NationStates

Herdgergy wrote:i don't think gays marriage will leading to marrying of animals, i'm still against it no matter what. I think marriage should ALWAYS be between a man and a woman because marraige is for creating families!

Nope. Not even when it was arranged only was this really true.

Solmakia wrote:But what next? What about a man and his dog? Should they get married? Or what about a man and his son? Or a brother and sister? When is it too much? How far are people going to be allowed? What should be allowed? I'm personally undecided on the issue of what a marriage really means, but what do you guys think about sibling, inter special or other kinds of bizarre civil unions?

Only if the dog is gay. The other stuff happens without licence in most back water places. But never fear. I'm sure you'll find someone.

i wonder if there is such a thread on that big beastiality foum

Herdgergy wrote:i don't think gays marriage will leading to marrying of animals, i'm still against it no matter what. I think marriage should ALWAYS be between a man and a woman because marraige is for creating families!

Yes, and marriage as a familial stability agent should be available to same-sex partners as well. I don't see why same-sex partners who are raising children should be barred from the same benefits, rights and protections available to those of us in heterosexual marriages.

Herdgergy wrote:i don't think gays marriage will leading to marrying of animals, i'm still against it no matter what. I think marriage should ALWAYS be between a man and a woman because marraige is for creating families!

Which gay people can do, and some strait people can't.

Your point?

Herdgergy wrote:i don't think gays marriage will leading to marrying of animals, i'm still against it no matter what. I think marriage should ALWAYS be between a man and a woman because marraige is for creating families!

So, ban infertile people from marrying, and automatically divorce anyone who becomes infertile? Abolish birth control, and imprison people who pull out?

Tlaceceyaya wrote:

Herdgergy wrote:i don't think gays marriage will leading to marrying of animals, i'm still against it no matter what. I think marriage should ALWAYS be between a man and a woman because marraige is for creating families!

So, ban infertile people from marrying, and automatically divorce anyone who becomes infertile? Abolish birth control, and imprison people who pull out?

Was I not born to be an incubator? Or is this me vying to be treated like a person? (To add on.)

Individuality-ness wrote:

Tlaceceyaya wrote:So, ban infertile people from marrying, and automatically divorce anyone who becomes infertile? Abolish birth control, and imprison people who pull out?

Was I not born to be an incubator? Or is this me vying to be treated like a person? (To add on.)

"How did this one get it's muzzle off? Back in the breeding pits!"

Anachronous Rex wrote:

Individuality-ness wrote:Was I not born to be an incubator? Or is this me vying to be treated like a person? (To add on.)

"How did this one get it's muzzle off? Back in the breeding pits!"

NUUUUUUUU!!one11!!!

Herdgergy wrote:i don't think gays marriage will leading to marrying of animals, i'm still against it no matter what. I think marriage should ALWAYS be between a man and a woman because marraige is for creating families!

gay people can create families

Herdgergy wrote:i don't think gays marriage will leading to marrying of animals, i'm still against it no matter what. I think marriage should ALWAYS be between a man and a woman because marraige is for creating families!

So old people, people who don't intend to have children, and sterile people cannot get married?

Really? Is this the logic we're going with now?

Agymnum wrote:

Herdgergy wrote:i don't think gays marriage will leading to marrying of animals, i'm still against it no matter what. I think marriage should ALWAYS be between a man and a woman because marraige is for creating families!

So old people, people who don't intend to have children, and sterile people cannot get married?

Really? Is this the logic we're going with now?

Notice how well-worn the path is? This not the first time someone's been down this way. And don't expect an honest answer.

Farnhamia wrote:

Agymnum wrote:
So old people, people who don't intend to have children, and sterile people cannot get married?

Really? Is this the logic we're going with now?

Notice how well-worn the path is? This not the first time someone's been down this way. And don't expect an honest answer.

What makes me sad is that people insist on retreading the same ground when their claims have already been refuted repeatedly.

I mean, I know I bitch a lot about conservatives and religious fundamentalists moving the goalposts, but at least that was some sort of progress. Now they're just rewinding the tapes and replaying them and acting like it's a new argument.

Agymnum wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Notice how well-worn the path is? This not the first time someone's been down this way. And don't expect an honest answer.

What makes me sad is that people insist on retreading the same ground when their claims have already been refuted repeatedly.

I mean, I know I bitch a lot about conservatives and religious fundamentalists moving the goalposts, but at least that was some sort of progress. Now they're just rewinding the tapes and replaying them and acting like it's a new argument.

Well, some do admit that it's the same old argument, they're just convinced that it's a valid argument. That's why, when you confront them with heterosexuals who don't want children or can't have children or are past child-bearing, they tap dance like crazy. What it comes down to is that these people simply don't like homosexuals and refuse to acknowledge them as "proper" citizens. The reasons vary but that's basically it.

Urmanian wrote:

Herdgergy wrote:i don't think gays marriage will leading to marrying of animals, i'm still against it no matter what. I think marriage should ALWAYS be between a man and a woman because marraige is for creating families!

gay people can create families

Yes, but not families in which the children are directly genetically related to both of the two married parents in the Chromosomal sense.

Herdgergy wrote:i don't think gays marriage will leading to marrying of animals, i'm still against it no matter what. I think marriage should ALWAYS be between a man and a woman because marraige is for creating families!

Says who?

Plus, a family can be created in a homosexual couple thru adoption.

Llamalandia wrote:

Urmanian wrote:gay people can create families

Yes, but not families in which the children are directly genetically related to both of the two married parents in the Chromosomal sense.

True, but if your issue is about families, why not bar people from being married unless they promise to have children?

What about old people? What about sterile people?

Why is the idea of having children so integral to the idea of marriage?

Agymnum wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Notice how well-worn the path is? This not the first time someone's been down this way. And don't expect an honest answer.

What makes me sad is that people insist on retreading the same ground when their claims have already been refuted repeatedly.

I mean, I know I bitch a lot about conservatives and religious fundamentalists moving the goalposts, but at least that was some sort of progress. Now they're just rewinding the tapes and replaying them and acting like it's a new argument.

Well actually yes that has been the technically correct catholic definition for marriage (i.e. marriage requires consummation or it isn't real), it's been that way for hundreds of years, not saying it necessarily should just that is the history of marriage under cannon law.

Llamalandia wrote:

Urmanian wrote:gay people can create families

Yes, but not families in which the children are directly genetically related to both of the two married parents in the Chromosomal sense.

Yes, because children who aren't related to the parents will grow up to be sociopathic psychopaths who eat baby brain soufflé and kitten heart sundae.

Thafoo wrote:

Llamalandia wrote:Yes, but not families in which the children are directly genetically related to both of the two married parents in the Chromosomal sense.

Yes, because children who aren't related to the parents will grow up to be sociopathic psychopaths who eat baby brain soufflé and kitten heart sundae.

Man I didn't have problem with gay adoption but after hearing that well...

Thafoo wrote:

Llamalandia wrote:Yes, but not families in which the children are directly genetically related to both of the two married parents in the Chromosomal sense.

Yes, because children who aren't related to the parents will grow up to be sociopathic psychopaths who eat baby brain soufflé and kitten heart sundae.

It's amazing how many people don't know that.

Thafoo wrote:

Llamalandia wrote:Yes, but not families in which the children are directly genetically related to both of the two married parents in the Chromosomal sense.

Yes, because children who aren't related to the parents will grow up to be sociopathic psychopaths who eat baby brain soufflé and kitten heart sundae.

But seriously I would point out that all else being equal it seems that societies position is that children are best off when raised by both biologically related parents (of course often things aren't equal) so until the uber-moral majority is willing to end its hypocrisy and provide a home for every kid in foster care they should really shut up about gay people adopting kids into a loving family.

Thafoo wrote:

Llamalandia wrote:Yes, but not families in which the children are directly genetically related to both of the two married parents in the Chromosomal sense.

Yes, because children who aren't related to the parents will grow up to be sociopathic psychopaths who eat baby brain soufflé and kitten heart sundae.

That sounds like a pretty normal lunch for me. Sure, I get some weird looks from my co-workers, but hey, haters gonna hate.

Can I ask though am I the only one on here who finds incest of any kind just basically and instinctually morally repugnant, I mean I generally describe myself as pretty libertarian but seriously incest is just not okay with me.