Reply With Quote
When you can get a cow to sign his or her name legibly on legal do ents such as marriage applications after that cow has read and understood the terms of the do ent, I will support man-cow marriage.
We need a sarcastic "lol" smiley
One that basically says "Der herr herrr!"
When you can get a cow to sign his or her name legibly on legal do ents such as marriage applications after that cow has read and understood the terms of the do ent, I will support man-cow marriage.
I did pretty well on the LSAT when I took it. I don't think the writers of that test would have accepted this logic:
Legally speaking, all marriages are contracts.
Therefore, all contracts are marriages.
Just a hunch. It would be a nice true/false question to use to weed out the hopeless applicants rather quickly.
Ahhh the A team has arrived to bail out the hopelessly stupid.
As someone who has been married for 30 years senility has obviously robbed me of the memory of the marriage contract I signed.
I'm sure things have changed since then. Please post a copy of the current contract that people in Texas are required to sign now when they agree to get "married".
Whatever "married" means now.
Manny's definition was painfully vague.
I know you are but what am I?
You've never heard of a marriage license?
The contents thereof are easily found in the Texas Family Code.
And seriously -- where does one go for an official divorce?
Church?
Or a court?
Painfully vague?
If I caused you pain then I am most pleased.
The definition of marriage, and what it entails, has changed throughout history.
In fact, the way marriage is viewed nowadays would make our ancestors gasp. Women choosing their partner?
Thanks for playing.
I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that many of these encounters aren't of a consensual variety...
prison sex jack?
Atleast we know half of them are.
jack your KILLING me..
So who do you picture at the altar at a wedding? It would be interesting to ask that question to a random group of people that consisted of let's say 100 particpants. I would say that a majority of those participants would probably say "a man and a woman".
We all know that animals cannot give consent and kids can't either. However, what is the argument against polygamous marriages? Let's say that all people participating in polygamous marriages have to be of legal age, have to consent, can't be abused and brainwashed, and no incest can be involved in it either.
A group of 100 people would also be more likely to recognize a picture of Julia Roberts than of Katharine Hepburn, but it doesn't mean that only one of them is an actress.
As the judge wrote in his decision, the fact that a majority of people in California voted for Prop 8 is IRRELEVANT to the decision. Rights are not things you put up to a vote. That's what makes them RIGHTS.
So what's the argument against polygamy? I've heard some people say it's a money issue. Polygamous married couples would have an easier time with taxes than monogamous married couples. If states can vote on whether or not they want casinos, then why can't they vote on marriage? Don't states have rights? Weed is legal is some states but illegal in others. Why not put it to a vote? Oh wait, California did that but a certain group/demographic didn't like the results and ed about it until they got their way.
So, what I take from this thread is that sheep should be able to marry cows or something.
Yep. Board socialcons widely agree gay marriage leads directly to bestiality.
How come states can vote on gambling and weed but can't vote on marriage? Where is the outrage? A person should be allowed to smoke marijuana for medicinal and recreational purposes in every state. A person should also be allowed to gamble in a casino in every state. Why the rights of gamblers and marijuana users being violated in certain states? This is bigotry and discrimination.
In a way, such a view represents evolution toward a more liberal mindset: used to be, social conservatives held that sexuality itself led to it.
Well, there's no law granting people the right to gamble or smoke marijuana, and there is a law granting people the right the get married, and giving hundreds of rights along with that right. The equivalent scenario would be if we passed a law saying only white people could smoke marijuana, or only gay people could gamble. That would be discrimination.
That being said, I'm not in favor of passing laws regulating what people can do with their time. I think casinos and marijuana should be legal- and I think they should be taxed to raise money for the state.
A woman after my own heart...
If a sheep and a cow can prove their consent to a judge then they can get married too. I'm going to need something more than "one moo means yes, two moos means no" though.
A cow and sheep shouldn't need consent from anyone. Let them marry each other if they want to.
Now for you beastility freaks. If a dog is humping George's leg and George decides to pull his pants down, bends over and lets the dog have full access his brown eye: I ask you is that cruel to the dog.
Cows and sheep can't file taxes jointly. You can call them spouses all you want, just like Jack can call all of his gerbils his wives in his own poly-bestial home, but that doesn't mean the government will ever recognize them as such.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
