Proponents of gay marriage: what about bestiality?

Post Reply New Topic

A technicality which I forsee will change in the future, so it's not a true answer to my philisophical question.



Well, gay husband-husband or wife-and-wife couples also have many basic hurdles to navigating our society, as well.
Also, are you saying that an animal is not capable of expressing its friendship and desire to mate with a person? Ever hear of dogs being loyal protectors? And ever hear of them humping human legs? Sounds like some of them make their intentions pretty clear! And don't forget, a small number of human-animal marriages have already occured throughout the world. A judge even ordered one man to marry his sheep!



The same argument was used for black slaves. Yet, blacks are not considered property anymore, and I predict the same thing happening with pets. Over the next 50 years, I'm sure we will grant them a limited range of human rights and personal status, if trends are any indication.



Your above quote is actually a common argument against gay marriage. "Why do gays need to have a formal, legal unity, when they're already allowed to live together and have sex?" I'm not asking that question, I'm just mentioning it because it's like the last sentence of your argument.

Very good points. Liberals' secret conservative views are getting in the way of their logic, and keeping it from being consistent.
First, they say humans are basically animals, and then they turn around and draw immutable contrasts between humans and animals out of thin air.

Oh crap, I need to change that! Thanks for the reminder. I could blame my rapid-cycle bipolar disorder for that Myspace status, but really it was just a quick phase that I'm totally out of now.

This legality is religious and philisophical in nature, and thus it will change with the times, due to natural shifts in both of those schools of thought.



Exactly.

We sometimes forget, skafather, that only people who agree with you can make valid posts on WP.

No, that's not it. Following liberal logic endlesssly makes every even micro-conservative views you've ever held in your life seem ridiculous, just as practicing complete insanity makes sanity look ridiculous. See, liberal logic allows for no true distinctions between any two concepts, so all concepts get mixed together in a confusing and quickly nonfunctional mess.



Exactly. See, in my view, liberals should never use that argument (the "It's sick" one), because liberalism doesn't recognize such a concept as validly determining what's wrong.

Okay, troll. I'll remember that.

No, "Comma", because legal and societal definitions are in constant flux throughout the course of civilizations.

Gay marriage is a current event, and a very contraversial one.
Should we hide our heads in the sand because it's disgusting?
Or should we discuss it, because we admit to ourselves that it's an issue that needs to be dealt with?

Would you say all those same things about ret*d people who cannot communicate any clearer than dogs can?
Just trying to explore your logic here. Surely, you wouldn't say that ret*d people should be considered humans unless/until they can communicate their thoughts clearly to the rest of us, or that we should "exercise complete control over" the ret*d person, and that a relationship between a ret*d person and a "normal" person could not ever be a suitably-equal partnership?

And clearly, you're implying that no animal can communicate its desires to a human, which I find more than highly questionable.

Ah, nothing like a gay marriage debate to kill a few minutes on a Friday afternoon...

That big glacier not got you yet monty?

Anyway, yes I do realise that the details of marriage have changed due to context, but it has always involved a man and one or more women. That's a fundamental part of it. Indeed, most pre-PC dictionary definitions will state that it involves a man and a woman. I've nothing against gay people having some form of state recognition of their relationship for inheritance purposes, but don't call it marriage because it's very clearly not.

Face it: Liberals have to rely on conservative arguments like the ones you gave in order to put the brakes on their liberalism before it gets them in trouble. That's dishonest. Why not either be liberal all the way even if it gets you in trouble, or be conservative all the way so that your arguments at least remain consistent?

Again, legal definitions change all the time. Take marriage, for example. It used to be implicit that marriage in America is between a man and a woman. So, you're argument, once again, was used against gay marriage: "It's not legally sound!" What happened to that argument? It's going out the window, because the law is changing. So, the fact that societal law changes frequently in America makes legal definitions shaky ground for attempting to argue a constant.

Well, I don't foresee that changing, therefore it is a true answer from my perspective.


Not ones that fundamental. Animals literally cannot. Gays have problems and those problems would likely be as similar as straights.


Nope, saying that an animal is not capable of expressing a desire for a legal marriage. I am not forgetting that human-animal marriages have occurred, but rather argue that they are rather pointless. I mean, I have no problem with people having animal marriage ceremonies, I just don't see a reason to involve the law with such an arrangement as the legal benefits are special.


Perhaps we will grant them these things, however, I am not a part of that, nor do I foresee that we will make them legal persons. We will only end up screwing up the clear issues of property vs not.


The fact that marriage is a legal package with certain benefits. Pets won't benefit from these legal benefits. Now, poly marriages can benefit, pets can't.


Not definition, but rather communication. Let's just say that mankind found a race of very intelligent aliens and these aliens can sign our contracts and function as persons in our society, well, by my logic, people could then legally marry these aliens. The issue that you bring up is an issue of changing definitions, however, the counterargument is that there are indeed certain limits with the limit being functioning within the legal system of our society, which is a very objective measure that hits at the foundations of our law. Our law is not built on the basis of sexuality, but always consent.

Finally, if you really want to get to the point, I would prefer the separation of marriage from the government. Which means that anything *could* marry anything, the issue is just that these marriages would not be legal but rather informal.

huh? But I do admit that I can not force my beliefs on anyone and realized that long ago that I should fight for freedom for all; as the past shows that minorities who are considered 'disgusting' and 'repulsise' still exist; and it's the society's fault for starting that s**t in the first place and the people are either biased or don't know of this.

I simply advocate to destroy all of that s**t once and for all so that there will no longer be people screwed by the popular opinion. Err that was off-topic. sorry



I don't.

Although I don't have a traditional mindset toward bestiality, I'm not sure how exactly you would implement the idea. Frankly, I'm not even sure that anyone would actually advocate it.

Well, I could be nominalist and asinine, but I won't. Legalities aside, marriage is simply a ceremonial recognition of a specific type of social relationship. It's simply a nice way of giving encouragement to a couple that has chosen to spend their lives together. All the legal junk can be sorted out through private contracts, and civil unions are gaining increasing acceptance in many states.

The ghost sounds promising, but why would you want to marry Janet Reno?

Where we choose to, I would think.

It's not like we're asking you to bend over backwards here, people. It's just a token of respect. That's all.

Not really practical. If you'd like to defend them, though, good luck to you. Perhaps we should allow marriage to Janet Reno. Who knows?