when's the last time you spread something on your ass jack?
Why do you think of chimps a$$ f*cking jack? Do you like chimps?
It's really a simple question, George. Tell us why you would care if a human gets married to an animal. It doesn't effect you, right?
I figured you would take the TS away from AlwaysBetOnBlack...
I have to agree with "States Rights." I oppose same sex marriage, but if is the will of the people of a state, then who am I to say otherwise?
Oregon is one of the most liberal states around. However, such things still don't pass here.
what does marrying an animal have to do with two consenting adults getting married jack?
I have no problem with two dudes getting married or some dude marrying his kitty cat. Should I?
Tell us why you would care if a human gets married to an animal. It doesn't effect you, right?
Let's say someone marries a tortoise that lives for 250 years, and gets his social security benefits for 200 years after he dies?
Does that affect us, or not?
Srsly? SSN#s for ani-pals?
The reductio ad adsurdum here is faulty: the analogy of sexuality to bestiality fails, because there is no element of reciprocal consent.
Says you. Love speaks in all languages. Re s get married and some have no clue what it means. They just know they love each other. So curious George decides he wants to marry his "adult doggie", (lord knows he is against marrying a puppy) I say let him. It's none of our business. Right George?
Sure it does. I can't imagine 2 many people marrying turtles so I won't sweat it. Let love shine to everyone!
I'll slloowwww down for you...2 consenting adults should be allowed to marry... got it dummy?
What about 3 consenting adults?
Why not 3? Or 4? Or 10?
There are limits to broad-mindedness even for you, I guess.
Your facetiousness presumes and profits from the general repugnance at bestiality, even though its connection to gay marriage or even sexuality as such, is tenuous at best. The unpopularity of the terms of the comparison, does not necessarily reflect ill on them in principle, but bestiality is a known emetic.
of course.Srsly? SSN#s for ani-pals?
that way we can do ent the illegals, tax them, and require them to carry health insurance.
I think most of us agree that two consenting adults should have all the governmental rights and privileges of marriage. However, don't call it marriage. I believe to begin with that the government has no right to control marriage. It never did until racists wanted to limit the marriages of blacks. A marriage is a religious ceremony. By cons ution, I would argue the government has no right to interfere with established religion.
earlier I stated that Oregon's citizens rejected all attempts for same sex marriage. However, Civil unions passed by a pretty good margin. Some still try to get it taken away but that will never happen.
what would be the potential problems of polygamy?
Good Question. George Gervins Afro is being a narrow minded bigot.
Why not? It's a contract, right?
Leaving aside the foreseeably byzantine legal consequences of plural marriage, there is the political effect on society to be considered. Polygamy can produce registered voters much faster than everyone else, besides being bastions of dirty ing hippiedom and 19th century proprieties about the legal age of marriage and making love on the woodpile.
If we are going to allow marriage by any two people, then I will insist it be limited to just a couple. I would say anything else cannot be acknowledged by the government for benefits.
In ancient times, it was practical to allow multiple wives, it sustained the culture well. You had so many people who could hardly support themselves. Only a few wealthy men could afford to take care of a wife and family. So many were so wealthy, they could afford more than just one "lifebringer"[1]. It was practical fro a man to support as many women and children as he could afford.
For you Zak:
[1] Lifebringer is the literal translation for Eve in the creation story. Mankind was Adam. God created a race. Not just a pair. It isn't until the story with Cane and Able that the Chaldean word changes, to the proper name Adam and Eve.
That's your view. It's the dominant view.
Outlived its usefulness, huh? First point to custom and traditional mores in warning against it, then to abstract social utility to excuse the past's tolerance of the very same.
Are you an anthropologist, WC?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
