Answers in Genesis’s Statement of Faith Becomes More Strident


(Guest post by Dan Phelps)

Many of you are aware that Answers in Genesis (AiG) has a very strict Statement of Faith (SOF). Until early this year the SOF was in this form. This original version was retrieved via an internet “Wayback Machine” search. On March 5, 2021 this updated and expanded version of the SOF was posted to the AiG website without fanfare. This newer SOF is even more strident than the old one and actually adds several requirements that previously were not mentioned. One has to wonder if there was some internal conflict in AiG’s ranks that led to the additional dogmatic statements.

The original version of the SOF was problematic to most thinking people for a number of reasons. Scientifically, it required signers to believe in a young earth and universe as well as ascribe most of earth’s geologic record to Noah’s Flood. Even more damming is the statement:

“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.”

This statement is a very clear science stopper. How could science be done when the results are already known dogmatically? Furthermore, the SOF has specific statements concerning non-scientific subjects that exclude non-Fundamentalist Christians and anyone who is pro-choice or partakes in sexual activity that AiG finds offensive or belongs to groups AiG finds offensive. Here is a sample:

“The only legitimate marriage sanctioned by God is the joining of one naturally born man and one naturally born woman in a single, exclusive union, as delineated in Scripture. God intends sexual intimacy to only occur between a man and a woman who are married to each other, and has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. Any form of sexual immorality, such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexual conduct, bestiality, incest, pornography, or any attempt to change one’s gender, or disagreement with one’s biological gender, is sinful and offensive to God.“

Making questions of sexual orientation equivalent to bestiality and incest is particularly hateful. However odd and bigoted as these tenants are, AiG has every right to require the above tenets of their SOF when hiring staff for the AiG ministry itself or the Creation Museum (which is officially part of AiG’s ministry). However, these strict faith-based requirements almost lost the for-profit Ark Encounter $18.25 million in Kentucky Tourism tax incentives in 2014. The Ark Encounter’s for-profit corporation (officially called Crosswater Canyon) repeatedly and publicly told the state of Kentucky that they would not discriminate in hiring or require workers to sign the SOF when the project was announced in late 2010. The entire project was promoted to government entities as a way to bring “JOB JOBS JOBS!!!” to a financially troubled area. Simultaneously, Ken Ham and AiG’s spokespeople would slyly tell religious audiences that the project was about religious proselytizing. Rick Skinner, Mayor of Williamstown, Kentucky, home of the Ark Encounter, posted this statement to Facebook in March 2014 (since removed) when defending the creation of $62 million in junk bonds for Ark Encounter:

In July 2014, in the midst of the controversy over the Ark Encounter receiving the $18.25 million in tax incentives from Kentucky Tourism, AiG posted a help wanted advertisement for the Ark Encounter requiring that potential employees sign the SOF (and adhere to numerous other religious based requirements). This was a major mistake on their part. I discovered this and wrote an op-ed for the Lexington Herald-Leader. This op-ed led to closer scrutiny and Kentucky revoked the incentives. In late 2014, AiG sued in Federal Court for the right to simultaneously receive the incentives and discriminate against anyone who would not sign the SOF. Surprisingly, a Federal Judge agreed with AiG in an early 2015 decision. By this time, Kentucky had a new, religiously conservative Governor, Matt Bevin, who would not appeal the decision. Governor Bevin also appointed new members of the Tourism Cabinet. These appointees were all supportive of the Ark project. Thus, the Ark Encounter was legally allowed to discriminate in hiring and only hire workers that will sign the SOF. Ark Encounter continues to receive $1.825 million dollars every year in tax incentives from the state and will continue to do so until 2026.

On March 5, 2021, AiG posted a new version of their SOF. This is somewhat more lengthy, detailed, and (remarkably!) strident than the original version. The new SOF is also more detailed on various sundry theological requirements. Especially disturbing are new tenets that attack social justice, transsexuals, and other non-gender conforming individuals. The SOF states:

“The concepts of “social justice,” “intersectionality,” and “critical race theory” are anti-biblical and destructive to human flourishing (Ezekiel 18:1–20; James 2:8–9).”

And also:

“Gender and biological sex are equivalent and cannot be separated. A person’s gender is determined at conception (fertilization), coded in the DNA, and cannot be changed by drugs, hormones, or surgery. Rejection of one’s biological sex (gender) or identifying oneself by the opposite sex is a sinful rejection of the way God made that person. These truths must be communicated with compassion, love, kindness, and respect, pointing everyone to the truth that God offers redemption and restoration to all who confess and forsake their sin, seeking his mercy and forgiveness through Jesus Christ (Genesis 1:26–28, 5:1–2; Psalm 51:5, 139:13–16; Jeremiah 1:5; Matthew 1:20–21, 19:4–6; Mark 10:6; Luke 1:31; Acts 3:19–21; Romans 10:9–10; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; Galatians 3:28).”

Another bizarre addition is that one must believe that hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis are caused by human sin:

“Human death (both physical and spiritual) as well as all animal death, disease, bloodshed, suffering, extinction, thorns and thistles, and all other natural evils (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.) entered this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, man’s sin (Genesis 2:16–17, 3:8, 3:19, 4:4–8; Romans 5:12, 8:20–22; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22).”

I recently learned that Answers in Genesis (AiG) has rented Northern Kentucky University’s (NKU) Grant County facility to use for job fairs to interview perspective employees for positions at the Ark Encounter. These job fairs are scheduled for April 22, May 6 and 20, June 2 and 17, July 15 and 29, and August 12. I am not a lawyer and cannot comment on the legality of NKU allowing AiG/Ark Encounter to use the Grant County property. In fact Northern Kentucky University could actually be legally obligated to provide the site to AiG. I informed NKU of the contents of the SOF and made them aware that they have a reputation to protect and should be aware that AiG and the Ark Encounter have a history of bigotry, hatred, and discrimination against numerous protected groups. I also mentioned that the Creation Museum had accepted the donation of a dinosaur skeleton valued at $1 million from a white supremacist and former board member of the neo-Confederate League of the South. The reply I received only indicated that NKU’s attorneys had already reviewed their rules for room rental, but I was not provided the actual policy.

It remains to be seen if AiG will continue to use government entities for their benefit. AiG has been particularly talented at using Kentucky, Grant County, and Williamstown to their advantage with relation to the Ark Encounter. One suspects that this behavior will continue in spite of their discrimination and bigotry.

Comments

  1. says

    “if it contradicts the scriptural record.”
    Real science doesn’t start with the conclusion first.
    Real science investigates a phenomenon and draws conclusions at the end of the process.

  2. Reginald Selkirk says

    The only legitimate marriage sanctioned by God is the joining of one naturally born man and one naturally born woman…

    That would seem to rule out mud-man and rib-woman, who were not “naturally born.” Or, as they are also known, Adam and Eve.

  3. astringer says

    I’m neither a lawyer, medic or bibble nerd but “one naturally born man and one naturally born woman…” implies that, given C-Section is not, strictly, ‘natural’ , there’s a ~5/9 chance of failing this in the US?

    [based on the briefest internet search suggesting 1/3 births in US are C-Section]

  4. Ridana says

    The concepts of “social justice,” “intersectionality,” and “critical race theory” are anti-biblical and destructive to human flourishing

    Given the bible citations they think support this stance, it’s clear they don’t understand what any of those terms mean.

  5. outis says

    Thanks for this detailed post, and for wading in that foetid swamp of nonsense so we don’t have to. Reading the excerpts you provided made me think of “mental condition” rather than “intellectual position”.
    Even so, their ailments do not stop them from efficiently siphoning public funds into their capacious pockets, so: sick but not stupid, eh.

  6. brightmoon says

    AiG always thought that fundies were idiots now I just think they’re sneaky idiots , unfortunately with money

  7. raven says

    “The concepts of “social justice,” “intersectionality,” and “critical race theory” are anti-biblical and destructive to human flourishing (Ezekiel 18:1–20; James 2:8–9).”

    James 2 My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism.
    2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

    5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?

    8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”[a] you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.

    Actually, James 2 says to not favor the wealthy.
    In other words, it condemns the GOP, Donald Trump, and all those who vote for them.
    AIG is anti-biblical.

  8. PaulBC says

    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

    Isn’t the scriptural record also subject to interpretation by fallible people? I don’t see how human fallibility helps their case.

  9. says

    “he only legitimate marriage sanctioned by God is the joining of one naturally born man and one naturally born woman in a single, exclusive union, as delineated in Scripture. ” Nope. Scripture allows for polygamy — in fact requires it, if a man’s brother dies he has to marry the widow. It also allows married men to have concubines, i.e. sex slaves, and condones prostitution. Obviously they haven’t read it.

  10. raven says

    Ezekial 18:

    10 “Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things[a] 11 (though the father has done none of them):

    “He eats at the mountain shrines.
    He defiles his neighbor’s wife.
    12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
    He commits robbery.
    He does not return what he took in pledge.
    He looks to the idols.
    He does detestable things.
    13 He lends at interest and takes a profit.

    Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.

    14 “But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:

    15 “He does not eat at the mountain shrines
    or look to the idols of Israel.
    He does not defile his neighbor’s wife.
    16 He does not oppress anyone
    or require a pledge for a loan.
    He does not commit robbery
    but gives his food to the hungry
    and provides clothing for the naked.
    17 He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor
    and takes no interest or profit from them.

    He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.

    He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.

    19 “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

    Ezekial doesn’t support the AIG position either.
    Sinners “He oppresses the poor and needy.
    and He does not return what he took in pledge. and 3 He lends at interest and takes a profit.

    The good people, “but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked.
    17 He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor and takes no interest or profit from them.”

    It says right there in Ezekial that bad people oppress the poor and needy and do not return what they took in pledge. This is Donald Trump. He declared bankruptcy 6 times and defaulted on billions of dollars in loans.

    AIG is anti-biblical.
    Almost always, when fundie xians quote the bible, it doesn’t mean what they say it means.
    They assume rightly, that their brain dead followers don’t know what is in their magic book and don’t much care either.

  11. birgerjohansson says

    “Hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis are caused by human sin”.
    Are you sure they are not muslims? If it wasn’t for the Jesus stuff fundie muslims could work there.
    “Any form of sexual immorality” …like making a teenage girl in Palestine pregnant without her consent? The Holy Spirit will not be allowed to work for AiG!
    .
    “outside of a marriage between a man and a woman” …this leaves a loophole for male/female djinn, male/female angels and any other entity that can shape-shift into human form. The thing in Antarctica would qualify, as long as it does not absorb its human mate. T-1000?

  12. raven says

    “The concepts of “social justice,” “intersectionality,” and “critical race theory” are anti-biblical and destructive to human flourishing (Ezekiel 18:1–20; James 2:8–9).”

    What AIG did is just insert some right wingnut talking points into their Statement of Faith and claimed they came from the bible.

    They didn’t.

    The Big Book of Mythology is a multi-author text and contradicts itself often.
    However, huge chunks of the bible are very much pro Social Justice.

    Ezekial 16:
    49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

    The sin of Sodom was ” they did not help the poor and needy.” So the Sky Monster god destroyed them

  13. PaulBC says

    The concepts of “social justice,” “intersectionality,” and “critical race theory” are anti-biblical and destructive to human flourishing (Ezekiel 18:1–20; James 2:8–9).

    I was skeptical that the bible really mentioned critical race theory at all (let’s set aside “social justice”, an old and ambiguous phrase that many people would claim has biblical support).

    I looked up the the Ezekiel passage (NIV), and found nothing about any of the three topics above, even indirectly. The prophet does condemn eating at mountain shrines and lending money at interest.

    The former worries me, because I once had a delicious vegetarian meal at a famous Buddhist monastery in Chengdu. I’m unsure of the elevation. Anyway, Google tells me Chengdu is on a high plain, not a mountain, so I think I’m in the clear.

    Lending money at interest is more problematic since our entire banking system is based on it. I would guess that this poses a bigger problem to AiG than it does to critical race theorists, who may be less wealthy. Doesn’t AiG rely on any financing for its operations?

    Snark aside, I can only guess what the relevance is intended to be. Ezekiel’s point roughly seems to be that a father’s sins are not transferable to children. Maybe they’re hinting at an anti-reparations argument? The problem is what if the son benefits? E.g., the father robbed a bank and died bequeathing the stolen cash to his son in his will. The son goes on to live a virtuous life. No, you don’t blame him for the bank robbery he didn’t commit. But that doesn’t mean he gets to keep the money!

    Or maybe they have some other point and I’m overthinking. James 2 8-9 is such a general statement about sin that I cannot even guess at the relevance.

  14. PaulBC says

    [blah blah blah] is sinful and offensive to God

    The point has been made often, but why does God have a thinner skin than I do? I know, I know, the Bible says he does and that he used throw tantrums, literally on a biblical scale. But why? I mean, live and let live works well enough for me, a mere mortal.

  15. ffakr says

    IANAL, so take this for what it’s worth..
    But having worked at another State’s University, I think it’s possible that NKU is basically powerless to deny access to campus to any group that can pay standard fees.

    My previous employer’s campus was originally built with public land (after it was taken through eminent domain) that was granted to it by the State and because of this, we were (supposedly) required to keep the campus open.
    One area in particular where this was evident was in the main campus library. As I recall, anyone could enter the library. You had to have a University affiliation to check materials out, but the library was otherwise as open as any public library.
    Being an urban campus, this meant it wasn’t entirely unusual to interact with our homeless neighbors in the Library, and there were always questions about what was and what wasn’t trespassing there. This was a problem for me because we supported a computer lab there, which was not open to the public (or was it?.. at least the computers weren’t available to the public.. so we said..).

  16. PaulBC says

    Another bizarre addition is that one must believe that hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis are caused by human sin

    Didn’t the late lamented internet crackpot Alexander Abian say that these were all due to the presence of earth’s moon, which we’d be better off without? I am so confused. I don’t know who to believe now.

    (OK, I’lll stop the consecutive comments.)

  17. mnb0 says

    The more radical the SOF the clearer AIG’s bigotry the better.
    Fun fact: SOF in Dutch means failure.

  18. blf says

    As quoted in @12, Ezekial 18:12 lists someone who “does detestable things” as deserving execution. That loophole — what is a detestable thing? — would easily accommodate the assertion The concepts of ‘social justice,’ ‘intersectionality,’ and ‘critical race theory’ are anti-biblical and destructive to human flourishing if one didn’t like those concepts. It also supports numerous other claims such as the Chicago Cubs didn’t win the 2016 World Series, Peas are edible, The m in mRNA stands for “microchip”, or Anything else which is a detestable thing. You just have to assert it’s an abomination, detestable, and BINGO!, pull out your 2nd amendment Shooty McShootface and open fire. No need for a trial, jury, logic, evidence, or the rule of law — in other words, one of the usual nazi and xian fantasies.

  19. says

    Don’t bother looking up the citations from the bible. They only make sense when properly “interpreted”.

    Where interpreting means “any necessary twisting and handwaving to make it say what AIG thinks it says”.

  20. PaulBC says

    blf@20 I don’t like okra at all. It is a slimy so-called “vegetable” that probably came from outer space. Has anyone analyzed the DNA in those pods? Do you know what really happens if you fall asleep next to one? One might go as far as to say I “detest” it. Therefore, gumbo-eaters are anti-biblical and destructive to human flourishing (Ezekial 18:12). Who knew I could find scriptural support for this belief?

  21. says

    “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”

    Also, intersectionality makes bigotry make sense in a domain general way so they can sit a sputter.

  22. dstatton says

    Sodomy is not just gay sex. It is any “unnatural” sex act, like blow jobs. Then there’s the prohibition on masturbation.

  23. keystothesea says

    Galatians 3:28
    New International Version
    28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    If Jesus doesn’t distinguish between male and female, why should we? Because bigotry? Misogyny? Transphobia?
    And while Jesus doesn’t mind if you are enslaved, there’s no condemnation of slavery.

  24. Rob Grigjanis says

    tedw @25: Have you actually thrown it out to literalists and got a response? I think the psalm is a quite beautiful (at least in the KJV) expression of loss, grief and rage. And the violence at the end is a fantasy of the author. I suspect a lot of people who have been displaced and/or enslaved would understand those feelings.

    There are many other passages which involve (supposedly) real violence, sanctioned by God.

  25. DanDare says

    The big story here is that the governing powers and judiciary are corrupted.
    You can’t fight the bigotry, even when publicly obvious, if the higher powers are all for it.

  26. John Morales says

    DanDare, basically. It’s a feature of this place that the comments are mostly about the silly SOF, rather than the legal hypocrisy and how religious exemptions from regulations are a thing.

    Most salient:

    Thus, the Ark Encounter was legally allowed to discriminate in hiring and only hire workers that will sign the SOF. Ark Encounter continues to receive $1.825 million dollars every year in tax incentives from the state and will continue to do so until 2026.

    Thing is, I for one would have no problem signing that if I needed a job and that was all that was available. Just means there’s a role-playing requirement when on the job.

    So, I do take issue with this claim:

    The original version of the SOF was problematic to most thinking people for a number of reasons. Scientifically, it required signers to believe in a young earth and universe as well as ascribe most of earth’s geologic record to Noah’s Flood.

    As I see it, it only requires signers to pretend to believe in that guff.

  27. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

    Interesting how famous Evangelical Ministers have wealth beyond measure, and one recently said he had a vision of #FormerPresident sitting next to Jesus at the heavenly table. — unless he’s confirming the rumor that tRump is dirt poor and only putting on a show of wealth. eeek

  28. unclefrogy says

    #29
    well maybe for you they are only about the SOF but I and some others will point out the hypocrisy in this and other threads. hypocrisy seems to be a feature of conservatives these day. (i only know a little about today and less about the past)
    Who did not think they were going to end up here? I also think that the favoritism shown AIG will likely cause some kind of stink in the state and county governments at some point down the road. AIG can not resist being more public which is not the way to avoid scrtinity

  29. Silentbob says

    @ 27 Rob Grigjanis

    I think the psalm is a quite beautiful (at least in the KJV) expression of loss, grief and rage. And the violence at the end is a fantasy of the author. I suspect a lot of people who have been displaced and/or enslaved would understand those feelings.

    Indeed, that has historically been the case. I notice they left the “won’t it be fun when we get your toddlers and bash them to death against the rocks” part out of the song though, for some reason.

  30. birgerjohansson says

    Are there more ways we could accuse AIG of being ‘false prophets ‘ ?
    You know what happens to those.

  31. snarkrates says

    I have noticed that conservatives and fundagelicals have both opted to double down on extremism. They’ve given up entirely on any sort of rational thought, and it seems that now every action is just a toddler’s temper tantrum. How else can you explain the rejection of a life-saving vaccine, the denial of COVID itself, the embrace of quack cures for the disease they are denying–hell, even the embrace of Darth Cheeto, the most corrupt man on the face of the planet. At this point, the Rethug party is nothing more than the political arm of the fundagelicals and Evangelical Xtianity is just a death cult. They’d happily destroy the planet (and may do just that) if they could “own the libs” in doing so.

  32. Rob Grigjanis says

    Silentbob @32:

    I notice they left the “won’t it be fun when we get your toddlers and bash them to death against the rocks” part out of the song though, for some reason.

    Not just the last verse. The song is based on the first four verses of psalm 137 (leaving out the last five), with the last verse of psalm 19 thrown in. If they’re still around, you could ask the writers why they left the last verse out, but I suspect it might have had something to do with selling records.

  33. PaulBC says

    RobG@35 I agree about Psalm 137, but it is still problematic to quote in full. The conquest of Canaan in Joshua provides better examples of genocide. The whole “promised land” idea has done damage beyond the Bible itself and has worked as a religious excuse for the atrocities of colonialism, though I don’t doubt that people would have come up with others if they had to.

    My favorite WTF Bible passage isn’t even violent. It’s Genesis 30. My takeaway is it’s good to have more hobbies and something to compete over besides who has the most kids.

  34. PaulBC says

    I like the single verse Psalms 137:4 better than the psalm in its entirety. “How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?” It’s just very evocative (making appropriate substitutions to fit the feeling of being a stranger or dispossessed in some other context). The more I try to explain, the worse it’ll get, so I’ll stop at that.

  35. Rob Grigjanis says

    PaulBC @36:

    The whole “promised land” idea has done damage beyond the Bible itself and has worked as a religious excuse for the atrocities of colonialism, though I don’t doubt that people would have come up with others if they had to.

    I think our species has done just fine on the conquest / colonization / genocide / enslavement / assimilation fronts without any help from Yahweh. See the Incas, Aztecs, Romans, Vikings, Goths, Huns, Mongols, Assyrians, Zulu, and so on. And our epic stories tend not to be for the squeamish; the Mahabharata and the Iliad come to mind.

  36. felixmagister says

    I feel like this sort of Christian is responsible for more converts to Atheism than all the “atheist evangelists” put together.

  37. mandrake says

    “Human death (both physical and spiritual)…”
    Are they implying you can succumb to one but survive the other? Ok, I’ll take spiritual death any day. Besides, their outsized influence in this country has left me spiritually dead for many years now.

  38. DanDare says

    John Morales @29. Yes you are right, the pretending bit has always been true. Its problematic because of the Emporer’s New Clothes effect. If it wasn’t there wouldn’t be a Clergy Project.

  39. PaulBC says

    @29 @41 Not everyone finds pretending as easy as all that. Living a lie creates a lot of stress for people who would prefer to be upfront about what they think. It’s bad enough working at a normal company with a cult vibe like Google and pretending it’s more than a job. Working at an actual cult sounds incredibly painful to me. But “if I needed a job and that was all that was available” yeah, I suppose desperate times call for desperate measures. It is still an oppressive requirement of employment.

  40. nurnord says

    Making questions of sexual orientation equivalent to bestiality and incest is particularly hateful.

    With certain caveats (consent, no harm done, no pregnancy issues etc.), why should these 2 be viewed in the manner this sentence asserts ?

  41. nurnord says

    @WMDKitty #44

    Animals can’t consent

    Non-verbal consent is consent. This is generally showing interest (eagerness, even) in the act, not protesting or showing signs of discomfort and so on. 1. So, my question is, on the basis of nothing negative coming of it (no mistreatment, physical harm), what is your issue with bestiality as just a sexual relationship ?

    and the power dynamics between a parent and child, or older and younger siblings/cousins make consent very, very questionable.

    That’s ONE scenario ! 2. What about adult siblings engaging in a sexual relationship just as any man and woman does (though not reproductive, just sexual acts together), do you have issues with that ?

    As I stated, 3. with appropriate caveats, do you, at base just oppose both, and if so, why ?

  42. Rowan vet-tech says

    No. Animals cannot consent because they don’t even understand the concept of consent. A cow in heat will stand for anyone and anything because hormones and instinct are making her do that. A queen will constantly cycle into heat until bred and if consent was a thing she doubtless would NOT because for a cat, mating is physically painful for the queen. A ferret in heat will die unless bred.
    You are a sick asshole.

  43. John Morales says

    nurnord @45:

    What about adult siblings engaging in a sexual relationship just as any man and woman does (though not reproductive, just sexual acts together), do you have issues with that ?

    No more than with coprophilia.

    Point being, in your #43, you intimate you do think sexual orientation is akin to bestiality or incest, given you dispute the objection to their supposed equivalence.

    Is that the case?

  44. nurnord says

    JM @47

    No more than with coprophilia.

    that tells me nothing

    Point being, in your #43, you intimate you do think sexual orientation is akin to bestiality or incest, given you dispute the objection to their supposed equivalence.
    Is that the case?

    NO, that is NOT the case !
    The quote (in red) is from the post.
    The quote is the author commenting on how the religious institution making the statement perceives sexual orientation as on a level with bestiality and incest.
    The author is stating that putting sexual orientation on a level with those 2 is hateful.
    This is where I came in saying ‘hang on, why is it hateful to compare x with bestiality and incest’ ? Why are they being maligned ?
    you see, taboos they certainly are, but that doesn’t make them immoral or deplorable as the author implies

    And no, I’m not being deliberately contrarian or anything; in the manner I’ve commented on the 2 in my comments above, I really am of the opinion ‘what’s wrong with them, certain caveats excepted’ ?

  45. John Morales says

    nurnord, we’re a long way from the OP, but hey.

    The author is stating that putting sexual orientation on a level with those 2 is hateful.
    This is where I came in saying ‘hang on, why is it hateful to compare x with bestiality and incest’ ? Why are they being maligned ?
    you see, taboos they certainly are, but that doesn’t make them immoral or deplorable as the author implies

    Right. It’s not that they’re comparable (you agree to that degree), it’s that the supposed equivalence is not hateful to you. I appreciate the clarification.

    (PS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_for_Love#%22The_Tale_of_the_Twins_Who_Weren't%22 qualifies the reproductive aspect)

  46. nurnord says

    JM @51
    Right, am I to infer then that you agree with me that aside from reproducing, incest is fine ? That’s my firm opinion anyway.
    And (I’ll just restate what I said above) for bestiality, as long as no harm is done to either party, I have no issue with it either…you ?
    And, you didn’t elaborate “No more than with coprophilia.”…

  47. John Morales says

    Sure, nurnord. Aside from reproductive risk, and given adulthood, compos mentis, and non-coerced informed consent by all parties, incest is no less “fine” as coprophilia.

    (I do note your evasiveness as to whether it’s in any way comparable to sexual orientation, though — and that was the point of that to which you objected)

    And (I’ll just restate what I said above) for bestiality, as long as no harm is done to either party, I have no issue with it either…you ?

    Depends. If someone puts a hidden camera in the bathroom and then jerks off to his sisters’ bathroom activities without them knowing, no harm is done, is there? But I’d still object.

  48. nurnord says

    JM @ 53
    Ok, we agree that incest is fine, with the caveats.

    (I do note your evasiveness as to whether it’s in any way comparable to sexual orientation, though — and that was the point of that to which you objected)

    ? There was no evasiveness ! I straight up explained my objection was the author’s view that it is hateful to compare sexual orientation (morally, as he surely meant) with bestiality and incest, i.e. why would the comparison be hateful when I think bestiality and incest are moral themselves ! Nothing to do with where I think sexual orientation falls, all to do with the maligning of bestiality and incest ! But I’ll state that view now; I’m fine with whatever orientation, no objections whatsoever, and it’s moral; there.

    As for your bathroom comment, what has that got to do with your opinion of bestiality, the thing I asked !

    And (I’ll just restate what I said above) for bestiality, as long as no harm is done to either party, I have no issue with it either…you ?

    Depends. If someone puts a hidden camera in the bathroom and then jerks off to his sisters’ bathroom activities without them knowing, no harm is done, is there? But I’d still object.

  49. snarkrates says

    Nurnord@43,
    1) Animals cannot give consent.
    2) Given family dynamics and the opprobrium with which such relationships are viewed, the question of consent in such a relationship is not clear cut
    3) No matter what caveats one imposes, the comparison is still hateful because of the way such relationships are viewed by the majority of society. The intent is to taint by association.

  50. nurnord says

    @56 snark
    1) Animals cannot give consent.
    I disagree as outlined already
    2) Given family dynamics and the opprobrium with which such relationships are viewed, the question of consent in such a relationship is not clear cut
    bs ! You’re not addressing the main question at all. It’s about; ‘are incest relationships moral’ ? Family opinion and dynamics (including related to consent) are irrelevant and consent is an already stated start point anyway !
    3) No matter what caveats one imposes, the comparison is still hateful because of the way such relationships are viewed by the majority of society. The intent is to taint by association.
    Yeah, the taboo aspect means the typical person would conclude that., but I’m asking is it (incest and bestiality) ‘actually’ immoral ? My opinion, no for both.

  51. KG says

    The point has been made often, but why does God have a thinner skin than I do? – PaulBC@16

    Insecurity:
    1) He knows he’s a failure: he tried to create a race of perfectly obedient and adoring slaves, but first chance they got, they disobeyed.
    2) He likes to think he’s omniscient and omnipotent, but he can’t get rid of the nagging feeling there might be a “Super-God” pulling his strings.

  52. says

    As for your bathroom comment, what has that got to do with your opinion of bestiality, the thing I asked!

    The point is that proving harm isn’t always required to show something is immoral or unethical. That depends on the moral system employed and the particular behavior in question.

    As for your bestiality approval conditional upon no harm being done, how can you determine which cases involve no harm given that you cannot clearly communicate with the animals involved?

    You’re essentially asking for an animal to prove harm to humans in a human court of law for the animal to get protection against human’s behavior. I think that’s an unreasonable thing to ask.

  53. nurnord says

    Crip @59

    The point is that proving harm isn’t always required to show something is immoral or unethical. That depends on the moral system employed and the particular behavior in question.

    He might mean that, but I’ll get his answer and address it. However, harm was only one example of a caveat I chose to state, not the ONLY caveat I would apply and so I actually agree on this example anyway !

    As for your bestiality approval conditional upon no harm being done, how can you determine which cases involve no harm given that you cannot clearly communicate with the animals involved?

    Example I’ve seen; a woman gets on all 4’s nude and a dog eagerly jumps on and bangs her, without coercion, threat, physical placement or anything else, purely its own will. I’m satisfied the dog was harm free throughout !

    You’re essentially asking for an animal to prove harm to humans in a human court of law for the animal to get protection against human’s behavior. I think that’s an unreasonable thing to ask.

    Nonsense, as with the example above, determining no harm can be trivial.

  54. Rowan vet-tech says

    You outlined it and you’re ridiculously wrong on that front as I explained.
    Again : animals do not even understand the concept of consent. You cannot consent if you don’t what consent is.
    An animal in heat is compelled to breed due to instincts and hormones, not a desire for sex. They are not consenting just because their hormones make them stand for being mounted.

  55. raven says

    nurnord the monster:

    Yeah, the taboo aspect means the typical person would conclude that., but I’m asking is it (incest and bestiality) ‘actually’ immoral ? My opinion, no for both.

    Your opinion proves absolutely nothing.
    It does make you a small m monster though.
    People like you never learn. They also tend to get picked up by the police and charged for one thing or another.
    I saw one Mormon father claim that he could sexually assault his daughters because god gave them to him. CPS and the police didn’t care what god said.

    Peter Singer and Steven Pinker among other self identified philosophers think it is OK to kill disabled babies and cognitively challenged old people. It’s just their opinion backed up by reasoning.
    Well, so what. They are monsters too.

  56. Rowan vet-tech says

    And before you try to say “but the animal chose to!”, animals also do things like eat rocks and glass and metal, or in the case of snakes, even themselves. They do things on impulse and instinct all the time, even things that are patently not good for them. Because animals have no concept of future consequences.

  57. Rowan vet-tech says

    Ah, i say that and now you’re free to ignore the rest? How bloody convenient for you.
    I’m a vet tech. I’ve seen the end result of people having sex with animals and it generally involved a fair bit of tissue trauma, and one of the dogs had developed obsessive behaviors as a coping mechanism for whenever a human went near them.
    You are wrong. Animals cannot consent. If the living, sentient object of your sexual act cannot consent, it is rape.

  58. says

    as with the example above, determining no harm can be trivial.

    Really? First off I don’t believe you when you say that you’ve seen

    a woman gets on all 4’s nude and a dog eagerly jumps on and bangs her, without coercion,

    But 2nd, how do you know that no harm was done? If a fungal infection was passed to the dog, how would the dog tell you 6 days later that they’d started to feel burning on urination? Yet you assert “determining no harm can be trivial”.

    Good fucking luck with that. On second thought, no. Not good luck with that. I prefer no sex with animals so that you have no cases to examine, well or poorly, with luck or without.

  59. nurnord says

    @66 Crip

    Really? First off I don’t believe you when you say that you’ve seen
    a woman gets on all 4’s nude and a dog eagerly jumps on and bangs her, without coercion,

    …ever heard of the…internet ?!

    But 2nd, how do you know that no harm was done? If a fungal infection was passed to the dog, how would the dog tell you 6 days later that they’d started to feel burning on urination? Yet you assert “determining no harm can be trivial”.

    Valid point, but diseases/infections occur in any sexual relationship and it doesn’t render them abhorrent or immoral. And a dog could face that scenario of yours from sex with another dog, so it’s not a point that renders the notion immoral either. It would however be valid to state that human-specific disease/infection may be passed, and I do acknowledge that that may pose an elevated risk due to an unfamiliar pathogen in the host. But I don’t consider that sufficient to class bestiality as immoral/abhorrent.

Leave a Reply