Clegg's great law reform turns to farce as people call for murder and marrying horses to be allowed "It was announced with much fanfare as the move that would finally let the public break free from an interfering and overbearing state. But when Nick Clegg invited people to name bad laws they wanted scrapped, ending a ban on marrying horses was probably not what he had in mind. Within minutes of the Deputy Prime Minister telling the public to reclaim their ' freedom', the exercise descended into farce. A Government website crashed after dozens of outlandish suggestions were submitted.... One contributor called for a ban on marrying horses to be lifted. The writer said: 'I have been going out with a horse for seven - very happy - years now. Why oh why can we not marry - or at least civilly partner like the gays can?" Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-tape-reduce-nanny-state.html#ixzz1aBkstY22 Really,if gays marriges are allowed,why not? Your opinion?
Meh. No one in the gay rights movement is pushing for laws that allow people to marry unconsenting animals. It is a strawman. The slippery slope need not apply.
Why does it matter if animals consent? It's not like we require their consent before they are slaughtered. Maybe sex dolls will start appearing in court to press rape charges.
I've always wondered why necrophiliacs get denied equal marriage rights. If their partner willingly commits suicide, then the whole act is consentual between adults. Why should the state not recognize their marriage just because one is not living? That's necrophobic.
We are not talking about foo,d we are talking about marriage. Marriage is a contract between consenting adults.
If the original definition of marriage as being between a consenting man and a consenting woman is being scrapped than how dare anybody claim a definition of marriage at all?
You call it a strawman and you call it a slippery slope and yet here in this thread is one of the very things I warned about in my thread, "Drawing A Line in the Sand." You said it yourself, there is no common ground, there is no compromise. Therefore the slippery slope does apply.
If the main issue is the rights of the animal, I do not see how it is any worse to force an animal into a sexual encounter than it is to eat the animal.
I've heard a lot of women describe their husbands, ex-husbands, or recently murdered husbands as beasts and I've heard a lot of men describe other men's wives as dogs. It's apparently too late.
No one in the gay rights movement is pushing for the marriage of animals, the slippery slope need not apply. It is nothing more than a ploy to scare the paranoid right wingers into thinking that granting equal rights to consenting adults will result in unions between a man, a toaster, small child, and a goldfish.
First it was only a consenting, lawfully married man and woman. And if the woman was between 12-20 years of age, she needed the permission of her father on top of that. And not every conceivable or possible sexual act was encouraged. Interracial marriage was looked down upon. Any sexual activity between a black man and a white woman was near universally forbidden. Gradually the man and women were no longer required to be married. Interracial marriages became tolerated by the government, if still not accepted by society. Then after the "sexual revolution" of the 1960's, all hell broke loose. Any number of men and any number of women could now simultaneously all have sexual intercourse with eachother. People begin having sex with animals on stage in front of an audience! It is a slippery slope. And the whole thing is snowballing down hill. Soon the only restriction will be the willingness of each of the human participants.
Forget consent. Marriage is a legal contract and animals, children, corpses, kitchen appliances, etc... cannot enter into legal contracts. Unless one wants to make the argument that animals should be able to enter into legal contracts, this thread is only fit for sado-masochistic, necrophillic, equiphiles (aka people who get off on beating dead horses).
Like someone else said, the issue is not whether sex with animals should be legal on the basis of farming.. It's that animals cannot enter nor understand legal contracts. It's a pretty straight-forward shut and close case.
All parties within a marriage have to consent. That is why marriage does not apply to animals, children, and inanimate objects, because none of them are able to consent, by law, at least, when it comes to children.
Of course! In the "Democratic West" only. Simply because they like to enjoy and be proud of their freedoms. What do you find wrong with it? Are you a discriminating these poor people??? Also, what is wrong for them, if mother wants to have a right to marry her son, father his daughter, brother sister, etc? They stand for democracy, freedom, right? Then they will pick up on Russia again, go with complains to Strasbourg court with "Human rights" violations. It will create some jobs in the already depressed Europe and US. This is what is all about! Freedom, democracy...
How on earth could she be going out with a horse anyway? Did the horse ask her out with a whinny and a flick of the tail?