Gay marriages....now what about siblings parents or animals?

[Alimprad]

But human sexuality isn't an out-of-date concept.

yes it is.
The future should be invested in cloning, and human reproduction outlawed.
That should show them liberals! Take that commies!

well, good look with that, though may I ask what that would achieve, it wouldn't stop gay marriges

[Thafoo]

yes it is.
The future should be invested in cloning, and human reproduction outlawed.
That should show them liberals! Take that commies!

well, good look with that, though may I ask what that would achieve, it wouldn't stop gay marriges

you say that like gay marriage is a bad thing.

[Eucharia]

I'd say, ignoring the corruption of people, if two people or person and animal, care about eachother, and both parties have a way to show consent. Then why not? It's not really anybody's business anyway.

[Enatai]

Here is the bottom line for me: If the government must involve itself in marriage in the first place, and I'm not saying it should, then it should recognize unions of people who are consenting and who are able to give consent. That is not a hard concept. The idea that it is rooted in religion doesn't hold water any more anyways, since there is no religious requirement for obtaining a marriage license.

The argument that gay marriage is a slippery slope to marrying your dog is ridiculous. Dogs are not people. Dogs do not give express consent to marriage, that's not how it works. I'm not saying we should treat dogs as being property that you can abuse as you wish because they have no protection under the law, but I don't think I've ever seen a dog protesting the inability to marry its owner.

[Red Dove]

As ridiculous as this thread is, in the spirit of OP's topic, I feel compelled to point out something that a lot of people fail to realize because they humanize everything.

Animals don't need to give consent. They are not human and have no rights. The argument of them not being able to give consent is irrelevant. They don't need to, there is no law saying they need to. The only law you'd have to contend with is bestiality laws, and a definition of what marriage is legally.

As far as marriages within families, I am of the general mind of a lot of others in this thread. They are adults, they live their lives, I don't care how. However opposition I see strongest against this case is not the church. They will obviously gripe, but it is law and not religion and so after costly rallies and a few years they would lose. The true threat comes from the government making a health choice. Like they outlaw drugs and other such things to keep us healthy, they may try to outlaw incest marriages because of inbreeding hazards.

~Nymfaelar

[Wamitoria]

You do realize that animals are incapable of consent.

[Wamitoria]

As ridiculous as this thread is, in the spirit of OP's topic, I feel compelled to point out something that a lot of people fail to realize because they humanize everything.

Animals don't need to give consent. They are not human and have no rights. The argument of them not being able to give consent is irrelevant. They don't need to, there is no law saying they need to. The only law you'd have to contend with is bestiality laws, and a definition of what marriage is legally.

As far as marriages within families, I am of the general mind of a lot of others in this thread. They are adults, they live their lives, I don't care how. However opposition I see strongest against this case is not the church. They will obviously gripe, but it is law and not religion and so after costly rallies and a few years they would lose. The true threat comes from the government making a health choice. Like they outlaw drugs and other such things to keep us healthy, they may try to outlaw incest marriages because of inbreeding hazards.

~Nymfaelar

The argument being used against marrying animals in this thread seems to be a bit more ethical rather than legal. That's why people keep mentioning consent.

[Arglorand]

Um, yes, animals do have rights.

They're called animal rights.

[New Rogernomics]

Polygamy might be legal some day, but not because of some 'slippery slope' from gay marriage; the 'animal marriage' line is just a smokescreen for people to hide their homophobia; and a lot of countries already allow you to marry cousins (or in the case of royal families in the past, incest - which resulted in some genetic diseases).

[Immoren]

Fuck marriage.

With its consent of course.

[Tekania]

Cousin marriage isn't incest... at least in most of modern western soceity who have accepted modern genetics..... can't speak for those flat-earthers in Kansas.

*cough I'M FROM KANSAS AND IT'S QUITE HILLY ACTUALLY cough*

That's not what I meant by "flat-earthers" lol

[Farnhamia]

Um, yes, animals do have rights.

They're called animal rights.

They don't extend to marriage, though.

[Arglorand]

Um, yes, animals do have rights.

They're called animal rights.

They don't extend to marriage, though.

Marriage is, the way I understand, a legal recognition to two individuals' romantic love for each other.

Animals ought to be able to decide who they love.

[Farnhamia]

They don't extend to marriage, though.

Marriage is, the way I understand, a legal recognition to two individuals' romantic love for each other.

Animals ought to be able to decide who they love.

They ought to be able to, but they can't, not in any way that a court of law will accept. Sorry.

[Arglorand]

Marriage is, the way I understand, a legal recognition to two individuals' romantic love for each other.

Animals ought to be able to decide who they love.

They ought to be able to, but they can't, not in any way that a court of law will accept. Sorry.

Exactly! Hence why you can't legalize a marriage between a human and an animal.

[Samuraikoku]

Marriage is, the way I understand, a legal recognition to two individuals' romantic love for each other.

Animals ought to be able to decide who they love.

We aren't able to interact with animals in such a way as we can with ourselves, thus why the law cannot extend for the moment this kind of rights to animals.

When we can, my opinion will change.

[Arglorand]

Marriage is, the way I understand, a legal recognition to two individuals' romantic love for each other.

Animals ought to be able to decide who they love.

We aren't able to interact with animals in such a way as we can with ourselves, thus why the law cannot extend for the moment this kind of rights to animals.

When we can, my opinion will change.

Amen. I think you're missing the point I'm making: I'm saying that precisely because of that we can't extend marriage to bestiality.

And so the slippery slope argument breaks down.

[Transhuman Proteus]

As ridiculous as this thread is, in the spirit of OP's topic, I feel compelled to point out something that a lot of people fail to realize because they humanize everything.

Animals don't need to give consent. They are not human and have no rights. The argument of them not being able to give consent is irrelevant. They don't need to, there is no law saying they need to. The only law you'd have to contend with is bestiality laws, and a definition of what marriage is legally.

As far as marriages within families, I am of the general mind of a lot of others in this thread. They are adults, they live their lives, I don't care how. However opposition I see strongest against this case is not the church. They will obviously gripe, but it is law and not religion and so after costly rallies and a few years they would lose. The true threat comes from the government making a health choice. Like they outlaw drugs and other such things to keep us healthy, they may try to outlaw incest marriages because of inbreeding hazards.

~Nymfaelar

First - animal rights.

Second - marriage. Legal contract. Laws tend to state the conditions a person must meet to be able to enter into a contract, marriage has particular stipulations. Are you arguing because animals aren't human and don't have "rights" they can and thus don't need to consent to things so can enter into legally binding contracts recognised by the states which grant rights and privileges to those involved? By that reasoning so a dog should be able to take ownership of a failing corporation, since they can apparently enter into contracts because they don't need to consent.

[New Rogernomics]

They ought to be able to, but they can't, not in any way that a court of law will accept. Sorry.

Exactly! Hence why you can't legalize a marriage between a human and an animal.

Unless that other animal happens to be a human in a furry suit.

[Dracoria]

Um, yes, animals do have rights.

They're called animal rights.

They don't extend to marriage, though.

The fact they don't have the right to marriage is intolerable. Next they'll lost the right to be delicious.

[Tekania]

As ridiculous as this thread is, in the spirit of OP's topic, I feel compelled to point out something that a lot of people fail to realize because they humanize everything.

Animals don't need to give consent. They are not human and have no rights. The argument of them not being able to give consent is irrelevant. They don't need to, there is no law saying they need to. The only law you'd have to contend with is bestiality laws, and a definition of what marriage is legally.

As far as marriages within families, I am of the general mind of a lot of others in this thread. They are adults, they live their lives, I don't care how. However opposition I see strongest against this case is not the church. They will obviously gripe, but it is law and not religion and so after costly rallies and a few years they would lose. The true threat comes from the government making a health choice. Like they outlaw drugs and other such things to keep us healthy, they may try to outlaw incest marriages because of inbreeding hazards.

~Nymfaelar

First - animal rights.

Second - marriage. Legal contract. Laws tend to state the conditions a person must meet to be able to enter into a contract, marriage has particular stipulations. Are you arguing because animals aren't human and don't have "rights" they can and thus don't need to consent to things so can enter into legally binding contracts recognised by the states which grant rights and privileges to those involved? By that reasoning so a dog should be able to take ownership of a failing corporation, since they can apparently enter into contracts because they don't need to consent.

That's quite ingenious:
1. Run company into the ground emptying the coffers along the way
2. Transfer all ownership of the company to Fido in exchange for a chew toy and a rawhide bone
3. Profit

[Arglorand]

They don't extend to marriage, though.

The fact they don't have the right to marriage is intolerable. Next they'll lost the right to be delicious.

That's not a right, mate, that's a duty. An obligation to those of us who eat them.

[Euroslavia]

As ridiculous as this thread is, in the spirit of OP's topic, I feel compelled to point out something that a lot of people fail to realize because they humanize everything.

Animals don't need to give consent. They are not human and have no rights. The argument of them not being able to give consent is irrelevant. They don't need to, there is no law saying they need to. The only law you'd have to contend with is bestiality laws, and a definition of what marriage is legally.

As far as marriages within families, I am of the general mind of a lot of others in this thread. They are adults, they live their lives, I don't care how. However opposition I see strongest against this case is not the church. They will obviously gripe, but it is law and not religion and so after costly rallies and a few years they would lose. The true threat comes from the government making a health choice. Like they outlaw drugs and other such things to keep us healthy, they may try to outlaw incest marriages because of inbreeding hazards.

~Nymfaelar

Find a video where a dog says "I do" during the marriage ceremony, then we'll talk.

[Dracoria]

Find a video where a dog says "I do" during the marriage ceremony, then we'll talk.

...I'm surprised that isn't already on youtube. They're getting close though!

[Arglorand]

Find a video where a dog says "I do" during the marriage ceremony, then we'll talk.

...I'm surprised that isn't already on youtube. They're getting close though!

... welp, I think we may have to outlaw people training their dogs to speak. Just to make sure consent isn't faked. *nods*