Proponents of gay marriage: what about bestiality?

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry if this has been posted before, but didn't a girl marry a dog in India?

Really? hmmm... Why would you believe that animals will not be given more rights in the future? That seems counterintuitive to all the evidence so far.



Really? How about having biological children? How about being actually accepted by people as being a married couple? That's a HUGE hurdle, which I don't see being overcome anytime soon. To most people, homosexuality is unnatural. But that's not a societal hurdle to you? Hmmm... Damn -- something as relatively minor as being an Aspie in an NT world must be easy as pie to you, then!




You know that's a ridiculous argument. All the state has to do is consider a clear-intentioned and well-placed inked paw print legal, and they'll have legal consent. Blacks, at one time, couldn't legally vote. Does that mean they were incapable of knowing and expressing what they wanted? No, of course not. It simply meant that the law hadn't yet caught up with common sense. But, eventually, it did.
You're arguing in a circle; saying that the law is blind to something is not the same as proving that something doesn't exist, or is inherently invalid, or especially that it never will be.



(Sigh.) Once again, I am hearing the same arguments from you that are and were used against gay marriage.


Well, I am not a part of gay marriage, so does that mean I don't have to recognize it in cases where it's been legalized?


(Sigh.)
Times change. That's all I'm trying to get you to admit. Circumstances could easily be set up to where animals could benefit
from government programs.



Moot, by my above postings. Animals can legally consent the moment the government decides they can, and if we have 2 or 3 Democratic presidents in a row, you can be sure that would happen.



Well, alright. But as such person-to-whatever marriages became more commonplace, the law would of course recognize them. American law is a reflection of our views as a whole, not an independent standard that exists in and of itself in a societal vacuum. As our views change, the law changes too, even though it necessarily lags behind.

Last edited by Ragtime on 11 Apr 2008, 2:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

This has become, hands down, the funniest thread I've read on this forum.

Congratulations, Mr. "I Hate Liberals", you've jsut made yourself into a laughing stock.

so....someone's related slavery to having pets and correlated the two?

is that supposed to imply that black people are somehow inferior or sub-human?

and human is the operative word here...the law applies to humans, not animals.

You know, I'm really tired of conservatives being jerks toward liberals. It's a paradigm shift, and it's confusing for everybody except for the kids. Try to behave with manners for a change, you annoying people. It's not entirely our fault that the world has to be turned on its head every two generations. You know, I can't wait for the century that we've finally stowed this "countries and nations" bullcrap and most parts of the world have an accountable and transparent government that don't need to draw fences or boundaries between each other. The cost of maintaining this military is ridiculous, and it's all because people in the world can't get along with each other. You're not even trying to get along!

Seriously, man, all I hear from the conservatives is, "The liberals do this," and "let's make fun of the liberals over that," and "liberals are so-and-so." And you think convervatives have some sparkly clean record? HAH! You dudes didn't even accept the idea of welfare until Reagan talked you into it! It's a thing we call "civilization." You know, it's that thing that sets us apart from countries in which little kids have flies crawling and laying eggs all over their bodies. Remember those pictures? It was our idea to say, instead of letting that go, "Okay, people, lay your sleeping mats on this nice living room floor, take your smelly asses a shower, and put some food into your unwashed children before their brains start looking like yours do on the MRI." Yeah, they're pretty stupid to be living that way in the first place, but our country is better than to leave people living like that. How are we supposed to convince good people to want to live here leaving that kind of stuff unattended, hah? They'd be afraid all of the time of catching some kind of disease from some deformed and malnourished child bumping into them on their way to work! It just doesn't look good. Oh, but pardon me for having a sense of national pride, just pardon me very much. People maybe want to take wrongful advantage of it, but what do you want? Perfect? I don't see you coming up with any big ideas for making the thing work better. You're just critics, and you never produce anything.

What, did I just go off-subject? I think it's relevant, though. It's tiring to hear conservatives doing nothing but blasting their oversized egos in everyone else's faces. Someone's going to start punching you people in the nose, one of these days, you know that? It's going to wear and wear on people, and, one day, you're going to go, "WHY?? Why do people treat us so badly??" It's going to all fall down, and then someone's going to have to defend YOUR rights. I would, too, because I don't like to see ANYONE kept down, and I'm just that kind of person. I'd still say, though, "Well, sirs and ma'ams, perhaps you ought to think for a while about how you got here."

You know, this could have been a sensible discussion, but it turned into "conservatives vs. liberals." If you're just going to turn it into that, you can piss off. These partisan feuds have gotten old, and the conservatives have had their own part in perpetuating them.

Read my post up above, and tell me if you can find anything out of the way about what I said up there, hah? That's what we call a sensible, even-toned reply. You're not even going to get that from most liberals, so how about you follow MY example instead of just going back to the old "conservative vs. liberal" trenches like some kind of idiot?

Time has come to air the voice of reason
In a world gone mad adrift on banal seas

For all who feel that lies have had their season
And whose hearts cry out in stead for honesty

For all the weary souls grown bored with dreaming
This thrist for beauty and for knowledge goes unslaked

For all who want to wake from what is dreamy
To know what’s real and what is real to embrace

For all who’ve watched with mounting horror
Evil’s reign upon this world grow ever clear

For all who’ve prayed in vain, emancipators
Wielding swords of truth and laughing without fear

Funniest, weirdest, most out of place, most nothing to do with anything and most illogical and random associations between two topics.

I am quite unaware of any glaciers.

Glad to know you're safe, monty.

It was just a reference to something I posted a while back in a thread on global warming in which you participated.

And a British woman married a dolphin in Israel, and there are several other human-animal "marriages" around the world. Clearly, there is precedent.

Did anybody tell the dolphin and dog that they were married?

And the marriage in Israel was legal?

Here's an article about that and other human-animal marriages, but it doesn't speak to legality in the case of Cindy the dolphin.

Please say you mean this, that you honestly believe this would happen. Please? Swear on the bible, if you do that sort of thing? Declare that you will acknowledge this opinion anywhere, anytime?

Hrm. If we have another Republican president, expect the Bureau of Morality to pop up and everyone except police, party and President to be dressed drab. "Pigs in the parlor, peacocks on parade" deal. -.-

There is a difference between animals and humans: We wear shoes.

What's the difference if I do or not? It's true. The Democrats are a weird breed these days, such that if people like Hillary and Obama got the White House 3 times in a row, there would simply be no America left (no pun intended). Animal-human marriages having been legalized would be the least of our troubles.

Since "conversative" basically means "sticking to what has worked in the past", i.e. practicing logic, it would seem that you are incorrect in your prediction.

Indeed, it is liberals who enjoy leaping before they look -- an emotion-biased "strategy" which is a much better guarantee of complete chaos ensuing. You seem to forget that Rebulicans are about smaller government, whereas Democrats are for larger government.
Do you think the U.S. government is big enough already? I do.