Thread: Marrying animals to be allowed?

Originally Posted by Wolverine

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Soft Josh (the) Freeman

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

slippery slope
consenting adults

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.

Originally Posted by Jack Ridley

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.

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).

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jack Ridley

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.

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.

Marrying animals to be allowed?

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...

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

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.

Don't read the Bible much, do you?