Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if we can change the definition of marriage from man and woman to man and man, then what's to say we can't have man and animal?
You can probably marry your dog if you wanted too! Your arguement is baseless though considering marriage is basically an agreement between parties that consent. Have you asked your dog or any animal you own too marry you?
if we can change the definition of marriage from man and woman to man and man, then what's to say we can't have man and animal?
We've been over this. There's no way to determine for sure that an animal is consenting to the marriage. Same with children. They cannot marry because they are not of the legal age to consent.
BTW, in January, a woman "married" a building in Washington... a state in which gay marriage is still not yet legal. So shall we be blaming that kind of idiocy on heterosexual marriage now?
You can probably marry your dog if you wanted too! Your arguement is baseless though considering marriage is basically an agreement between parties that consent. Have you asked your dog or any animal you own too marry you?
Why can't we just do away with the consent requirement as some have done with the gender differentiation requirement?
You can probably marry your dog if you wanted too! Your arguement is baseless though considering marriage is basically an agreement between parties that consent. Have you asked your dog or any animal you own too marry you?
Who are you to determine what goes on in another man's bedroom?
My dog and I love each other, who are you to say otherwise?
Why can't we just do away with the consent requirement as some have done with the gender differentiation requirement?
Seriously? You're wanting to make it so someone can just marry you without your consent?
The challenge that you continue to dodge is that of finding some way in which gays getting married or raising children harms anyone or anything whatsoever. A person marrying their dog would constitute a union which we can only ASSUME the dog is agreeing to. It may not be wanting to get married at all. If you want to advocate the legal ability to force someone else into marrying you, be my guest. But the challenge relevant to the subject here remains. I for one won't be distracted to forget you haven't met this challenge.
There is no similarity between an attempt to marry something (an animal) which cannot legally consent to anything and a consensual marriage between to people of the same sex. But you go on believing they are the same, it just makes your arguments more laughable.
The challenge that you continue to dodge is that of finding some way in which gays getting married or raising children harms anyone or anything whatsoever.
It harms the tradition, and respect of marriage.
Marriage is a goal to strive for, for young people at least.
The romantic notion of bringing home the bacon to wife and child is what inspires many young men (or women) to try and make a go of life.
When marriage becomes corrupted by allowing for a free-for-all , then this striving gradually diminishes.
Over time the society will gradually become even more nihilistic, and social decay will become all the more rapid.
if we can change the definition of marriage from man and woman to man and man, then what's to say we can't have man and animal?
Not this dumb argument again.
Your dog is not capable of signing a legal contract or giving consent. Anyway, I think it would be an unequal match because your dog is probably a lot smarter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.