"What's next, Bestiality?" revisited

[KrazyerKate]

I don't know too many LGBT in meatspace, so I have to occasionally check in to keep myself from getting surrounded by the 'wrong' side of the politics. I'd just like to apologize in advance because I always come across as kind of a douche during these conversations. So the logic goes that as long as everyone involved can consent and nobody's being hurt, the government shouldn't do anything to stop it. I'm wondering what if I want to marry something I own? It is, after all, mine to do what I please with. If I want to have sex with and marry my motorcycle and that isn't hurting anybody, shouldn't the government not get involved there either? What about the cow I own? I can kill it and eat it, why can't I marry it?

I obviously don't think that you should be able to marry your toaster or pet goldfish, but I'm having trouble figuring out why, and I'd like to hear the people who are more actively pro-gay-rights try to defend marriage between humans against marrying your property.

[Hawknc]

Consent. Marriage is a contract between two parties, and in any civilised society a contract is void unless all participants freely consented to signing it. Your cow, your toaster and your underage friend can't consent, so you can't marry them. Not so for your same-sex partner.

[Aiea]

Darn, Hawknc beat me to it. Consent. Marriage is all about consent, as long as it is consent without coersion people should be allowed to get married to each other. If cows were to somehow be able to learn to communicate at what we consider an adult level and wishes to give consent that is not coereced, fine go ahead and marry your cow.

[HungryHobo]

You are in fact totally free to have sex with your motorcycle if you so wish... if you really wanted to.

Where it would get weird is if you wanted to marry a corporation since they can consent to contracts and are legal entities but are also nonhuman property.

[PAstrychef]

The laws against bestiality are as much a moral statement as they are in the interests of protecting your animals from inter-species sex. It's the Eww factor. If you keep it quiet and only interact with your own animals, no one will know if you go out to the barn to milk the cows or screw them. Same with inanimate objects.
In Japan, there has been a trend of young men "marrying" the online female characters they love, and carrying around pillows with their picture, or dolls dressed to look like them.
A different way to attack the question is to ask what you want the marriage to do-tell people that this is your true love? Get some kind of benefit for your spouse? Can your cow really benefit from being named on your health insurance? Can your motorcycle really give you a tax break?
With the notion of corporations as legal "persons" you can get into some of the questions surrounding multiple-partner marriages, as one solution to the current illegality of them is to form a corporation that gives the legal protections of being a spouse to it's members.
And, in a very real way, it's not the State's business.

[yurell]

That's something I don't understand -- how is it less moral to have sex with your animals than, say, kill them? Castrate them for no reason? Cut off their beaks and subject them to mental anguish?
I know it really doesn't help against the argument that they're presenting, but I honestly can't justify to myself why bestiality is immoral while actually killing the animal / causing it physical & mental anguish isn't.

That said, as far as the subject of marriage goes, I think that should stay between two consenting, adult human beings because of the mentions already stated.

[KrazyerKate]

Consent. Marriage is a contract between two parties, and in any civilised society a contract is void unless all participants freely consented to signing it. Your cow, your toaster and your underage friend can't consent, so you can't marry them. Not so for your same-sex partner.

Isn't "Marriage is between two consenting adults" just as arbitrary a distinction as "Marriage is between a man and a woman"? Why is one okay and the other bigoted?

[Cleverbeans]

Isn't "Marriage is between two consenting adults" just as arbitrary a distinction as "Marriage is between a man and a woman"? Why is one okay and the other bigoted?

One arbitrary distinction excludes a significant population based on sexual orientation, making it bigoted.

[Glass Fractal]

Consent. Marriage is a contract between two parties, and in any civilised society a contract is void unless all participants freely consented to signing it. Your cow, your toaster and your underage friend can't consent, so you can't marry them. Not so for your same-sex partner.

Isn't "Marriage is between two consenting adults" just as arbitrary a distinction as "Marriage is between a man and a woman"? Why is one okay and the other bigoted?

If one doesn't believe that gay sex hurts people then "between consenting persons" is the broadest category that forbids harm.

[CorruptUser]

Unless you have people agreeing to be harmed. Yes, it does happen.

[Hedonic Treader]

The laws against bestiality are as much a moral statement as they are in the interests of protecting your animals from inter-species sex. It's the Eww factor.

I agree with yurell's counter-argument, we violate the interests of hundreds of millions of non-human animals in even more severe ways, and it's socially accepted and legal. Anti-bestiality laws are almost completely about the eww factor.

Protecting anyone from taboo sex is almost never about protection, it's almost always about eww. That said, there are legitimate reasons to ban certain types of sex because they harm non-consenting sentients, but our overall social customs and laws are not well-aligned with them.

As for marriage, a good solution would be to distinguish between the religious and social dimension on the one hand and the legal dimension on the other. It would make sense to let the former be mostly free from government intervention and the latter have the status of a voluntary contract between adult humans, with its properties freely chosen by mutual consent.

In other words, there should be no special legal treatment of marriage beyond the rights of individuals to agree to consensual contracts regarding their property, inheritance, last names etc.

[Hedonic Treader]

Unless you have people agreeing to be harmed. Yes, it does happen.

Ideally, people should have the right to harm themselves and consent to being harmed by others in specific ways. I'm not sure what the legal restrictions should be, but as far as I can tell, paternalistic interventions are so vulnerable to ideological rationalizations that they almost always cause more harm than good (not just w/regards to harmful sex, but also drugs, suicide, diet, dangerous sports etc).

A good alternative is to offer people voluntary information and counselling. I'd go so far to say Bernd Jürgen Brandes should have had the right to legally consent to being eaten, but the legality should have required more reliable ways to establish his cognitive ability to consent than the private communication that actually happened.

[KrazyerKate]

Isn't "Marriage is between two consenting adults" just as arbitrary a distinction as "Marriage is between a man and a woman"? Why is one okay and the other bigoted?

One arbitrary distinction excludes a significant population based on sexual orientation, making it bigoted.

You're saying that the rights the government should respect is determined by how many citizens would use those rights? If that's the case, I've got a petition to ban all use of the word "flibbertysnicket" that I'd like you to sign.

Consent. Marriage is a contract between two parties, and in any civilised society a contract is void unless all participants freely consented to signing it. Your cow, your toaster and your underage friend can't consent, so you can't marry them. Not so for your same-sex partner.

Isn't "Marriage is between two consenting adults" just as arbitrary a distinction as "Marriage is between a man and a woman"? Why is one okay and the other bigoted?

If one doesn't believe that gay sex hurts people then "between consenting persons" is the broadest category that forbids harm.

What harm does sex with a cow do? What harm does marrying car do?

[PAstrychef]

What harm does sex with a cow do? What harm does marrying car do?

Could my car then inherit my estate?
What do you think a marriage is? Answer that question, and the rest of your conundrum will fall into place.

[morriswalters]

Which you could state as Society requires marriage but marriage doesn't require society. In other words marry your motorcycle, just don't expect me to take it seriously.

[omgryebread]

What harm does sex with a cow do? What harm does marrying car do?

I've never met a cow nor a car that can consent to a contract.

Marriage is a contract, and contracts, by definition, require consent.

[Charlie!]

What harm does sex with a cow do? What harm does marrying car do?

I've never met a cow nor a car that can consent to a contract.

Marriage is a contract, and contracts, by definition in order to avoid being either useless or unethical (or both!), require consent.

[yurell]

I married a cow I fell in love with. She had children from a previous relationship (an angry bull, used to stay out late and come home drunk), but I loved her enough to overlook her six children, who didn't all care for me. However, now that I have children the tax breaks I'm getting are great, and if they ever come too expensive I can have them slaughtered (or the same with my new lesbian wife).
Of course, there is the issue that the cow is under the legal age of consent ... I didn't mention that at the time, but she was only 16.


The idea of marriage to non-humans requires treating them as people (a legal status that they didn't possess before) and enters into a legal contract with them to which they did not consent.

[CorruptUser]

Wait, if I can marry any person, can I marry a corporation? Because they are people too, depending who you ask.



Back on main topic, I don't see same-sex marriage as a slippery-slope to bestiality or any such thing. The slope ends at any person above the age of consent, regardless of gender, race, religion, health, fertility, sexual performance, wealth, social status, and so forth. (Yes, those have all been historic reasons to forbid a marriage).

[yurell]

Who says you can marry any person?

[ConMan]

Wait, if I can marry any person, can I marry a corporation? Because they are people too, depending who you ask.

I was wondering that. I suspect there's something in marriage law that prevents it, but a very naive reading suggests that since corporations can enter into contracts as though they are people, then you could marry a corporation as long as you got agreement from a majority of shareholders - probably not too different to how a merger takes place. But I do think that the difference between "is a person" and "can enter into contracts like a person" is where the argument falls down.

[CorruptUser]

I'm forming "<My Name> Incorporated", so I can be the first person to marry myself. Maybe I'll go with "Right Hand Corporation" instead.

[Anaximander]

What harm does sex with a cow do? What harm does marrying car do?

In the annals of animal husbandry, some communicable diseases have been known to spread by living in...*ahem*...close proximity to farm animals. And, also Ewwwwwwwwwwe....

Waka, waka, waka...

As for the car? Knock yerself out!

[caisara]

.

[lalop]

Back on main topic, I don't see same-sex marriage as a slippery-slope to bestiality or any such thing. The slope ends at any person above the age of consent, regardless of gender, race, religion, health, fertility, sexual performance, wealth, social status, and so forth. (Yes, those have all been historic reasons to forbid a marriage).

The slope hardly ends there. There are sentient non-humans, consenting humans whose brains or minds have been transferred to a body not traditionally considered able to consent (yes, someone may eventually be "trans-species", and chances are it's happened already - we just lack the technology for a "species reassignment"), and hell, non-sentient things that can pass a Turing test are also viable candidates (partially because there's no way to actually test someone's consciousness; if it acts sentient, that should really be good enough for the law).

The latter, funnily enough, is the most likely candidate for future bigotry. Something similar to the "eww" factor will cause future fundamentalists to rage against "robosexuality" (term borrowed from Futurama), no doubt using references to a Searle's Chinese Room that few of them would have actually read. But because we can't actually determine who has a consciousness, this will merely amount to discrimination against beings not sufficiently similar to an already established "person" (and I do mean whatever is considered a person at the time, not CorruptUser's now-seemingly somewhat narrow definition of it). Such insurmountable discrimination ("how do I prove I'm really conscious?") is practically the essence of bigotry.

Indeed, it is an ironic point that, at different points in time, several of CorruptUser's described groups were not considered persons, and this was no doubt a huge part of the bans against inter-group marriage. This is the exact same predicament that Turing-passing programs will have to face. Thus, the slope, far from ending at our modern pinnacle, will continue with the exact same old issues in the future. In retrospect, we hardly seem civilized..

.

.

Edit: Finally (this came to mind last), there is a less nerdy, but more relevant type of discrimination we haven't really considered: the stigma against nonstandard families that aren't just two monogamous spouses. Indeed, the same "eww" factor has led to polygamy being outlawed in the United States today. We cannot seriously think there's no more to the marriage slope when we still aren't permitting consenting groups of people to form whatever marriage structure they please. True, we may not be able to categorize them all for legal purposes, but we can still enforce their marriage contracts and provide marriage benefits based on number of peoples (most likely, letting them sort out themselves who gets which benefits).

[elasto]

The laws against bestiality are as much a moral statement as they are in the interests of protecting your animals from inter-species sex. It's the Eww factor.

I agree with yurell's counter-argument, we violate the interests of hundreds of millions of non-human animals in even more severe ways, and it's socially accepted and legal. Anti-bestiality laws are almost completely about the eww factor.

I think that the really interesting question is why is it icky?

It probably feels icky to most people for the same reason most other things that feel icky/scary do so (engaging in incest, touching poo, a spider falling on you etc): It's dangerous to the individual or bad for the species.

Diseases people catch from other people are not typically fatal - because if a pathogen is so virulent that it kills off its host then it reduces its chances of being spread to the next host. Diseases that people catch from animals don't have this problem - because even if they kill off their human host they still have their native host (which it usually doesn't kill off).

eg. this is why avian/swine/etc flu is much more lethal than a human flu, or why bubonic plague is so lethal (carried by fleas/rats).

[Hedonic Treader]

It probably feels icky to most people for the same reason most other things that feel icky/scary do so (engaging in incest, touching poo, a spider falling on you etc): It's dangerous to the individual or bad for the species.

Dangerous for the individual is a proper reason, if it is indeed true. Bad for the species doesn't work, because instincts like disgust or sexual attraction don't care about what's good for the species - they care about inclusive genetic fitness. But being sexually attracted to non-species members doesn't increase inclusive genetic fitness. Zoophilia feels icky for similar reasons that homosexuality, incest and pedophilia feel icky: They are sexual taboos based on evolved intuitions about inclusive genetic fitness.

Diseases people catch from other people are not typically fatal - because if a pathogen is so virulent that it kills off its host then it reduces its chances of being spread to the next host. Diseases that people catch from animals don't have this problem - because even if they kill off their human host they still have their native host (which it usually doesn't kill off).

I'd still question that the probability you'll die from a disease that you've catched from another human is smaller than the probability that you'll die from a disease that you catched from a non-human animal. As for fleas and other parasites, presumably we have extra aversive emotions toward them anyway. Considering we eat other non-human animals (put their bodies into our bodies), the infection risk can hardly be the main reason. We also keep non-human animal companions around us all the time, and it's fine.

[elasto]

Dangerous for the individual is a proper reason, if it is indeed true. Bad for the species doesn't work, because instincts like disgust or sexual attraction don't care about what's good for the species - they care about inclusive genetic fitness. But being sexually attracted to non-species members doesn't increase inclusive genetic fitness. Zoophilia feels icky for similar reasons that homosexuality, incest and pedophilia feel icky: They are sexual taboos based on evolved intuitions about inclusive genetic fitness.

In general, species that have individuals that do things that are bad for the species tend to less well than species that don't: either the individuals die off or the species does; either way, if the species survives it tends to have individuals who do things that are coincidentally good for the species (or, at least not too bad for it). Not always, because it's an accidental, incidental thing, but there it's still there rather than not there - and hence worth mentioning.

It's like how you don't often have species where the males fight to the death for the right to mate with a female. You do sometimes get species where males will kill the offspring of a previous males in order to provoke the female to go on heat, but that's not bad for the species - just bad for the other male...

I'd still question that the probability you'll die from a disease that you've catched from another human is smaller than the probability that you'll die from a disease that you catched from a non-human animal.

Meh. Obviously the probability of both are pretty small overall. Each of us probably fight off thousands of distinct diseases a day, if not millions... But, from everything I've read, it's far more likely a fatal pandemic that wipes out half the human race will come from a disease that jumps from animal to human because (a) it will be novel (no immunity to it, herd or otherwise) and (b) there is no prior selective evolutionary pressure for the disease to have evolved to be non-fatal to humans.

Considering we eat other non-human animals (put their bodies into our bodies), the infection risk can hardly be the main reason. We also keep non-human animal companions around us all the time, and it's fine.

Most people eat meat cooked and most animals eat meat fresh - minimising the chance of infection; plus there are multiple defence mechanisms in place - not least the huge amount of 'friendly' bacteria in the gut ready to out-compete any harmful bacteria.

Putting your penis inside an animal has much fewer defence mechanisms in place. Hard for your penis to throw up to expel the toxic bacteria after all :p

[thc]

Zoophilia feels icky for similar reasons that homosexuality, incest and pedophilia feel icky: They are sexual taboos based on evolved intuitions about inclusive genetic fitness.

Yeah, rather than ask for a citation, I'm going to jump right to calling that out as BS. Cuz that's baloney. Pure, unadulterated, freshly ground baloney.

[Hedonic Treader]

Obviously the probability of both are pretty small overall.

You write this in the age of vaccinations, unprecedented hygiene standards and antibiotics (that still work). I think you're underestimating the number of your ancestors and their contemporaries who died from infectious diseases.

But, from everything I've read, it's far more likely a fatal pandemic that wipes out half the human race will come from a disease that jumps from animal to human because (a) it will be novel (no immunity to it, herd or otherwise) and (b) there is no prior selective evolutionary pressure for the disease to have evolved to be non-fatal to humans.

Right, but this doesn't help your argument because most of these people will die from human-to-human transmission. I agree that there are animal disease carriers like in the case of the bubonic plague with its rat-flea-human transmission path. But your hypothesis was (if I understood it correctly) hat the zoophilia taboo is about avoiding infectious diseases, and zoophiles aren't usually attracted to parasites but mostly to animals with which humans are in constant contact, because they also serve as livestock or companions. I don't find it plausible that this is a high-probability hypothesis that can elegantly explain the strength of the taboo.

Putting your penis inside an animal has much fewer defence mechanisms in place. Hard for your penis to throw up to expel the toxic bacteria after all :p

That's true for all STDs, and the human-carried ones are adapted to infect humans more efficiently.

Pure, unadulterated, freshly ground baloney.

What's your hypothesis? What causal process gave rise to the existence of these sexual taboos? elasto thinks it's mostly about avoiding infectious diseases. Susan Blackmore offers a memetic explanation of sexual taboos, based on predominantly vertical meme transfer (a transmission of ideas about sexual taboos within families between generations, who will have more offspring than others because of these taboos). That explanation has in common with the inclusive genetic fitness explanation that the number of offspring is increased in those who have these taboos and seek sexually fertile partners of the same species and the opposite sex instead.

I mean, the fitness aspect is trivial, isn't it? If you mate with trees only, you'll not have many genetic offspring.

[PAstrychef]

Whether or not zoophilia is inherently dangerous to the individual, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it should remain a criminal act. We let adults do all kinds of inherently dangerous acts.
We seem to agree that there is a pretty constant ICK response to the idea of man-cow/horse/dog/bunny love, but is it something that should remain illegal?
Once again the question was phrased as one of marriage, though, so what would be a net loss for society to allowing some kind of relationship between species be recognized?

[Hedonic Treader]

Once again the question was phrased as one of marriage, though, so what would be a net loss for society to allowing some kind of relationship between species be recognized?

I tend to think sex with animals should be illegal just like sex with young minors should be illegal: Sex with beings who can't understand even the basics and who can't consent should be punishable to protect those beings. But I also tend to think owning pets should be illegal and treating sentient beings as a physical industry resource should be illegal, for the same reasons. Obviously that's not going to happen anytime soon; the resistance against such laws would be massive.

As for marriage, the legal aspect (legal contract between consenting individuals) should follow the general rules of all free legal contracts, whereas the religious/social ceremony is just decoration anyway. You're certainly free to have a wedding party where you 'marry' your motorcycle.

[CorruptUser]

Once again the question was phrased as one of marriage, though, so what would be a net loss for society to allowing some kind of relationship between species be recognized?

I tend to think sex with animals should be illegal just like sex with young minors should be illegal: Sex with beings who can't understand even the basics and who can't consent should be punishable to protect those beings.

Quite sure that dolphins and dogs understand the basics. After all, they sometimes try to rape humans.

But I also tend to think owning pets should be illegal and treating sentient beings as a physical industry resource should be illegal, for the same reasons.

All that would happen as a result is that those animals would no longer exist. It's not as if banning dog ownership means all the dogs that would've ended up as pets get to go free and vote in elections and so forth; they wouldn't have been born/bred in the first place. So it's the question of whether living as a dog is better or worse than not existing at all. So long as they aren't attempting suicide, I'd say it's better.

[PAstrychef]

Also, the very real companionship people get from their pets or animal roommates or whatever you want to call them. Which is where some people might go when proposing that inter-species marriage should be allowed. People have left their estates to their pets, which usually resulted in a caretaker being appointed, and the moinies used for the pets upkeep, with the remainder going to some charity or surviving relatives when the pet died.

[CorruptUser]

Look, I'm all for friendships/relationships with non-humans, but I draw the line at sex.

Unless that non-human happens to have green skin and a cool flying car. Then it's a maybe, depending on whether that species is, ahem, compatible. It's not bestiality if they are so divergent from us that it'd be like having sex with a tree. Which we kind of already do, what with rubber being tree-sap and all (and latex being extracts from plant matter millions of years old).

[yurell]

Look, I'm all for friendships/relationships with non-humans, but I draw the line at sex.

Why? Why is it okay to mutilate the animal, cause it suffering or slaughter it, but sex is somehow taboo?

[CorruptUser]

Depends on the reason for the 'mutilation'. For neuterings, that's kind of a necessary evil that even PETA endorses. Otherwise you end up with a horde of feral animals starving to death.

I'm only against pointless torture of animals or the eating of animals that have self-awareness. Passing the mirror test is proof of self-awareness.

Revenge is another proof (only humans, crows, ravens, badgers, and primates understand revenge). Seriously, revenge is awesome. If water-buffalo were smart, they'd all gang up on the lions and stamp them to death. I mean, a human isn't really tougher than a wolf, but our ancestors said "fuck this, let's stop getting eaten", sharpened sticks, formed hunting parties, and, well, wolves have evolved to fear the scent of human. The few wolves we let live, we bred into fashion accessories for bratty rich girls as the ultimate middle finger to wolves.

[AvatarIII]

Unless that non-human happens to have green skin and a cool flying car. Then it's a maybe, depending on whether that species is, ahem, compatible. It's not bestiality if they are so divergent from us that it'd be like having sex with a tree. Which we kind of already do, what with rubber being tree-sap and all (and latex being extracts from plant matter millions of years old).

Regardless of what that alien species looks like, if both the human and the alien can and do give consent, there's no problem.
Also there is nothing wrong with having sex with an inanimate object.
I'm not sure the legality of bestiality has any bearing over if people commit it or not, people who are inevitably going to do it, will probably do it regardless of whether it is illegal or not. I think perhaps the legality should come under animal protection laws, and perhaps shouldn't be illegal if there is no harm coming to the animal, perhaps?
Look at heroin addicts, they commit crimes to support their lifestyle, and often are eventually given amnesty for the actual crime of possession and use when they are put in rehabilitation, because the actual crime of heroin addiction itself is self inflicted and self destructive, if something like bestiality is illegal that's going to put a taboo on people that commit it and people that do commit it are not going to be able to, or they will be afraid to come forward and ask for help if they want it, because they will have committed a crime.

Also I'd kind of be interested to see where this thread would go on the subject of necrophilia, where the "victim" is not self aware and is essentially an inanimate object, but that's probably a subject for another time

[Hedonic Treader]

So it's the question of whether living as a dog is better or worse than not existing at all.

You are right that this is the correct question. I do indeed tend to think that existing as a non-human animal on this planet is currently worse than not existing (in the wild, in factory farms, probably as pets). Not because all individuals are necessarily worse off, but because the extremes of abuse and suffering are so bad that the happiness they may experience in the moderately good lives is mostly outweighed even if most of them don't suffer horribly. I may be wrong. Just ask yourself: If reincarnation was real and optional, how many non-abusive random dog lives would you have to be offered to accept an abusive one, over non-existence?

So long as they aren't attempting suicide, I'd say it's better.

I've seen this logic many times before, which surprises me greatly because it's such a weak argument. It implies that all suffering individuals are in situations in which they could choose reliable suicide, it implies that they have a sufficiently correct conception of death and the causal paths to get it, it implies that they aren't irrationally afraid of it, it implies that they can bear the pain of the chosen physical method etc. etc.

Even for humans, with all their killing tools and a cognitively sophisitcated understanding of death, it's a very bad argument.

[yurell]

Also I'd kind of be interested to see where this thread would go on the subject of necrophilia, where the "victim" is not self aware and is essentially an inanimate object, but that's probably a subject for another time

David Mitchell did an interesting rant on that subject.