Principles Above Parties
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.
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.
Just because I find your religion silly does not mean I am an atheist.
Save us both the time and refrain from clicking Reply if you are going to address me as a such.
There is no love in Fear.
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.
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).
"Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell
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???Marrying animals to be allowed?
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...
Last edited by martin_777; Dec 17 2011 at 02:14 AM.
“Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employers and employees. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the General Fund to reduce the deficit, that would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing the budget or lowering the deficit.” –Ronald Reagan
PF's Liberal Progressive Underground