The Acceptance Of Gay Marriage Has Opened A Pandora's Box; Woman who MARRIED Dog Confesses 'I am totally her b***h (financial, supporters)
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.
Marriage between a man and a woman, or two people of the same sex, or between a human and a beast has no effect upon me in any way. To each their own. I don't see a problem.
Now I would take an adversarial stance toward a marriage between a man and a woman, or two people of the same sex, or between a human and a beast if that "marriage" in some way harmed me personally. Such as the case whereby I would be forced to contribute to that arrangement in some way say through ridiculous preferential or special interest "law". Otherwise I wish good luck to the woman and her dog...LOL
As has been pointed out many times, the marriage ceremony need not include a marriage license.
It is nothing new for a person to be so enamored of an animal or even an object to express that emotion with a marriage ceremony. I believe it was the emperor Nero who underwent such a ceremony with his horse. So what? All you need is someone willing to perform the ceremony. Since no license is involved, literally anyone can perform the ceremony.
No license? No legal standing.
The only controversy here is in the minds of people who refuse to draw a simple distinction that most second-graders are capable of understanding.
Edited to add - or maybe it was Caligula. He was crazier and nastier than Nero.
Only paranoid idiots would compare 2 adults who love each other getting married with bestiality.
I personally don't have a problem with Gay marriage but I do feel that you have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to marriage or else you will open pandora's box. Who's to say that people who practice polygamy, incest(bother-sister, father-daughter, etc) and bestiality won't argue that they have the right to marry who they love. You have to draw the line somewhere right?
The line should only be drawn when a "marriage" in some way harms others who aren't in that "marriage". Otherwise it is of no consequence or import to anyone not involved.
I personally don't have a problem with Gay marriage but I do feel that you have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to marriage or else you will open pandora's box. Whose to say that people who practice polygamy, incest(bother-sister, father-daughter, etc) and bestiality won't argue that they have the right to marry who they love. You have to draw the line somewhere right?
Yes, and the law does draw it.
Consenting adult humans is the legal standard for marriage. The current argument is about whether those adults can have the same set of genitals or must they be different.
I can see that standard being enlarged to more than two consenting adults if the admittedly large issues of taxation, child custody, and property division can be solved, and certainly I think that the consanguinity issue regarding cousins should be reexamined.
You can marry your toaster oven today, should it please you. Your marriage just won't have any legal standing whatever.
Edited to add - but you too could get in the newspaper, with a story that Gretsky could link to as evidence that TWAWKI is ending.
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.
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.
