Story

Questions for Debate:

1.) Can a person marry an animal? Why or why not?

2.) Can a person really, truly love a non-human? Can an animal have actual love for a human extending to the intimate level?

3.) What could motivate a person to marry a non-human? Is there any genetic/physical basis for such a union to occur?


And to anyone with the ability: I can't spell "dolphin" apparently! Could you please change it?

As much as this debate has merit to prove a point on a completely different scale, I don't suppose that you could prove consent in terms of the Dolphin. He/she couldn't sign a legal document that would prove fruitful in court.

This also wouldn't hold up in probate in that a dolphin cannot possess a car or home, nor hold financial wealth...

The question really is, how do you prove that the animal consents? Without a "meeting of the minds" no contract is valid.

Unless the person in question is Dr. Doolittle, then the answer is No.

You know if memory serves me right I believe quite a few people said it was a slippery slope argument when it was brought up in the same sex marriage debate when we asked, "What next people getting married to animals and objects?" And we were screamed at that it was a slippery slope fallacy... The slope is not so slippery now is it.


1. No a person cannot and should not ever be able to marry an animal. As the animal cannot offer intellectual concent.

2. Sure you can love an animal... but last time I checked being intimate with one was called bestiality(Although in the article she says it's not that kind of love. So I think this question is a stretch in regards to the article).

3. I have no idea to the last question. Just plain

Edit to add: And just incase nobody believes it because it comes from Fox News.

Another News site

MSNBC

And you still haven't proven anything in that regard. Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with this, especially since this woman apparently met this dolphin 15 years ago. Nowhere in the article does she say anything like "well homosexuals are getting married so I can too."

You have in no way proven that gay marriage has lead to this and until you do this remains an isolated incident and a slippery slope argument.

You realize this sets an example and more people will follow this woman's action. A slippery slope argument is only one in which the slippey slope is never slid down. And it looks like the first person just took the first slide down that slope.

It is just as slippery now.

I'm sorry to say this shocking bit of news is a few decades late, and sensationalized by the digital media. I married my favorite cat, Misu I, in front of my parents many moons ago. I dressed him up in black cardboard(?) paper. He sat very still through the “ceremony” out of forbearance for his human.

Can a person marry an animal? Why or why not?
No, animals can’t consent.

Can a person really, truly love a non-human?
Yes. I was devastated when Misu I had to be put down. My boyfriend will go through the same phase when his dog, Guinevere, dies.

Can animal have actual love for a human extending to the intimate level?
No. As much as we like to boast about our pets’ humanlike behavior love isn’t on the horizon when animals mate.

What could motivate a person to marry a non-human?
She can’t have an intimate human relationship or prefers to copulate with a slab of (living) meat.

Is there any genetic/physical basis for such a union to occur?
This woman needs a shrink, not media-generated attention to prompt people to say “The slope is not so slippery now is it.”

How does it have anything to do with gay marriage Sleeper? For your argument to follow she would have at the very least had to cite that as the reason she decided to take this step after 15 years. It is a completely unrelated event.

The slippery slope argument requires that the two things be related, this dolphin marriage is not even remotely related to the gay marriage debate other than the fact it is dealing with the subject of marriage.

Here are some quotes made by fellow 'ers in the past...



Noting he calls it a slippery slope about marriage to animals.

Here is another quote



And best of all you said this



This woman has now started exactly what was called a slippery slope argument. If more of these don't happen in the future then I will say I was wrong and this is an isolated incident... but I believe there will be more to follow..

While this story is just another "News of the Weird" type piece, I don't think that there needs to be an overt statement to show some correlation when it comes to slippery slopes.

In this case, of course, the gay marriage slope doesn't really apply all that well (the woman is a Brit and was "married" in Israel).

The slippery slope is more of a break down of society's "taboos". It was done with out of wedlock children (for instance). Nobody needs to say "Well, Peggy Sue had a baby before marriage" in order for us to determine that Jane felt more comfortable having a baby with her boyfriend because Peggy Sue had done so.

Can a person marry an animal? Why or why not?
No, as Lesly says: "Animals can’t consent."

Can a person really, truly love a non-human?
Sure they can. Examples are everywhere of unbreakable bonds between people and animals. Lassie wasn't invented in a Hollywood studio, you know.

Can animal have actual love for a human extending to the intimate level?
No. Biologists point out that animals are "intimate" for one reason: reproduction. They are very few exceptions (humans being one of those). I doubt an animal wants to reproduce with a human.

What could motivate a person to marry a non-human?
She's a crazy loon?

Is there any genetic/physical basis for such a union to occur?
The better question is: will anyone answer this in the affirmative?

Nice collection of quotes Sleeper, but it is really all meaningless because this is an isolated incident. On top of that it isn't even in the United States, you did notice that right?

Furthermore she said this in the article:

So basically she's done what every little girl in the country has done at some point - "married" some sort of object or animal in a pretend ceremony. She acknowledges it has no legal bearing and she isn't asking it to. It really isn't anything more than a case of someone pretending to marry something.

You still haven't pointed out any evidence that the woman (not a US citizen, not even in the United States) is citing gay marriage as some kind of precedent. Until you do you have no argument and this is nothing more than an isolated incident.

This is also taking the thread off topic.

How predictable that this has degenerated into the right wing crowing about how they were right after all....

Balderdash. If you read the article, it clearly states (even on Fox News, amazingly enough) that the "marriage" has no legal standing, and no US citizens were involved. The woman in question is British, and the "ceremony" was held in Israel. Get a grip, people.

1.) Can a person marry an animal? Why or why not?

Since this person is not subject to US laws, I suppose she can do anything she wants that's within the laws of the country she's in.

2.) Can a person really, truly love a non-human? Can an animal have actual love for a human extending to the intimate level?

I don't like the insinuation in this question. Loving an animal and bestiality are two entirely unrelated subjects. I probably love my pets too much. I consider them my family. But, kitty kisses and doggie slobbers are as "intimate" as it gets.

3.) What could motivate a person to marry a non-human? Is there any genetic/physical basis for such a union to occur?

Too much money and being just a bubble off plumb, in my opinion.

Edited to add a question: I'm puzzled as to why a male dolphin is named "Cindy".

The problem isn't that the slope is slippery. The problem is that the slope does not exist in the first place.

Marriage is a contractual agreement between two consenting Human adults. If you can prove, in a court of law that an animal gives consent to a contractual arrangement, then you might have the slope, and we can argue the point. But, unless you have Dr. Doolittle powers, the slope simply does not exist.

I'll add my 2 cents and say that this lady is just loopy. There is one question that I thought was worth pursuing however, and no it's not a gay marriage-related comment.

3.) What could motivate a person to marry a non-human? Is there any genetic/physical basis for such a union to occur?

It seems to me that there is a bit of a movement to elevate our perception of animals to the same level of people. For example, PETA’s point of view is:

It gets pretty extreme when you think about it. I won't bother quoting here, but I've seen PETA say that they would be against a cure for AIDS or cancer based on animal research, because the animal lives are "just as important." They basically say that a dog is a man is a pig - no difference.

Not to mention Pete Singer and his wackiness, or the terrorists in the Animal Liberation Front. And I’m not trying to slam those who love animals. I do as well. But they aren’t humans. The more we start equating animals with humans, the more we devalue human life. This incident is just an example of animal-human equality taken to the furthest extreme.

I doubt that we’ll see any more of this nonsense, but I don’t like the animal-rights vision of the world, and I think it may be causing some people on the fringes to think that marrying a dolphin is OK. Heck, they are probably smarter than most men.

You don't understand the concept of a slippery slope argument. It can only be a slippery slope from gay marriage to marrying animals if the former leads to the latter. Just because a woman has a ceremonial marriage to a dolphin, does not mean that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of marriage between a human and a non-human. The two are not related. Let people have as many marriage ceremonies for themselves and their pets as they want. It doesn't change the need for consent in order to enter into a civil marriage contract.

And the statement, "the slippery slope is not so slippery now", while clever, does not help your argument. Your argument requires the slippery nature of the slope.

1.) Can a person marry an animal? Why or why not?

Yes. That marriage isn't legal and consummation of that marriage most certainly would carry legal consequences (at least in this country). But I could marry a wall, as long as I found someone to carry out the ceremony. But that would be all it was... ceremonial.

2.) Can a person really, truly love a non-human? Can an animal have actual love for a human extending to the intimate level?

Sure a person can truly love a non-human. It happens all the time.

As far as the extension of an animal's love going to the intimate level (which I'm going to assume you mean sexual intimacy)... no. As far as I know, animals do not engage in sexual activity for love... they do it for reproductive purposes -- there is a primate exception, however... Bonobos... the one animal most like humans. They often have sex for various reasons unrelated to procreation. They even have sex in the missionary position... they are the only other animal apart from humans that do that.

3.) What could motivate a person to marry a non-human? Is there any genetic/physical basis for such a union to occur?

Shock value. Or just being a bit off.

I don't quite understand the second question here.

I don't know if it is really fair to call PETA a movement. For the most part they are extremists and the ideas they push wouldn't ever catch on in mainstream society. So it'd be a hard sell to say they are having any impact on society.

Now if you were talking about a more credible group that would be a different story.

As it stands I chalk this up to a slow news day at Fox.

There are tons of vapid celebrity endorsements of PETA's ideas, from Stella McCartney, Bill Maher, Pam Anderson, Corey Feldman, various supermodels, etc. The ideas are on the fringe, but they do get a lot of mainstream play. Would you or I listen to these people? Probably not. Would 13-year-old girls? Yes. And they will point at my wife's fur coat and say something stupid.

So, you're right - it's not a movement, but PETA certainly impacts our culture. To draw a loose parallel, I wouldn't call Howard Stern or "Girls Gone Wild" movements, but hot girl-on-girl action is waaaaay more mainstream than it was in years past. Just today a Florida cop was firedfor letting another female officer lick whipped cream off her chest. Lots of things impact our culture; they don't have to be full-blown movements to do so.

I would say that PETA / animal rights, people having children later and replacing them with dogs or cats (especially urbanites), vegetarianism, etc., all contribute to the elevation of the status of animals.

A few years ago there was a thread on disturbingly similar to this one and I'm not surprised to see it already going waaaay out there where the buses don't run.

For a flashback: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...wtopic=3040&hl=

To the questions at hand:

1. Yes they probably can in some backwards parts of the planet, but as King Kong proves, those type of mixed relationships don't end happily.

2. Sure. Just ask some of the dog and cat lovers on the board. Now, as to what goes on BCD (behind closed doors) between pets and their owners, that's probably a little more information than I want or need.

3. There are freaks everywhere. For example, here is the MOST referenced article on the Seattle Times from 2005. We report. You decide.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...8_horse15m.html

I love that expression!

As for the old thread you referenced: ew. Fortunately, the situation with this woman and her dolphin is platonic.

And as for the guy in Seattle, I consider that poetic justice. I wish that fate on any and all who are sick enough to do what he did. And as for Washington not considering bestiality illegal - double EW. Or should I say "EWE".

When I first heard about this news story, my reaction was a bit different from those of most people, which leaned in the direction of smutty jokes. I thought it was rather sweet. I would have been proud to have been invited to this wedding, and I would have celebrated it with joy.

Now that I have established myself as a complete lunatic, let me address the questions for debate.

1. Legally, of course not. There's no debate here. There is no evidence that any non-human animal even understands the concept of marriage, let alone consents to it. This is also the reason that marriages arranged between very young children should not have any legal meaning. Too bad that not all societies have seen things this way.

Emotionally, I see no reason why I should object to this woman going through this symbolic ceremony. I wish her the best of luck and all possible happiness. But then, I am fond of harmless eccentrics.

2. Human beings and other highly intelligent animals are capable of complex emotional feelings. This is obvious from daily observation. There is no doubt in my mind that a human being can feel as much love for a non-human animal as for a fellow human. The love that non-humans are capable of feeling for humans is not as profound or complex, but it is real. The love that a dolphin can feel for a human (and this is very well documented) is more profound than that of most non-human animals, but it is not at the same level as human love. (It might be best compared to the love felt by very young children, which I hope nobody will deny as real.) As far as intimacy goes, it is also well documented that dolphins engage in sexual play with humans. No doubt some humans enjoy this play as well. I can have no rational objection to this, if nobody is harmed.

3. This woman feels a special emotional connection to a non-human animal. She wished to express that connection in a symbolic fashion. More power to her.

I suppose the thing about "genetic/physical" is supposed to be asking if humans and non-human animals can reproduce. Clearly they cannot. To me, this is not relevant at all to the question of marriage.

Allow me to suggest a science-fictional thought experiment. Suppose a dolphin had its intelligence increased in some fashion to the point where it was clearly capable of understanding the concept of marriage, and genuinely consented to such a marriage. In such a hypothetical case, I would have no objection to making such a marriage fully legal.

Two important side issues have been raised which I must address. As to the connection between this situation and the possibility of making same-sex marriage fully legal, there is none. I only hope that this symbolic ceremony can teach all of us to be a little more tolerant to those who march to the beat of a different drummer, who do no harm, and who only seek a little happiness in this sad world.

As to the issue of increasing the ethical status of non-human animals, we still have a long way to go before we are in any danger of treating non-human animals exactly the same as we do humans. (Of course, we have a pretty poor record when it comes to treating humans with common decency, but that's another issue.) Anything which makes humans treat non-human animals with a little more consideration is a good thing. It is absolutely true that a pig is not a human being, and should not be treated in the same way; but it is also absolutely true that a pig is much, much closer to a human being than it is to an oyster, and should be treated with some ethical consideration.

1.) Can a person marry an animal? Why or why not?

In the pretend universe, yep. Legally no. Spiritually, it's anyone's guess.

2.) Can a person really, truly love a non-human? Can an animal have actual love for a human extending to the intimate level?

A human can love anything animal, vegetable or mineral. Throw concepts in there too. We love our country, eh? I love guitars and motorcycles.

As for our objects of love returning the emotion, I can only tell that in humans. Sometimes anyway. Once in a blue moon. The cats think I'm a good alpha male, I think. Or maybe just the dependable doorman?

I'm pretty sure that animals don't experience the emotion of love the same way we do. I don't think they can be a fool in love rushing to their own destructions, nor can they kill the ones they love. Animals do display mutual support behavior in the higher species. Otherwise, moms eat their own babies and lovers their mates. It gets ugly at a low level.

3.) What could motivate a person to marry a non-human? Is there any genetic/physical basis for such a union to occur?

I have no idea what would motivate a person to marry a non-human, nor do I understand much of the motivation behind marriage. I think we do it out of insecurity mostly. The civil union thing is to handle possessions and certain civil rights.

On the second part, huh? Are you talking a predispositon for marrying an animal that is somehow physical? If so, maybe there's a love chemical in the brain that gets overproduced or something, and that condition might be genetic. Otherwise it's probably to garner attention.

But what if you marry an animal OF THE SAME SEX? Holy mackeral, now there's a problem.