Tech_Esq
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Huh... So where 'science' could show that animals can consent to sexual intercourse... you'd be fine with that?
And that question goes to the others who adhered to the position that the sexual orientation of beastiality lacks the legitimacy of the homo-sexual orientation because animals can't give their verbal consent...
Which of course goes to the same question regarding children.
The APA has issued a 'SCIENTIFIC study' which concludes that children who consent to sexual relationships with adults actually benefit from the experience and that children who are known to have been molested as children do not suffer long term psychological injury...
Do you believe that where 'science' can show that a child is able to give their consent, that an adult who engages in sexual activity with such a child are within their RIGHTS and should not be condemned of suffer any consequences as a result of that decision?
PI, the legal argument to this is capacity not speech.
Neither children nor animals have the capacity to consent. Thus, if you have sex with a minor, it is statutory rape. It doesn't matter if they jump on you, pull your thingy out and do it all themselves, rape. You on them. Provided that you were a willing participant in some way.
Same goes for animals. It doesn't matter if your wife taught your lab to talk and he said, "yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I love sex with you." Still no consent. The law says your lab is too dumb to consent, even if he could do it verbally.
Next.
Hmm... Tech... Check me if I'm wrong here... but "... where 'science' could show that animals {and children} can consent to sexual intercourse... ' that would necessarily be a function of 'capacity,' now wouldn't it?
Speech being, little more than evidence of a higher cognitive capacity... but the nod of affirmation would suffice... where the shalkng of the head in opposition was also a realized means... as would be the means to scratch a 'mark' in affirmation of a written contract... wouldn't that suffice?
The premise is clear and unambiguous... 'where science could provide that consent was obtainable...'
Now Rind's 'report' concludes that many children are perfectly suited to offer their consent... and where such is offered; 'loving sexual relationships with adults' is actually beneficial to some children...
This member declared that where such were to be established, that they would 'have no problem' with beastiality or adult/child sex...
The point is Tech, that the ranks of the social science corp, if you will, are LOADED with individuals who are of like mind and who are perfectly CERTAIN that such is possible; that children are psychologically suited to consent to sexual relationships... there can be no doubt that the hand licking sheep is perfectly capapble of offering consent... to oppose that certainty, one has to conclude that Ovis Aries as a species has been sustained by tens of thousands of years of unbridled rape... and I imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a sound conclusion to sustain that one.
Public mores are a function of cultural experience... contrary to mythical belief, these standards are not just jotted up as a means to punish the perves...
Beastiality is a very dangerous practice, as it subjects the participants to all manner of medical calamities... where disease is provided a means of transmission from one species to the next, which nature has sought to avoid the the biological baseline; wherein sexual arousal is NOT triggered through the consideration of animals.
Come on man... you can't be serious here.
I'm all for a reasoned discussion of the legalities, from principle to reasoned application... and anyone that's read my work, knows I love a good semantics argument... but this one is a real stinker...
While you may agree with Dickens that, "if the law says that it is a (sic) ass." Nevertheless, it is a fair rendition of what the law says.
Regardless of cognitive studies of children and dumb beasts, the fact remains that legally, they are unable to consent because they lack capacity.
Similarly, if we can take this argument away from sex for a moment, minors lack the capacity to civilly contract for services. A businessman engages in contract with a minor at his peril. A minor may recant its part in the contract and the businessman is left holding the bag.
The hill is much steeper than you suppose.