sexual orientation issue

[Rwandrall]

People with mental disabilities, . . . , none of those is legally allowed to give consent, . . .

I have a documented mental disability (besides my epilepsy), which was part of what forced me out of the military after seventeen years. Spent some fun times in places where they lock the doors from the inside.

I assure you (at least in this country) persons with such "disabilities" can and do give legal consent to all kinds of things, including sex and marriage. We can even get drivers' licences. And vote.

(Owning a gun is tricky, but we can run for office too. And if enough of us do the latter, perhaps we can reverse the designation "mentally ill" to the Tea Partiers. There are more of us.)

Concerning people naturally not wanting adult incestuous relationships (where "incest" is still a matter of opinion, not biology), if that were truly the case, governments and churches would not write laws against it. They have plenty other things to worry about, like churches telling you who you can associate with and legislators voting themselves pay raises.

James

yeah sorry i oversimplified the issue...By "mental disabilities", what i meant to say was terrible ones that makes allowing the person to consent unreasonable because they have partial or no awareness of the world around them. Of course the range and extent of mental disabilities is very wide and no general rule can be made.

---

People with mental disabilities can still consent. As can children. As can animals (observe that humans are animals).

No they legally can't. Not "consent" as it is understood in legal terms. "Consent" implies a full understanding of the situation and its implication, which none of those groups have (again, having "mental disabilities" defined as above), which is why they cannot give consent.

For the dildo, i'm pretty sure consent isn't an issue, since it's, you know, not alive A dead body, however, even though its not alive, still has limited rights.

Try to remember that legality is intensely subjective and ultimately tells us nothing philosophically as to why a thing should or shouldn't be allowed

As for "legality is subjective", in my eyes this law aspect is a really accurate and apt explanation of why consent for sex should not be available for animals or children: they do not know all the implications of it, as such they cannot consent to it. To me it just makes a lot of sense, which is why i use it