Proponents of gay marriage: what about bestiality?

Post Reply New Topic

The food crisis now pervading the world may have unexpected consequences with the permission of a man to marry a goat, pig or cow. In dire food shortages, would a man be permitted to eat his wife? Or, in the case of a man marrying a lion or tiger, would it be acceptable for his wife to eat him? Once the precedence has been established, in a human to human marriage, would cannibalism become a legal possibility? Ecologically it would be quite sound considering it would not only solve a nutrient problem but also diminish a burgeoning population, a neat twist on confronting Malthus.
It also permits a new interpretation on the concept that a good wife should serve her husband.

People have been shagging dogs and the like for millenia. It hasn't done that yet.

Look at the influence in mythology and ancient stories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestiality ... literature



Animals don't given consent to each other, they can be just as violent. Dolphins do the same
http://myrandts.blogspot.com/2007/03/dolphin-sex.html

But anyway, actually animals do give consent. They often initiate the action or allow it to happen. There's more than one type of language. See dogs humping your leg.

Also see this for dolphins:
http://www.sexwork.com/family/dolphins1.html



Or it's a matter of culture. Western cultures considers this 'evil' and 'immoral'. Other cultures in the past did not. see. When the mainstream portrays them as 'victims' that's often where any trauma comes in/
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia.htm



they do it to each other; as Alfed Kinsey demonstrated in his studies on Child Sexuality.



because the gene pool was too shallow. 'Incest' is a general term and depending on societies, it could be from reproduction with a sister to simply marrying the brother of a dead husband. Not to mention you assume that there would be reproduction.




I never bolded that



more accurately the outrage of a society at these actions !

but yes I agree the anti-gay sentiment is BS..

Oh, I can't help but wonder how many housewives have shagged with the family dog.

You know they do it! They do!

Because gay marriage is within our species, you moron. Being black used to be a no-brainer to the majority of the population, too.

Slippery slope falacy in the original post and appeal to popularity in this one. You fail.

Don't forget Japan and Norway, two of the most secular countries in the world

Okay, so that's one major change in the historic definition of marriage. Why, then, wouldn't another major change to the definition of marriage come along? My point is so simple, I'm tired of repeating it to people who keep pretending not to understand it.

please do

Well, thanks, that was the point of this thread.



It's a very difficult point that I'm trying to communicate, and I think it fell through the cracks.

I agree with you. If that concept is true, then couldn't it mean that those liberals who grew up to eventually become conservatives learned something along the way that prompted this change in personal views? I really do believe that conservatism comes from wisdom, and that liberalism means viewing things without proper context. "The poor need more money! So we need to take from people who have it, those guilty bastards!" Liberalism is simply a belief based on incomplete information or misinformation.
It teaches that, if someone has too little money, it's because someone else stole money from him. As if that's the only cause for someone not having enough money. It couldn't just be that he's a lazy son of b***h, could it? Oh, no!
Interestingly, in an opportunity-packed country like America, one almost has to exert effort to remain poor. There are government handouts galore based on your race, the number of kids you have, and how little you chose to work last year.

Cause: I work full-time all year, and therefore earn significant money.
Effect: The government says I owe them on April 15.

Cause: Someone else doesn't work very much all year.
Effect: The government determines that it should pay that person on April 15.

So, the government rewards you for not working.
It also rewards you for producing more kids than is wise.
So, basically, the government rewards 1) laziness, and 2) foolishness.
And, the golden part of it all is?
Yours truly, along with the other hard workers, gets to pay that reward! Woo-hoo, what a treat for us!
So, the government is into the business of redistributing the money of those who worked hard all year,
to those who sat at home on their asses all year, and cranked out another kid they couldn't afford to care for.











Further, this is naturally an incentive for those who were lazy last year to -- guess what? Be lazy NEXT year, too! More government handouts, FTW! So, basically, the government is promoting lazy slobbery -- funded by the working man.

(Sorry for the tanget, but it's all true.)

Oh, I've got your point, Rag. My argument is also quite extraordinarily simple: it was wrong in the first place that the gays were so marginalized. It was wrong two millenia ago, and it's wrong today. This isn't going to change.

No. One generation just tends to be a little more enlightened than the one that came before it.

Quite wrong. Western society has been liberalizing ever since the Enlightenment, and it's not slowing down. If John McCain were to get into a time machine and go back to the Ninteen Fifties, he'd be viewed not only as a liberal but as a lunatic fringe nut. Society has grown enlightened with time. Unfortunately, people get old and absent-minded, and they can't keep up anymore.

So you define liberalism as welfare?

So gay marriage is liberalism and liberalism is welfare and welfare is laziness and foolishness therefore gay marriage is laziness and foolishness okay.

Where in your ass do you get this reasoning? I swear, man. I'm the gay guy here, but you're the fruit.

That sentence is laughable, so here ya go:

And Muslims riot and torch cars in France why? Perhaps you consider France a conservative country.
Hey, at this point, I wouldn't be surprised!

Well, most people hold it to be quite obvious that a man's as*hole is not the correct receptacle for a penis. "You moron", they might even say to those who claim to think it is.
So your point is invalidated.

Argument from pride; you fail.
Morals are not advancing generation upon generation, they're retreating. (Damn, how obvious does it have to be?)

Because this is a popular way of expressing frustration in much of Western Europe. It's considered...normal behavior.

They're pretty racist if that's what you mean.

And yes, the Muslims do have a habit of attempting to impose their culture onto others. They do need to be broken of that.