The Dark Ages of America...

[tolbiny]

There can be no consent in beastiality.
I have no problem with polygamy.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with beastiality?

The Same Sex advocate who can explain what is wrong with all these variants that does not apply to the Same Sex variant might just convince me. Anyone want to try?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing wrong with polygamy. Maybe there's something I'm missing, as I haven't given it much thought in the past.

The only problem I see with beastiality is the consent issue. With regard to marriage, an animal cannot know it's married can it?

If it's two (or more!) consenting adults, and they're not hurting anyone else, then it's no one else's business.

[MMMMMM]

"There can be no consent in beastiality."

I disagree. Have you never had a dog try to hump your leg?

[John Feeney]

I thought this was about marriage. I don't think the dog humping your leg constitutes a legal contract. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[tolbiny]

That doen't mean that the dog is consenting to anal fisting just because it humped your leg.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
That doen't mean that the dog is consenting to anal fisting just because it humped your leg.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about a dog, or a horse, tagging a woman? There are plenty of videos on the net of that kind of stuff, and you can't tell me those animals aren't having fun.

[John Feeney]

Let's quit wasting time with the irrelevant distraction of sex with animals. The question is about forms of marriage, not forms of sex. Animals cannot consent to marriage. That's as far as you can go with any animal analogy. To shift the focus to forms of sex is not a part of the argument that if one form of marriage (gay) is deemed to be okay, then the door is opened to others. If you want to get into a debate over whether or not homosexuality itself is okay, that's another topic.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]

I just want to say that I'll do everything I can to keep gay people from getting married. I can only hope, that if the situations were reversed, gay people would have done the same thing for me

[/ QUOTE ]

Screw that, why should gays be given special protections that the rest of us dumb bastards didn't have?

[Cyrus]

Nah, Amer'ca is in no dark ages!

No religious fundamentalism apparent in the realm. I see no one appointed, for example, as Attorney General who has no respect for human decency. (Such a person would likely condone torture and oppose the Geneva Convention Protocols. But I see no sign of such a creep getting the job.)

No war against culture. No one reaching for it, at the mere mention of the word. No antipathy towards pagan non-believers. Tolerance and diversity rules the bless'd land. From California to the New York Island.

No support for prejudice or ignorance. No one lobbies to teach in schools cretinous crap like Creationism. No one preaches for a regression to the moral values of Victorian times. Everywhere you look you see widespread support for humanism and the sciences.

I see no laws against individual freedoms. No curtailing of civil rights. No invasion of privacy. No demotion of habeas corpus. Nothing scary, nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing is wrong. Everything is right. Everything is Right.

You are right.

So why is this thread still alive? (Do we have terrorists posting here?)

[young nut]

[ QUOTE ]
It really didnt matter to me that Bush was reelected, as i had said, i was 90% sure it would happen and Kerry probably would have been just as bad. However, the way states voted on gay marriage amendments is absouletely sickening.

The way this board talks about moral issues astounds me, the liberals "dont understand moral(e!) issues" and we need to make concessions to conservatives who blindly follow what the bible says, as if 2 men who love each other is really any different than a man and a woman loving each other. These elections have shown the south to be horrifically uncompassionate and shows how well they can disenfranchise a group of people. Maybe the bible really does say that it is a sin for 2 men or 2 women to be married, but even so, if the bible is going to dictate what is added to the constitution of certain states then we are in very big trouble.

These states are encouraging an atmosphere of hatred and misunderstanding towards gay and lesbian people and it is absouletely sickening. This election was all about "freedom from terrorists" and while we were at it we decided to take away the freedom of thousands and thousands of Americans. In the end, we will look back on this issue as we did on the way blacks were treated in the pre-civil rights world.

How about we make our country better by doing what we know is right instead of what the bible says/what southerners who obviously seem to have no understanding of homosexuality think? What a dark time in America this is.

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

#1 - You make the argument that you do not want our constitutional amendment decisions to be influenced at all by the religion of the poeple. Last I checked, this is a democracy, and in a democracy majority usually rules. You are correct that southern states do not favor gay marriage. This is probably because the southern states' religious makeup is predominantly christian. And yet you bash these citizens and say they have no compassion. It is true that they may vote on their religious morals, but that is their right given to every American. And if the majority of americans do not share the same morals that you do, tough luck.

#2 - You say we are taking the "freedoms" away from thousands of Americans by not allowing gay marriange. First off, they never had the freedom to get married in the first place. Secondly, for as long as history has been recorded, gay couples have never been allowed to enter into the sanctity of marriage. It is one thing for a gay couple to be together. It is completely different for a gay couple to title themselves a "married" couple. Marriage is and should always be a sacred vow between a man and a woman. Although I do have the liberal belief that a gay couple should be granted the same financial rights as a married couple, I do not think we should allow them to marry. What is wrong with a legal union?