Good news!
Poll
 | 15 votes (20%) | ||
| | 22 votes (29.33%) | ||
| | 17 votes (22.66%) | ||
| | 41 votes (54.66%) |
75 members have voted
Quote: MrVWill a gnu or a tapeworm be brought into my office someday by its handler, seeking a divorce?
Is that really any different than gays now being permitted (sometimes and in some places) to marry and divorce?
Do you lack empathy for all people or just for some in particular?
BTW how is comparing the marriage between any two people to a tapeworm not bigotry?
Quote: NareedDo you lack empathy for all people or just for some in particular?
BTW how is comparing the marriage between any two people to a tapeworm not bigotry?
I thought you'd pick up on the intellectual aspects of the issue, but your emotions may have blinded you to the concept of dispassionate analysis.
It's Moral Relativism.
All societies determine what their values, laws, and codes of conduct should be.
They vary, but usually not too widely.
Our ancestors codified marriage as THE only acceptable sanctioned way for two to become one; their reasons for doing so do not matter for purposes of this discussion.
It's enough for you to know that it has been that way because that is how people wanted it to be.
It could have been different, but it wasn't.
Now, with gays increasingly (some might say annoyingly) strident about the issue, and with the newer generations more open minded (and less religious) than the prior generations, the consensus is changing.
The door can swing shut just as easily as it swings open, depending upon the prevailing breeze: that is moral relativism.
Quote: AxelWolfThat's absurd. Whether or not gays can or cannot get married has nothing to do with the meaning of marriage to two individuals.
I may joke about gays. However I don't believe its a choice (no praying the gay away). I don't care if people are gay, straight or confused. I wouldn't not be friends with someone who was gay, just because they were gay (as long as they can laugh at gay jokes).
As a kid I didn't want to associate with a gay person, however that's only because they were made fun of and I didn't want to be made fun of.
I do like to know upfront if a friend is gay, finding out years later is not fun. I certainly dont expect people to lead with, "hi im Bruce, I'm gay"
A heads up at some point is all I ask.
Feel free to PM me Bob if you need to get something off your chest or decide to come out of the basement. ☺
I actually agree with Bob Evens on this one. Marriage was sacramental. Then the government got involved and said hey, we want you to get married, we will even give you tax breaks and other great benefits. Church said, great, you know we hate gays tho, right? Government, said yeah it's cool, so do we. Then everybody wanted the same stuff hetero couples got. Can't make them civil unions, it's a good idea, but it's like having separate water fountains, they are inherently unequal. So, marriage isn't so sacramental anymore. It's not like gays started it; no-fault divorce was a killer. And no-fault was necessitated by courts refusing to allow abused women to easily remove themselves from bad situations. So, it's ultimately government's fault.
The meaning of marriage is supposed to be holy, originally. Two dudes getting married? That's not holy according to any holy books. So marriage is no longer sanctified. To conclude, even tho Vegas probably did more damage than gays ever could, he has a point. It's not absurd.
Quote: AxelWolfThat's absurd. ☺
Is it? I just married my dog today, my wife
is quite upset. He loves me more than her,
so it's totally legal. That's the logic Gays use,
isn't it?
Quote: MrVOur ancestors codified marriage as THE only acceptable sanctioned way for two to become one; their reasons for doing so do not matter for purposes of this discussion.
If their reasons are irrelevant, then why even bring it up? Or are you just mindlessly aping ancient traditions for no reason other than they are ancient? If so, how many surplus children have you left in the wilderness to die of exposure or be eaten by scavengers? You know, like your ancestors codified as the only acceptable sanctioned way of dealing with babies nobody wanted.
Quote: Nareedhow many surplus children have you left in the wilderness to die of exposure or be eaten by scavengers?
So far this week, none. But it's only
Wednesday..
Quote: NareedIf their reasons are irrelevant, then why even bring it up? Or are you just mindlessly aping ancient traditions for no reason other than they are ancient? If so, how many surplus children have you left in the wilderness to die of exposure or be eaten by scavengers? You know, like your ancestors codified as the only acceptable sanctioned way of dealing with babies nobody wanted.
The idea of leaving cripples and mental defectives to die is an old one, rooted in the then-existing societies' inability to meet the needs of the damned while meeting the needs of the others: not enough resources to go around then.
But today, our resources are greater, so we shelter and coddle those who are retarded, insane, profoundly handicapped: it's a conscious decision by society as a whole to do so.
But it could change.
If a new Hitler comes along (it could happen), then the ovens would be fired up and the herd would be culled.
Moral Relativism.
As for linking gays and tapeworms: candidly I saw no connection; I only mentioned tapeworms as an absurd example as to what the law could evolve to permit.
With animal law ascending, and gay marriage ascending, will EB soon in fact be able to marry his hound?
egad
What if the mutt is gay, can a gay man marry a gay dog?
Arf.
Quote: MrVWhat if the mutt is gay, can a gay man marry a gay dog?
If you want to advocate for bestiality then do so. Do not expect others to do it for you.
Quote: NareedIf their reasons are irrelevant, then why even bring it up? Or are you just mindlessly aping ancient traditions for no reason other than they are ancient? If so, how many surplus children have you left in the wilderness to die of exposure or be eaten by scavengers? You know, like your ancestors codified as the only acceptable sanctioned way of dealing with babies nobody wanted.
Pretty much everything you say lends credibility to the opposing viewpoint. Letting scavengers eat babies is an ancient tradition? Yeah, it's exactly like Christmas. Why don't you point out that marrying animals is about the dumbest and most ignorant argument anyone can possibly make against this issue? The obvious outcome is marrying prepubescent children.
marriages happen changes the definition of marriage.
Now it's just a joining of two willing entities. Me
and my dog, for instance.
So answer the question: if a straight man can marry a bitch dog in California, the land of fruits and nuts, can a gay man marry a male (presumably gay) dog there?
If not, why not?
Is it because we haven't evolved enough to expand our minds to accept such a ridiculous, over the top notion?
You can see where this is going.
Quote: EvenBobIt's coming, and it makes sense. Letting same sex
marriages happen changes the definition of marriage.
Now it's just a joining of two willing entities. Me
and my dog, for instance.
Wow you have a dog smart enough to be legally able to sign into a legally binding contract. Does he have his own TV show and do you have to flip the page for him to be able to read it or is the dog able to do it for himself?
Quote: FaceIf gay marriage has opened the doors to dog marriage, then hasn't traditional marriage opened the doors for gay marriage?
No.
Traditional marriage, i.e. between straights, is conventional, and would not support expansion into a non-traditional area such as gay marriage.
The fact that the institution of marriage has been under attack by gays is what led to getting married doggie style.
I wonder: who stands with the dog, the bestial man?
Quote: TwirdmanWow you have a dog smart enough to be legally able to sign into a legally binding contract.
He made his mark, he's illiterate. I have
his power of attorney.
Quote: MrVSo answer the question: if a straight man can marry a bitch dog in California, the land of fruits and nuts, can a gay man marry a male (presumably gay) dog there?
When you ask a question that makes sense, and start acting like a civilized person, I'll be glad to answer. Until then, I've got nothing more to say to you.
You'd think by now I shouldn't let random, um, people on the internet upset me when they express this types of "learned" opinion.
Quote: NareedWhen you ask a question that makes sense, and start acting like a civilized person, I'll be glad to answer. Until then, I've got nothing more to say to you.
You'd think by now I shouldn't let random, um, people on the internet upset me when they express this types of "learned" opinion.
My question, while arguably tongue in snout, was fair and valid; I am not acting uncivilized.
Ah, you don't like and cannot cogently refute the points I'm making.
Got it.
Quote: MrVMy question, while arguably tongue in snout, was fair and valid; I am not acting uncivilized.
Ah, you don't like and cannot cogently refute the points I'm making.
Got it.
I think the argument that gay marriage leads to marriage to dogs is absurd.
I cant believe we are discussing marriage to dogs.
OK, its been over 13 years of gay marraige. A lot of pet dogs in Denmark and Belgium. A lot of pet owners.
These millions of pet owners in these 2 countries have had over 13 years to decide if they are gonna pull the trigger and get on one knee, and ask for that paw in marraige .
Has even 1 pet owner over there after 13 long years get shackled to a pet ball and chain?
Well, are they getting married to their pets over there?
If it hasn't happened by now, its not because this absurd idea wont happen.
Denmark and Belgium are pretty liberal and progressive, but not to the point of being absurd.
Explain how letting gays get married changes anything between a husband and wifes personal marriage? Everybody married should suddenly say their marriage is now worth less?
Quote: MrVAh, you don't like and cannot cogently refute the points I'm making.
What points? You've been posing idiotic questions and making snide comments. The closest you came to a point, you dismissed it yourself by stating the reasons were unimportant. If you'd made a point, I'd know it.
Quote: MrVI do not advocate bestiality, although I do believe that every dog has his day.
So answer the question: if a straight man can marry a bitch dog in California, the land of fruits and nuts, can a gay man marry a male (presumably gay) dog there?
If not, why not?
Is it because we haven't evolved enough to expand our minds to accept such a ridiculous, over the top notion?
You can see where this is going.
i don't think this is an acceptable point of view, nor a legitimate post to defend. Clearly, one would receive no legal benefits or be able to make public mutual promises. Clearly, there is nothing stopping you from having a wedding ceremony with your dog right now; there is no law that would contravene your desire. Chances are you would never get caught having sex, and if you did, that there is no law specifically prohibiting it in the privacy of your home in your jurisdiction. Saying gay marriage is wrong is perfectly fine. Saying it leads to animal husbandry (literally) is moronic and trollish.
Quote: BuzzardWe need to outlaw the divorce laws. And no more shacking up. OOOPS Sorry. Just had a Republican moment. I apologize.
It's largely posts like this why I like having you around :)
Quote: NareedHow is likening same-sex marriage to bestiality NOT bigotry?
How is surgical gender re-assignment NOT insanity?
It is the increasing tolerance / social permissiveness of our society which has allowed both things to evolve, on parallel tracks.
But just as society currently allows these things, so could it, on a whim, prohibit them if the prevailing winds happen to change.
One interesting thing I note about the development of so-called "gay rights:" unlike "civil rights" for blacks, the U.S. Supreme Court is not at the forefront leading the charge through judicial activism; its a more state by state thing, akin to marijuana.
*Just wondering why someone who lives in a third world country would obsess about what happens in America? They might do better to focus on gay rights in their own backyard*
Quote: MrVI do not claim that gay marriage, per se, leads to animal / human marriage.
It is the increasing tolerance / social permissiveness of our society which has allowed both things to evolve, on parallel tracks.
Objection: assumes facts not in evidence. In fact, in the US, state laws prohibiting human/animal sexual relations have been expanding. No state is making steps to legally recognize human/non-human marriage.
Quote: MrVBut just as society currently allows these things, so could it, on a whim, prohibit them if the prevailing winds happen to change.
Society could, but the law doesn't change based on feelings. The opponents of same-sex marriage could not demonstrate that there was a social harm in letting two consenting adults of the same sex get married, and there are legal and social benefits to being considered married, so bans have largely been found unconstitutional. Rights expand when more people have them.
Quote: MrVOne interesting thing I note about the development of so-called "gay rights:" unlike "civil rights" for blacks, the U.S. Supreme Court is not at the forefront leading the charge through judicial activism; its a more state by state thing, akin to marijuana.
The last time people argued that we leave civil rights up to the states, it took twenty more years after Brown v. Board of Ed, the murder of Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner, Bombingham, and a March on Washington, to get states to follow along with this "judicial activism." (I'm unclear on your point here.)
Quote: MrV*Just wondering why someone who lives in a third world country would obsess about what happens in America? They might do better to focus on gay rights in their own backyard*
Marriage equality is expanding in Mexico and the rest of Latin America too.
Quote:The last time people argued that we leave civil rights up to the states, it took twenty more years after Brown v. Board of Ed, the murder of Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner, Bombingham, and a March on Washington, to get states to follow along with this "judicial activism." (I'm unclear on your point here.)
The U.S. Supreme Court pretty much laid the foundation for the civil rights movement with Brown Vs. Board of Education, which struck down "separate but equal" in public education.
Curiously, the same court declined to rule on the issue of gay marriage, leaving it, at least for the moment, to the lower courts.
Wonder why?
On the subject of animal rights: what do you think about the case being argued in the NY appellate courts where a request to cloak chimps in the legal robes of "personhood" is being argued?
The argument is that caging chimps is "false imprisonment."
It is argued that chimps should be considered "persons" as they have "self determination and autonomy."
What's next on the nutcases' agenda: allowing chimps to marry?
As with most things, the question boils down to this: "Where do you draw the line?"
