Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Servetus
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 04 April 2001
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2109
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Topic: British Woman Marries Dolphin Posted: 14 February 2006 at 5:02pm |
"I only regret that I was so flipp-ant when first addressing this. What are the chances of anyone developing a relationship with a dolphin? Get a grip!
Well, Tim, you were excusably flipp-ant and I will be happy to get a grip when I am finally fin-ished with this discussion. At this rate, as I see it, the impulse toward the final legal recognition of interspecies marriage, at least within secular societies, will not, I predict, be slowed by the fact that one�s chances with a dolphin are next to null. I grant that there might be flaws in my logic here, but, for that matter, my chances (for marriage) with Greta Sacchi are none too favorable either!
I depart this conversation for now.
"So long and thanks for all the fish!"
Serv
|
|
Ketchup
Senior Member
Joined: 10 February 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 349
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 February 2006 at 4:49pm |
About the same chances as some one marrying one I'd say.
|
|
Tim Evans
Senior Member
Joined: 31 January 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 273
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 February 2006 at 3:45pm |
I only regret that I was so flipp-ant when first addressing this.
What are the chances of anyone developing a relationship with a dolphin? Get a grip!
|
Tim in Britain
|
|
Ketchup
Senior Member
Joined: 10 February 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 349
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 February 2006 at 2:59pm |
Servetus wrote:
(Ketchup:) " ... my upbringing also teaches me that beastiality is wrong on every level."
I do not mean to turn this thread into one of my book reports, but Robert Bork, in his either alarmist or alarming, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, argues that (I paraphrase) such absolutist and morally loaded concepts as right and wrong are increasingly giving way, in an at best amoral (when not immoral), legally relativistic society (USA), to legal and illegal. Those latter two, as we all know, are prone to change and are not determined by religion but by the courts .
I appreciate your response and enjoy talking to you.
Best regards,
Serv
|
That doesn't sound like the sort of book I would read but any way.. you are correct as morals are good but ultimately every thing is governed by law.
Assuming this is factually correct.. though it doesn't cover every country, it is interesting to see that from this list the UK has the toughest laws..
http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_for_all/beastlaw.html
STATE/COUNTRY VAR LAW SN &nbs p; &nbs p; &nbs p; PEN
USA LAWS
Alabama: C YES Code of Ala. @13A-6-63 "sodomy in the 1st degree" (1994) criminal offense. Alaska: C NONE Arizona: C NONE Arkansas: C YES Ark. Stat. Ann. Criminal Offense: @13A-6-63 (1994) "sodomy in 1st degree" California: C YES Penal Code Section 286.5 Misdemeanor Colorado: C NONE Connecticut: C YES General Statutes of CT Class A misdemeanor Sec. 53a-73a   ; Sexual assault in the fourth degree. Delaware: C YES 11 Del. C. @777 (1993) Class D Criminal felony. Florida: C NONE Georgia: C YES O.C.G.A. @16-6-6 (1994) 1-5 yr. jail sentence. Hawaii: C NONE Idaho: C YES Idaho Code @18-6605 "length of imprisonment in (1994) excess of 5 years is left to discretion of court." Illinois: C YES 720 ILCS 5/12-12 (1994) Crime. Indiana: C YES Burn Ind. Code. Ann. @35-42-4-2 (1994) Iowa: C NONE Kansas: C YES K.S.A. @2103506 (1993) Aggravated criminal sodomy security level 2, felony Kentucky: C NONE Louisiana: C YES Revised Statutes 14:89 $2,000 fine and/or 5 years with or without hard labor. Maine: C YES 17-A M.R.S. @ 251 (1994) Class C Crime; 3-5 years Maryland: C YES Unnatural/Perverted up to $1,000 fine, Sexual Acts Article 27, Max of 10 years PT Section 553 Massachusetts: C YES Mass. Ann. Laws. Jail sentence of not ch. 272 @34 (1994) more than 20 years Michigan: C YES MCL @750.185 (1992) Jail sentence of not more than 15 years Minnessota: C YES Minn. Stat. @609.294, Either fine of not more (1993) than $3,000 or sentence of not more than 1 year. Mississippi: C YES Miss. Code. Ann., Sentence of not more than @97-29-59 &nb sp; 10 years. Missouri: C NONE Montana: C YES Mont. Code. Ann., 10 year sentence and/or @45-5-505 (1994) $50,000 fine. Nebraska: C NONE Nevada: C NONE New Hampshire: C NONE New Jersey: C NONE New Mexico: C NONE New York: C YES NY CLS Penal @130.20 Class A misdemeanor. (1994) North Carolina: C YES N.C. Gen. Stat. @14-177 Class I felony. 3-10 years (1994) North Dakota: C YES N.D. Cent. Code Various penalties, and can @12.1-20-03, 12.1-20-07, be considered either 12.1-20-12(1993) &n bsp; "gross sexual imposition," "sexual assault" or "deviate sexual act" Ohio: C NONE Oklahoma: C YES 21 Okl. St. @886 (1994) "imprisonment not to exceed 10 years" Oregon: C NONE Pennsylvania: C YES 18 Pa. C. S. @3101, 3123 and 3124 (1994) Rhode Island: C YES R.I. Gen. Laws @11-10-1 7-20 years. (1993) South Carolina: C YES S.C. Code Ann. &n bsp; 5 yrs jail and/or fine of @16-15-120 (1993) at least $500 South Dakota: C NONE Tennessee: C YES Tenn. Code. Ann. @39-13-501 (1994) Texas: C NONE Utah: C YES Bestiality 76-9-301.8 Class B Misdemeanor Vermont: C NONE Virginia: C YES Va. Code. Ann. &n bsp; Class 6 Felony @18.2-361 (1994) Washington: C NONE Washington DC: C YES DC Code @22-3502 (1994) Fine not more than $1,000 ("Sexual Psychopath" and/or sentence of not chapter) &nbs p; more than 10 yrs West Virginia: C NONE Wisconsin: C YES Wis. State. @944.17 None listed (1993) Wyoming: C NONE
========================[C - LAWS IN OTHER COUNTRIES]
Canada: C YES Criminal Code of Canada Approx 10 years Part V, Section 160. <URL:http://canada.justice.gc.ca/> Denmark: W NONE Finland: W NONE -   ;   ; - Mexico: C NONE according to Franz, Carl: "The People's Guide to Mexico", 1988. pg. 398. New Zealand: C YES Crimes Act of 1964 Maximum 7 years PT Section 143 & 144 Switzerland: W NONE United Kingdom: C YES Sexual Offences Act of Life imprisonment 1956, Section 12(1) (typically 30 years) Sexual Offences Act of 1967, Section 3(1) |
To me it is wrong to others it isn't. To me having sex with an animal is just as bad as having sex with a small child.
Its good talking to you too Serv, it is refreshining.
Kind regards.
|
|
Servetus
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 04 April 2001
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2109
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 February 2006 at 2:32pm |
(Ketchup:) " ... my upbringing also teaches me that beastiality is wrong on every level."
I do not mean to turn this thread into one of my book reports, but Robert Bork, in his either alarmist or alarming Slouching Towards Gomorrah argues that (I paraphrase) such absolutist and morally loaded concepts as right and wrong are increasingly giving way, in an at best amoral (when not immoral), legally relativistic society (USA), to legal and illegal. Those latter two, as we all know, are prone to change and are not determined by religion but by the courts .
I appreciate your response and enjoy talking to you.
Best regards,
Serv
Edited by Servetus
|
|
Ketchup
Senior Member
Joined: 10 February 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 349
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 February 2006 at 2:07pm |
Servetus wrote:
(Ketchup:) �I�m scared of spiders, does that count? How ever irrational it may seem.�
No, not exactly (but good thinking and I am sorry to hear of your phobia). In this case, the term 'zoophobia' sounds general enough to permit fear of spiders but it is at times rather more specific than that. Please, if you will, think of it this way. For purposes of this discussion, and to narrow it down a bit, a �zoophobe� is opposite to what Wikipedia calls a �zoophile.� I quote Wikipedia below, but bracket my comments:
Zoophilia is usually [especially by what remains of the atavistic religionists and renegade Traditionalists] considered to be unnatural, and sexual acts with animals are often condemned as animal abuse and/or outlawed as [oh no, not these again] �crimes against nature� ... However, some [especially relativistic moderns, or post-moderns] � argue that this is not inherently the case. Although research has [fortunately for the 'zero-population' gang] broadly been supportive of at least some of zoophiles' central claims, common [read: in the main ignorant] culture is generally hostile to the concept of animal-human sexuality � The activity [with animals] or desire [sexual attraction to animals] itself is [like many a so-called pathology before it] no longer classified as a pathology under DSMIV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of [that august body of analyzers of what any modern worth his salt will tell us does not exist, the psyche, or soul] the American Psychiatric Association unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person � |
�Oh brave, new world, that has such people in it!" Anyone for a swim?
Serv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beastiality
|
I misunderstood what you meant... if the thought of sexual acts with animals disgusts and revolts me then I guess that makes me zoophobic... my upbringing teaches me to respect all animals, my upbringing also teaches me that beastiality is wrong on every level.
Horses for courses I guess.
|
|
Mishmish
Senior Member
Joined: 01 November 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1694
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 February 2006 at 1:47pm |
|
It is only with the heart that one can see clearly, what is essential is invisible to the eye. (The Little Prince)
|
|
Servetus
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 04 April 2001
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2109
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 February 2006 at 1:42pm |
(Ketchup:) �I�m scared of spiders, does that count? How ever irrational it may seem.�
No, not exactly (but good thinking and I am sorry to hear of your phobia). In this case, the term 'zoophobia' sounds general enough to permit fear of spiders but it is at times rather more specific than that. Please, if you will, think of it this way. For purposes of this discussion, and to narrow it down a bit, a �zoophobe� is opposite to what Wikipedia calls a �zoophile.� I quote Wikipedia below, but bracket my comments:
Zoophilia is usually [especially by what remains of the atavistic religionists and renegade Traditionalists] considered to be unnatural, and sexual acts with animals are often condemned as animal abuse and/or outlawed as [oh no, not these again] �crimes against nature� ... However, some [especially relativistic moderns, or post-moderns] � argue that this is not inherently the case. Although research has [fortunately for the 'zero-population' gang] broadly been supportive of at least some of zoophiles' central claims, common [read: in the main ignorant] culture is generally hostile to the concept of animal-human sexuality � The activity [with animals] or desire [sexual attraction to animals] itself is [like many a so-called pathology before it] no longer classified as a pathology under DSMIV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of [that august body of analyzers of what any modern worth his salt will tell us does not exist, the psyche, or soul] the American Psychiatric Association unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person � |
�Oh brave, new world, that has such people in it!" Anyone for a swim?
Serv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beastiality
Edited by Servetus
|
|