Proponents of gay marriage: what about bestiality?

Post Reply New Topic

My question is very simple: If bu-fu, why not Fufu?





What is marriage, and what are its limits? Can I marry an animal? A tree? A rock? A city? A child? Myself? A ghost? An idea? A philosophy? A boat? A legal system? Janet Reno? I mean, where are we going to set the limits?
Who/what should humans be able to legally marry, and why? Is a threshold ever reached where a type of marriage becomes nonsensical and therefore too problematic to be considered a good idea?

There are people in this world who wish to legally marry each of the things I mentioned in my list. But they are almost always denied legally doing so. Case by case, why?

And, please -- no one play the tired line, "How dare you compare something as great and noble as gay sex with bestiality!!1!!11!11!1One!1!!1!"

Last edited by Ragtime on 11 Apr 2008, 2:55 pm, edited 6 times in total.

marriage is a legal contract. animals cannot own property, take custody of kids, need to make hospital visits, and many other things that are included in the marriage contract.


so that's why no bestiality.

Adults getting married to other consenting adults isn't the same thing at all as marrying an animal. That's a no brainer.

because what cavity you put your dick in doesn't define marriage, you f*****g moron.

Oh, pish-tosh! What cop-outs! Why can't animals own property, take care of kids, etc? What a gip for them that they aren't allowed to (yet)! Animals can go to special pet resorts, inherit money from crazy old ladies, wear specially made clothes, they communicate naturally and easily with humans, and they even defend little kids from danger. It's discrimination!

Well, now wait a minute, you're dodging the issue.
Gay marriage being wrong is to many people a no-brainer. So how's bestiality less common-sensical?

it's is possibly the stupidest thread I've read on this forum since "I think my Cat has Aspergers".

Marriage requires a little thing called 'consent'.

If a gay couple are happily in love, they can both consent to be married.

An animal cannot give consent to marriage, because, strangely enough, it's an animal.

Well done for showing how completely ignorant you are of how marriage works.

Last edited by -Vorzac- on 10 Apr 2008, 4:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Who are you to define marriage for someone else?

Why the f**k are you asking peopel to define marriage then turning round and telling them they have no right to do so?

Idiot Much?

I didn't turn round and tell anyone anything different. Please clarify your accusation.

Okay, so you marry an animal and have it give you oral sex. If it's hungry the results could be unfortunate.

On a slightly more serious note, sexual relations with an animal would expose human and animal to species-specific disease organisms. This would allow the organisms to mutate and become infectious to both species. Of course, the survivors would have extremely strong immune systems to pass along - if they can reproduce.

Well, the typical answer is that marriage is a contract between 2 consenting legal individuals. A pet is not a legal individual and thus cannot consent. I would also argue that pets should not be legal individuals because they cannot sign contracts or anything of a similar nature and thus they cannot navigate our society. Thus animals are property. Now, as for the question on whether or not people can be allowed to have sex with this animal property, well, what legal individual(other than arguably the practitioner) is hurt by individuals having sex with animal property? If there is already a system for the relationship between a man and pet, then why do we need another formal, legal system?

So, why not Fufu?

I don't have a position. Your position is that you've created a pointless topic for which you will be (rightfully) trolled.

Also, you seem to like answering everything with a question because I appears you need to have everything explain out loud to you when it's otherwise painfully obvious, just like a child.

Read my first post, end the topic and get on with your life.

There.


End of thread.

Animals are nonsentient.

In law, nonsentient beings cannot sign contracts.

In law, marriage is a contract. It must therefore be agreed to by beings who are capable of legally signing contracts - that is, sentients who are over the local "age of consent".

Has this been explained simply enough, or do we need to use words of one syllable or less?

Your question, Rags, is among the least worthy strawmen thrown up in opposition to a minority group. It ranks on a level with the idea that blacks could not be granted civil rights because they were no better than animals (on which basis my own marriage was outlawed in 14 states until 1969, when came the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia).

This is worse than the adult forum if you're serious.

This thread borders slightly on the ridiculous...and that was an understatement.