lays there to give someone pleasure.
 
PRmerger said:
I always find the issue of animals and consent curious.

Consent is invoked by secular humanists…yet I never see any meat-eating humanist ever, once, ask for the consent of the cow he is eating before he devours the steak at Morton’s.
Click to expand...
You might need to ask a meat-eating secular humanist about that to get clarity.I could be wrong but I think the “human-” prefix indicates that humans are their primary object of concern. For those that draw the line in the sand some where else and have different limitations on supporting the ending of life for food there are other labels, such as “ethical vegan.” There were some other threads in this forum discussing this.
PRmerger said:
So consent is required for bestiality–
Click to expand...
Is it?
 
inocente said:
It couldn’t happen in civil marriage unless the law was first changed to overcome the problems that animals are not citizens, can’t give consent and can’t make vows. It seems highly improbable that voters would approve such measures, that the legislature would entertain them, or the courts accept them.

On the other hand any cult could call it a religious marriage according to their supposed spirits or gods or whatnot.

So it appears that democratic human conventions provide by far the stronger safeguard here. 😛
Click to expand...
What does “cult” include?
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Various forms of religious animal have occurred between animals and humans (1, 2).

As for the civil contract of marriage, in the western world animals don’t meet the requirements for being contractible (some adult humans don’t meet these requirements either). Entities not meeting these requirements cannot engage in binding contracts. It’s not just specifically that animals can’t marry humans, it’s that animals can’t engage in contracts.

Once you find animals that can engage in contracts then you’ll have less obstacles between animals engaging in the civil contract of marriage.
Click to expand...
Do contracts always have to be expressed in words (which often turn out to be ignored or forgotten?
 
tonyrey said:
Do contracts always have to be expressed in words (which often turn out to be ignored or forgotten?
Click to expand...
Quasi-contracts don’t (aka implied contracts). These aren’t real contracts, but rather made-up contracts to enforce equability. For example, if I sell you a car and I didn’t promise that the car would not explode and the car shortly explodes without you doing anything abusive then the implied warranty of merchantibility could be applied. Implied contracts usually come into play when one is seeking restitution. You’ll need to check your local laws to see what Quasi-contracts are available in your area of the world.
 
tonyrey said:
What does “cult” include?
Click to expand...
:confused: Usual meaning, as in neo-nazi cult, the Jonestown cult, the Heaven’s Gate cult, cargo cults …

Democratic institutions provide safeguards whereas cults can be hazardous to health.
 
inocente said:
:confused: Usual meaning, as in neo-nazi cult, the Jonestown cult, the Heaven’s Gate cult, cargo cults …

Democratic institutions provide safeguards whereas cults can be hazardous to health.
Click to expand...
Do you distinguish Baptist Christianity from a cult? If so how?
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Various forms of religious animal have occurred between animals and humans (1, 2).

As for the civil contract of marriage, in the western world animals don’t meet the requirements for being contractible (some adult humans don’t meet these requirements either). Entities not meeting these requirements cannot engage in binding contracts. It’s not just specifically that animals can’t marry humans, it’s that animals can’t engage in contracts.

Once you find animals that can engage in contracts then you’ll have less obstacles between animals engaging in the civil contract of marriage.
Click to expand...
Do you think animals can’t engage in contracts simply because they can’t express themselves linguistically?
 
tonyrey said:
When animals pair for life why isn’t their relationship superior to a broken marriage? 😉
Click to expand...
I don’t compare non-human pairing relationships for superiority or inferiority.
tonyrey said:
Do you think animals can’t engage in contracts simply because they can’t express themselves linguistically?
Click to expand...
Nope, there’s a number of other requirements that they don’t meet for being able to engage in contracts.
 
tonyrey said:
Then why single out human pairing relationships?
Click to expand...
I haven’t. The relationship status of the animals that I’ve interacted with has never been information of consequence to the interaction.
tonyrey said:
Such as?
Click to expand...
The communication issue interferes with communicating the terms of a contract and acceptance of those terms.
  • Person-hood status (instead of property status)
  • Demonstration of mental capacity for understanding the terms of a contract
  • Eligibility for other laws on which the contract is dependent
  • Citizenship (in some cases)
 
What with all this talk of bestiality, it got me thinking. It has been shown in the lab that human sperm can penetrate the cell wall of gibbon eggs. Does that imply this pairing is ordered toward procreation?

Source: Bedford JM (August 1977). “Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa”. Anat. Rec. 188 (4): 477–87.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
I haven’t. The relationship status of the animals that I’ve interacted with has never been information of consequence to the interaction.
The communication issue interferes with communicating the terms of a contract and acceptance of those terms.
  • Person-hood status (instead of property status)
  • Demonstration of mental capacity for understanding the terms of a contract
  • Eligibility for other laws on which the contract is dependent
  • Citizenship (in some cases)
Click to expand...
You are implying that human contracts are more valuable and significant than animal relationships - which amounts to irrational preference for one’s own species.
 
mek42 said:
What with all this talk of bestiality, it got me thinking. It has been shown in the lab that human sperm can penetrate the cell wall of gibbon eggs. Does that imply this pairing is ordered toward procreation?

Source: Bedford JM (August 1977). “Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa”. Anat. Rec. 188 (4): 477–87.
Click to expand...
It demonstrates that scientific facts are an inadequate basis for moral decisions about the purpose of marriage.
 
mek42 said:
What with all this talk of bestiality, it got me thinking. It has been shown in the lab that human sperm can penetrate the cell wall of gibbon eggs. Does that imply this pairing is ordered toward procreation?
Click to expand...
Gibbons have 44 chromosomes. Humans have 46. Assuming a sustainable organism resulted from such a union it would end up with 45 chromosome. From what I recall metazoans with odd numbers of chromosome tend to be unable to reproduce. (ex: Horses have 64, Donkey’s have 62, the resulting mules have 65 and can’t produce sustainable offspring).
 
tonyrey said:
You are implying that human contracts are more valuable and significant than animal relationships
Click to expand...
Well, no, that’s an inference that you’ve made, but not something that I’ve implied. Not that I expect you to recall the previous threads in which we both participated, but I don’t express value independent of a valuer(1, 2). In the inference that you are making to have personal meaning to me I’d need to know “more valuable to who?” and “more valuable in what way?”

But no need to fill in those gaps. It’s a comparative proposition to which I only have apathy. Outside the animals that live with me most of the animals I encounter on any given day are recently deceased, such as the armadillo I passed on my drive into work this AM or the carcasses that I routinely remove after the cat has collected them at the front door. Not really a state that inspires thoughts on what their pairing behaviour might have been like.
 
tonyrey said:
Do you distinguish Baptist Christianity from a cult? If so how?
Click to expand...
*cult - a system of religious belief, esp. one not recognized as an established religion, or the people who worship according to such a system of belief: People considered him a brilliant cult leader and con man.

A cult is also something that is very popular with some people, or a particular set of beliefs or behavior: a cult movie, the cult of celebrity - dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/cult?q=cult*

So, exactly the same way you distinguish your faith from a cult. Checks and balances, checks and balances.

Not to put too fine a point on it, just like a secular democracy. 🙂
 
mek42 said:
What with all this talk of bestiality, it got me thinking. It has been shown in the lab that human sperm can penetrate the cell wall of gibbon eggs. Does that imply this pairing is ordered toward procreation?

Source: Bedford JM (August 1977). “Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa”. Anat. Rec. 188 (4): 477–87.
Click to expand...
Even if it were it would not be moral because sex cannot be removed from the unitive property.

That is why in vitro fertilization immoral even if it is procreative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top