Lascivious
Banned
Why or why not?
People should be allowed to marry who they want.
So if someone wants to marry a cow, it should be allowed too?
Only if it can say "I do!" That would leave parrots and other talking birds as marriage partners. Parrots especially, are known for long life and faithfulness to one person.
So if someone wants to marry a cow, it should be allowed too?
If we won't let gay people get married because we're worried about people marrying cows then that's messed up.
In the same vein, I can also say that a marriage between a man and a woman is very different from a marriage between two people of the same sex.A marriage between a human and a human is very very different from a marriage between a human and an animal.
I didn't say I was "worried" about people marrying animals. I am just saying that if we start allowing same-sex marriages, then we should also start allowing man-animal marriages. Logical consistency demands so.
In the same vein, I can also say that a marriage between a man and a woman is very different from a marriage between two people of the same sex.
You are arbitrarily drawing a line between humans and non-human animals as marriage partners. This is no different from the traditionalists who say that marriage is only between a man and a woman. If gays and gay-sympathizers want to extend the right to marry to same-sex couples, then they must also accept non-human animals as marriage partners, too. That is, if they want to be logically consistent. Which I doubt they do. They have a political agenda to push.
Right!!
Because animals have the mental capacity to consent to a marriage.
How?? A gay couple has the same genitals and a straight has different genitals. I mean I guess that's different, but I don't see how that interferes with marriage itself; and a reason for people not to get married.
That's the same as saying, "Blue-eyed people can't marry other blue-eyed people." Why, because the magical unicorn said so?? How lame.
And a marriage between a male and female is pretty much the same as a male and male. Both couples are humans!!
Look, it's really not that complicated. Two PEOPLE fall in love, in the traditional, romantic sense, and they want to get married, in the traditional, legal way. No big deal, nothing radical about it. Just accept the FACT that some people prefer sex with a member of their own gender, and that sex is an important part of marriage.
You are arbitrarily drawing a line between humans and non-human animals as marriage partners. This is no different from the traditionalists who say that marriage is only between a man and a woman. If gays and gay-sympathizers want to extend the right to marry to same-sex couples, then they must also accept non-human animals as marriage partners, too. That is, if they want to be logically consistent. Which I doubt they do. They have a political agenda to push.
LOL are you kidding me??
A marriage between a human and a human is completely different compared to an animal and a human.
You can get out with that.
You won't let two consenting adults get married because a human could potentially marry an animal. OR, you think that a marriage between an animal and a human should be allowed because people with the same private parts are getting married. That's like saying that because we allow people with the same eye color, or the same race to get married we have to let anyone marry anything now. I don't get it.
It makes no sense for the government to see an animal and a human as a union. An animal can't consent. An animal doesn't have the rights as humans according to the law. A union to an animal doesn't really mean anything.
And even if a human did marry an animal, who freaking cares. You don't have to go to the wedding. You don't have to be their friend. You don't have to pay for the wedding. You don't have to be a part of their life.
I don't think that merely having the ability to consent to a marriage is the ONLY criterion required for entering into a marriage. Marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman.
What you are proposing is akin to a biological male clamoring to be able to use the woman's washroom. People tell him he can't, then he whines and says, "why can't I? I am a human. This is discrimination based on my sex". Except that it isn't. A woman's washroom is, BY DEFINITION, the washroom reserved for women. Men cannot enter it. And in the same vein, same-sex couples cannot get married, and it's because BY DEFINITION, marriage is between a man and a woman.
They can still have civil unions, though, which carry pretty much all the benefits, legal and financial, as marriage. Why can't they be happy about this? Why do they clamor and demand that society bend over backwards to accommodate them?
Like I stated above, just by virtue of being human is not sufficient for marriage. The parties involved have to be a man and a woman.
Gays can still have civil unions. I don't know why they are so keen on being married. There is practically no difference/s between a marriage and a civil union.
What if a human wanted to marry a robot?
Ladies and Gentlemen have I got a deal for you!
Tired of coming home to your lazy spouse? No dishes washed? No dinner being made? More fighting about which in-laws you'll visit this year?
Well, fight no longer! Brought to you in part by future tech comes... SPOUSE 3000! This robot partner does everything an organic partner won't do! Clean dishes, cook, clean, any other...private things.
Order your own SPOUSE 3000! today and live in The future!.
Yep, I can.
Should we appease those who are prejudiced against gays?