Proponents of gay marriage: what about bestiality?

Post Reply New Topic

here we go again with the bestiality.

If you love them so much, go out and screw one, get arrested and become someone b***h behind bars you twisted mofo.

I don't believe a human should be allowed to decide for their pet if they want to get married, and I doubt the pet could agree to it, but on the other hand I don't see how it would harm anyone (I doubt the marriage would have any difference on the pet's life).

Meh, the whole marriage thing isn't really my point. As I said before, I don't care about marriage, so trying to find an opinion on it is sort of a stretch for me (I wouldn't care if they made marriage in general illegal). I just dislike when people say humans aren't animals, or that other animals can't communicate. Meh. D:

I wasn't discussing legal terms. I stated that several times, and you seem to have ignored it. I don't care about legal terms at all, frankly, since I can just move somewhere where those terms don't apply.

Ok, then we are agreed on this.

Ah, ok, no legal personhood, not anything other than that.

Most nations have laws, just some have different laws. But anyway, no, the major point is on animal marriage, not really bestiality(that's an animal rights issue not a marital issue) or the issue of whether animals are people or vice versa. Sorry if I missed that.

She's very hot

I want to marry my King Snake, but alas, he's too young.

Didn't a man marry a horse on Jerry Springer or something?

I think the PPR forum is worse than the adult forum actually.

It's no wonder the people at Autism Speaks have such a low opion of us here at WP, seeing as there so many threads like this that are publically readable.

well, I think threads like this help us understand some things and give them the real importance of value it deserves, it looks like it lacks of real substance in the debate to wether say gay relationships or marriage are right or wrong, and use bestiality for comparison, it is a logical fallacy, purely works as some kind of justification for rejecting same-sex or bisexual relationships.

I think whivit wants to bang goats

methinks someone wants to marry an african gray.
such a silly old man.

The rules were clear and laid-out until liberals and the gay rights movement decided they'd change them to suit their selfish agenda. In western societies marriage meant a man and a woman until recently. If you'd suggested two guys getting married twenty years ago people would have just laughed at you. I bet most people still do find the thought a little ridiculous. And that's nothing to do with homophobia, just a recognition that marriage, to most people over 25, still means what it has done for hundreds of years, and that seeing two people of the same sex walking down the aisle is akin to seeing your neighbour painting black stripes on his horse and telling you he has a zebra. This whole gay marriage thing is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the left's agenda -- redefining reality to suit their own ends. It's clear from threads like this that the process of indoctrination is going along without a hitch in countries like Canada. God help the rest of the world.

Going back to Ragtime's original post, the point he is making is that once you set a precedent and change the rules in a significant way, then there's little stopping you doing it again. Taking that to an extreme you do have the possibility of people marrying animals. Indeed, in some societies this does happen. So, the way his post is constructed, and his argument, seem quite valid.

Yeah, but what is actually so terribly wrong about marrying an animal?

Marriage is a lie. Rather, it's... irrelevant, and as I will argue, it does nothing aside serving as a legal contract with an expensive pricetag and (as a good portion of marriages fail) - lawsuits that usually devastate one or both parties.

How about moving beyond the confines of marriage and actually having a peaceful, free relationship?



I don't. You know, it's when the rightists 'think' they have the moral ground, is also when they call minorities "selfish".



I smell a tu quoque in this thread. Where's Lewis Black when you need him?
Sorry pal but Bill-O won't culture-warrior for ya here.

-Kirov

Marriage is primarily a legal contract which settles the issue of inheritance and other legal rights.

It does have a social function, which is fulfilled for same sex or opposite sex couples, with the exception being offspring issuing from the marriage.

An animal has no need for the legal or social protections of marriage and is also unable to give consent.

Classic conservative delusions. Study the history of marriage to see how things have changed in western culture over the past few thousand years.

The biggest recent changes in marriage have been due to women entering the workforce. It started with WWII, and the post war economic boom redefined the role of women, which affected marriage. Maybe if we take away women's right to work outside the home, the right to own property, and the right to vote, we can roll back the clock to that golden yesterday!