Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Im not talking about consent.

 

I am talking about discussing immoral vs moral behavior. 

 

Fine you can view something as immoral but that doesn't mean you should advocate legislation making it illegal. I view homosexuality as immoral for obvious reasons, I know plenty of people that disagree with me fine, I don't think either of us should make a law about it.

Quote:How hard is it to understand the word "consenting"?


Adults can give consent, animals can not give consent, 

 

Animals are property, they have no rights and consent is not needed. Of course, that means they can't enter into legal relationships either.

Quote:Animals are property, they have no rights and consent is not needed. Of course, that means they can't enter into legal relationships either.

Exactly. So this whole slippery slope argument of gay marrige leading to animal canoodling and legalized kiddie diddling is merely fear mongering on the side against gay marriage.

Quote:Fine you can view something as immoral but that doesn't mean you should advocate legislation making it illegal. I view homosexuality as immoral for obvious reasons, I know plenty of people that disagree with me fine, I don't think either of us should make a law about it.

 

You see the point you just made?

 

You and I view homosexuality as immoral right? What's the difference if we both view polygamy, and zooilism as immoral as well?

 

They are wrongful behaviors. 

Quote:You see the point you just made?

 

You and I view homosexuality as immoral right? What's the difference if we both view polygamy, and zooilism as immoral as well?

 

They are wrongful behaviors. 

 

And it's not for you to tell them that they cannot engage in them if they choose to, that is Eric's point.

Quote:You see the point you just made?


You and I view homosexuality as immoral right? What's the difference if we both view polygamy, and zooilism as immoral as well?


They are wrongful behaviors.

Sure I find prostitution, homosexuality, adultry, porongraphy, and polygamy all immoral. However all of the above involve consenting adults doing something they find acceptable. If it's consenting parties there's no life threatened and no property threatened therefor no business of government to dicrate private behavior. As for animals people have pointed out to you they can't consent so there's no way for marriage to be an issue. As for people just performing sexual acts on animals unless they own the animal it's damaging someone's property. If they own the animal well.....I suspect people would eventually stop selling them animals or society would figure out a way to deal with the fringe freak.

Quote:Sure I find prostitution, homosexuality, adultry, porongraphy, and polygamy all immoral. However all of the above involve consenting adults doing something they find acceptable. If it's consenting parties there's no life threatened and no property threatened therefor no business of government to dicrate private behavior. As for animals people have pointed out to you they can't consent so there's no way for marriage to be an issue. As for people just performing sexual acts on animals unless they own the animal it's damaging someone's property. If they own the animal well.....I suspect people would eventually stop selling them animals or society would figure out a way to deal with the fringe freak.

 

If you own an animal should you have a right to do whatever you want with it?   Torture it?   Starve it?   Beat it to death?   Should I be able to buy a dog, douse it in gasoline and set it on fire without the government having anything to say about it? 

Quote:If you own an animal should you have a right to do whatever you want with it?   Torture it?   Starve it?   Beat it to death?   Should I be able to buy a dog, douse it in gasoline and set it on fire without the government having anything to say about it? 

 

Quote:If you own an animal should you have a right to do whatever you want with it?   Torture it?   Starve it?   Beat it to death?   Should I be able to buy a dog, douse it in gasoline and set it on fire without the government having anything to say about it? 

 

If you own an animal, the land you live on is your own (you're not in a community that might require you to agree not to torture, starve, beat or sexually interact with animals as a condition to purchase land there), then there's no legal ground for anyone to stop it. 

 

legislating morality is legislating morality, these fringe cases only lead to more laws that eventually lead you to a path of the level of moral legislation we have today. Where do people get the idea they need government to tell them whats right and what's wrong, laws don't equate morals. Property is property if someone is abusing their property it's up to others not to sell them property in the future. Most communities (cities, towns, counties even) and most banks before lending money to purchase property would require people to agree to not participate in these activities before selling or funding the purchase of land anyways. So why do you need government to legislate you can't do these random acts?

 

It's how you go from government saying "discrimination" is bad and we should make a law about that, to the government telling you who you can and can't marry.

Quote:And it's not for you to tell them that they cannot engage in them if they choose to, that is Eric's point.

 

I never said its not in my place to tell someone to stop their immoral behavior. 

Quote:Sure I find prostitution, homosexuality, adultry, porongraphy, and polygamy all immoral. However all of the above involve consenting adults doing something they find acceptable. If it's consenting parties there's no life threatened and no property threatened therefor no business of government to dicrate private behavior. As for animals people have pointed out to you they can't consent so there's no way for marriage to be an issue. As for people just performing sexual acts on animals unless they own the animal it's damaging someone's property. If they own the animal well.....I suspect people would eventually stop selling them animals or society would figure out a way to deal with the fringe freak.

 

Again, im not talking about consent, Im taking issue with accepting immoral behavior.

Quote:I never said its not in my place to tell someone to stop their immoral behavior. 

Oh.... So YOU are the morality police. As long as YOU are ok with it then other people can do whatever they want. 

 

It's a good people of such high moral standing as yourself were not able to stop women's right to vote or desegregation. 

Quote:Oh.... So YOU are the morality police. As long as YOU are ok with it then other people can do whatever they want. 

 

It's a good people of such high moral standing as yourself were not able to stop women's right to vote or desegregation. 

 

Dont get mad at me because someone poured sour milk in your cornflakes.

 

I speak on behaviors that I deem inappropriate.  

Dogs can't say 'I do.' /thread

Quote:If you own an animal, the land you live on is your own (you're not in a community that might require you to agree not to torture, starve, beat or sexually interact with animals as a condition to purchase land there), then there's no legal ground for anyone to stop it. 

 

legislating morality is legislating morality, these fringe cases only lead to more laws that eventually lead you to a path of the level of moral legislation we have today. Where do people get the idea they need government to tell them whats right and what's wrong, laws don't equate morals. Property is property if someone is abusing their property it's up to others not to sell them property in the future. Most communities (cities, towns, counties even) and most banks before lending money to purchase property would require people to agree to not participate in these activities before selling or funding the purchase of land anyways. So why do you need government to legislate you can't do these random acts?

 

It's how you go from government saying "discrimination" is bad and we should make a law about that, to the government telling you who you can and can't marry.

 

I'm not sure I understand your answer.  It sounds like you think the government has no business legislating against animal cruelty.  So, to be specific, are you against animal cruelty laws?   Do you think laws banning animal cruelty fall outside your preferred role for government?    In other words, you would prefer that the government pass no law stopping me from setting dogs on fire as long as I own the dogs? 

Quote:Exactly. So this whole slippery slope argument of gay marriage leading to animal canoodling and legalized kiddie diddling is merely fear mongering on the side against gay marriage.

 

Jeez, you make these things sound so...cute.

Quote:I never said its not in my place to tell someone to stop their immoral behavior. 

 

I know, I'm the one saying it's not your place.

Quote:In other words, you would prefer that the government pass no law stopping me from setting dogs on fire as long as I own the dogs? 

 

Quote:I'm not sure I understand your answer.  It sounds like you think the government has no business legislating against animal cruelty.  So, to be specific, are you against animal cruelty laws?   Do you think laws banning animal cruelty fall outside your preferred role for government?    In other words, you would prefer that the government pass no law stopping me from setting dogs on fire as long as I own the dogs? 

 

I think the laws are unnecessary so as a default yes I'm against animal cruelty laws. Now if you want to have the discussion do animals have rights, that's a discussion to be had. If laws are passed for animals to have rights then they would be extended legal protection. As it is today, animals are property. If someone owns property they are free to do with it as they will.

 

There's so many ways to prevent animal cruelty without passing laws specifically forbidding someone from doing something with their private property.

Quote:I'm not sure I understand your answer.  It sounds like you think the government has no business legislating against animal cruelty.  So, to be specific, are you against animal cruelty laws?   Do you think laws banning animal cruelty fall outside your preferred role for government?    In other words, you would prefer that the government pass no law stopping me from setting dogs on fire as long as I own the dogs? 

 

Another point, some cultures eat dogs and cats. Who are we to say you can't do that? Their culture might say you can't eat cows their divine beings. We see them as a main course. Why is our culture superior to theirs? who's morality should we legislate? Is it immoral to eat a dog but not a cow?