Marrying animals to be allowed?

Discussion in 'Civil Rights' started by General Winter, Oct 8, 2011.

  1. General Winter

    General Winter Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,196
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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?
     
  2. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Jack Ridley

    Jack Ridley New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,783
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  4. Unifier

    Unifier New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    14,482
    Likes Received:
    524
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We are not talking about foo,d we are talking about marriage. Marriage is a contract between consenting adults.
     
  6. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How can you marry a horse???
     
  7. Beevee

    Beevee New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    13,916
    Likes Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If I marry my cat, will she sleep on the other side of the bed?
     
  8. toddwv

    toddwv Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    28,655
    Likes Received:
    4,233
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sounds like a bunch of trolls had some fun.
     
  9. General Winter

    General Winter Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,196
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Why not if you love each other?I don't see any counterarguments.
     
  10. Soft Josh (the) Freeman

    Soft Josh (the) Freeman New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2011
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
    PatriotNews and (deleted member) like this.
  11. Soft Josh (the) Freeman

    Soft Josh (the) Freeman New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2011
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  12. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  13. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,501
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
  14. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  15. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  16. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    4,506
    Likes Received:
    675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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).
     
  17. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,836
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
  18. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    12,090
    Likes Received:
    406
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  19. martin_777

    martin_777 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    975
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Of course! In the "Democratic West" only. Simply because they like to enjoy and be proud of their freedoms.:mrgreen: 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...:omg:
     
  20. toddwv

    toddwv Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    28,655
    Likes Received:
    4,233
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't read the Bible much, do you?
     

Share This Page