Proponents of gay marriage: what about bestiality?

Post Reply New Topic

practical logic would say that homosexuality is normal and to be expected in society and culture as it has been observe numerous times in nature. practical logic would also state that there is no societal detriment to legally allowing homosexuals to marry.


practical logic would also state that you're a moron for relating a relationship shared in a legal union between two humans to a couple nutbags around the world who married flipper or fido. homosexuality has a larger occurrence rate not to mention the whole legal difference between a human being and an animal.

or are you saying that homosexuals are no better than animals and should not be granted the same legal rights as other human beings?

Eh I already know how large it's gotten, and not because of the Dems. Please sit back and enjoy your hair.
I put logic into my liberal ideas. Yeah, whatever, I'm a pinko. Dun care. However, I'm seeing my prediction pop up more than ever... the dollar plunges on the index, massive bubbles in housing affecting economies worldwide, private bank control of our currency... the FCC, our most horrid president ever... lies about Iraq -- <_< Shall I name more? I hate it when society is duped by the people they elect, and I think it's time for reform on a grand scale. NO more military expediency, no more launching-pad blues, no more popularity contests. You want democracy? Hit the pinyata. We are our brother's keeper and I find it interesting that it is in our own self-interest to care about others in the long run than leave 99% of the populace behind.

I don't enjoy leaping before I look, I like having a solid ground. I do not build my foundations on piles of sand. o_o''

Legal personhood though? No.


Not all married couples have biological children, intend to have biological children or can have biological children. Not only that, but having children is not fundamental to an individual's role in society. Not only that, but being accepted is a cultural thing but it does not prevent individuals from living their lives, just makes it more difficult, the hurdle is incomparable to the other hurdles in question.


How is that a ridiculous argument? Animals are illiterate, and of a different language and always will be. I mean, sure, we can say "X is consent" but it to consider that to be the same as a homo sapien or other being that understands our language signing a legal document would demand a greater level of solipsism or skepticism than I think that most people think with. Blacks voting is completely different because blacks CAN understand our language!


No, I am not arguing in a circle. I have said that X is a valid, objective difference that prevents a law founded on the law's longstanding foundations from allowing for something where X does not fit. Essentially, I am consistently applying X to the law rather than arguing a circle.


But it doesn't fit with gay marriage because the legal benefits can help gay couples.


No, what I am saying is that I cannot be held accountable for every legal hypothetical. If we design our legal hypotheticals right then we can start arguing whether or not we should have cannibal cafes, the issue is that this goes against the suppositions of both sides and is merely an absurdity.


Not really. Most legal benefits only work with 2 separate persons becoming 1. Times may in fact change, however, like I would argue, I am not responsible for all sorts of crazy hypotheticals. I do not support the changes that would lead to the changes, so there is no inconsistency.


Not at all, government does not define consent. Consent is a philosophical matter.


Why would the law recognize them? If there is no such thing as legal marriage then there is nothing for the law to recognize. Ok, law is not in a vacuum, but that does not stand against my point that law should be minimal so that way it is a vacuum.

Wasn't that a bit of a joke about the woman being single in her forties?

I've said it before, though, and I'll say it again: I really don't give a hoohah about bestiality. I'm serious, too. Hey, if Cindy had requested citizenship and pay with benefits for his work, I wouldn't dream of telling the guy no. It's no big deal, and all praise to him if he can figure out how to communicate this effectively. It wouldn't cost me a penny. If he could show himself to be a good parent, I'd even give him the nod to adopt his own kids. It don't bother me, man. If he wanted to hire a geneticist to make him compatible with his human partner, so he could have his own half-dolphin kids, I wouldn't go against him as long as it were done ethically. I am looking you square in the face and saying to you, "Why in the heck not?" HAH!

yeah but if we just allowed fags to buttfuck comfortably and allow them the same legal rights then it's a slipper slope down hill to f*****g animals and having to give them rights and then incest would be next then pedophilia and then rape and then you wouldn't be able to walk down the street without a dick in some orifice.

HA HA HA! Your killin me

*snickers* I say we cross that bridge when we get to it. We've got enough on our plate as it is.

To tell you the truth, I think it's okay to put the marriage issue aside for after we've repealed the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. There's no rush. Improving military life for gays is a more important issue for right now. It really is.

Ragtime, you threw a curveball at me with this thread! I don't agree with your opinion completely, but you really got me to analyze the issue more deeply, which is good for myself.

I don't see how a law can apply to an animal (human or otherwise) that does not comprehend the ideas of that law. If one party involved in the marriage understands the concept of marriage but the other does not, I don't see how that's fair. I could care less about humans marrying animals, as long as the animal understands the law...that's all I've got right now.

As for your argument as to why people should either be completely liberal or conservative: I don't see why it has to be so black-and-white. I say people should go with what they're comfortable with, not be, say, completely liberal for the sake of being liberal, or vice-versa. If all of us had to pick from a limited number of rigidly-defined views, that would be...uh...limiting.

Fallatic 'slippery slope' argument. WARNING!

isn't that all this thread is? ragtime is implying that if gay marriage were to be legalized that other forms would eventually have to be legalized on the slippery slope premise.

Ah, I was calling BS on it. But now I know your context, I see it.
Yes... Society will adapt to pressing times and new mores... Conservatives cannot ignore changing times and failure to adapt means failure to advance knowledge... o_o WAKE UP! Conservativism can't last forever....

No, but the liberals of one era will grow into the conservatives of the next...and so on.

Yup, probably, but... I guess we'll get to that bridge when we cross it... I see it as a cycle, but I'm mainly talking about the American brand of conservativism... flag-waving, blind patriotism and jingoism, makes me damned sick. Thought it was a round world last time I checked, dun you think?

You don't say? I always knew the world to be banana-shaped...but I digress...

You have no idea..

Only as long as each generation is more enlightened than the last and we pass on the lessons of history.