..but it sounds to me that they`re just party dudes looking for an excuse

__________________
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Marx (G.)

I opened this wondering how Carville got single again.

Actually i would have to agree with the liberal heathens you have no right to judge another culture based off your own culture. No other culture is better or worse than another. PPL also don't have right to force feed their values to other ppl. just b/c they are different. This would never happen in the U.S. b/c our cultural norms dictates that this is wrong and cultural unacceptable.

__________________
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the king
- Nas

Uh Huh becasue as we all know there is no way the definition could be changed to suite such marriages ..right?..
Wrong.

Once you change the definition of marriage all that " will never happen" stuff goes out the widnow.

I have actually confirmed that one guy I knew years ago had actually had sex with a sheep, and showed photos (to me) to prove it. Baaaaaaaa.

"Civil unions" I can live with, nothing more. Marriage is one woman and one man, and may their bond last for a lifetime. Change that, and that guy with the woolly cofornicator won't take long to claim HIS alleged "right" to bleep sheep. Mary had a little lamb. Film at eleven.

Why does it follow that allowing two consenting adults to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, will lead to someone marrying a sheep?

To believe so shows three things about you, one, you seem to believe that many people want to break from the norm (i.e not having relations with animals). Two, that if people can do something they automatically will, no matter what it is. And three, you have faulty logic.

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison

So let me get this straight. The reason we should restrict marriage to one man/one woman is because of 2,000 years of culture, and because a majority of Americans agree. It's a fundamental cultural value.

But we should ALSO enshrine that restriction into the Constitution because until it's written in stone, we're on a slippery slope toward bestiality.

So what we have here is an appeal to the millenia-old roots of our culture -- and a curious lack of faith in the durability of that culture.

Consider this, folks: if our cultural values change, then our practices should change with it. Don't write the current cultural values (as you see them) into the Constitution simply to make it more difficult for later generations to change that if and when our cultural values change. That's thoroughly disrespecting the right of future generations to set their own course.

Fight for your cultural values WITHIN THE CULTURE. But don't try to short-circuit the discussion with the Constitution. You didn't like it when it happened during the abortion debate; don't commit the same error with regard to gay marriage.

__________________
Man up.

But that's just the point, Raytri. Because they got abortion on demand through the "back door" of the court system, so to speak.....we are NOW a nation that allows the murder of unborn babies. That's exactly what the left is going to try with gay marriage. Exactly.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

But that still has nothing whatsoever to do with bestiality.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Like Doc said, there is nothing to suggest bestiality in this ritual. From what it appears, this is a strictly symbolic religious union, slightly akin to nuns being married to God. I'm surprised the conservatives aren't harping on about how this is positive because it shows that a nation can define state laws completely within the context of the dominant religion.
Not sure, but somehow I bet this is in rural India as well, where the people are far more traditional and involved in superstitious ritual than the typical urban Hindu. I can't imagine too many snakes popping out of anthills to talk to women in downtown New Delhi.
Being that she's probably in a rural area, I guess we don't have to worry about the important questions like whether or not her health insurance can be shared to pay for the cobra's vetrinary bills.
It's quite a jump to link this with gay marriage in the US, another disingenuous scare tactic of the Right TM to make us fear that morality is going to hell all over the world.
If anything, this is proof that some areas of the world still allow religious traditions to take precedent... and that not every culture immediately jumps to the conclusion of bestiality whenever something like this is mentioned. If anyone's screwing a cobra, I'm sure you'll find it on a porn website based in the Western world somewhere.

So the claims appear to be:
1.This rural Indian ceremonial event, not involving sex, will somehow serve as a precedent for bestiality in America.
2. Opening the door to allow two consenting adults of the same sex to get married will somehow open the door to allowing a single consenting person to have sex with an unconsenting entity.

Interesting. Where does the assumption that this means ANYTHING in a US context or a sexual context come from?
Personally I think this post really supports a hypothesis more of this kind:
1. A lot of Americans are $&*%^#@ perverts, even those that proclaim to get infuriated over aberations of sex norms (they see them everywhere)
2. Americans don't understand the religions of other cultures and should reerve judgement on them.
3. The Right TM is desperate for some way to make gay marriage look scary.

I'm going with #3 on a hunch.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.