Gay Marriage leads to Animal Marriage???

[fickler]

There are some who believe that by giving gays the rights to marriage, we’d be opening ourselves to future personal-rights movements such as the right to wed your pet. As crazy as this sounds, it’s true. What are your thoughts…

I heard they are parodying this and the likes on the Smoking Gun, which airs Monday/Tuesday, 10:30PM on Court TV.

[Krylo]

Hello idiots*, I am logical fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html). I'm sure we'll get along just fine.

*By idiots I mean people who believe that, not anyone else in particular. I realize it could be construed as my saying that to the thread starter, but he doesn't seem to believe it, so...

[BMHadoken]

Don't animals get married all the time? I saw a groom crab and a bride crab all dressed up together on Virginia Beach (I kinda wish I made that up...some really bored people out there...)

[Archbio]

Heard that argument several times before...

It looks to be based in a religious conception of laws, and I'd say it requires people to turn off the discriminative part of their brain: "You want to stop punishing adultery by stonings? Anarchy, destruction, pillaging, spontaneous human combustion I say!"

The idea there might be that Law is Sacred, any change in it is equally sacrilegious and causes all law to be rendered meaningless. It could also be a fully calculated appeal to the emotions of less intolerant layers of society. Obviously it's used because other, more fundamental arguments are even less presentable.

Dr. EDIT says: "Slippery slope" fallacy, eh? Looks like most of this post can be replaced by this practical logic expression. Must keep up to to date with the Tongue.

[MP37a]

Yay! I can finally express my true feelings for my favorite girl moo cow Bessy. It's about time me and that big heffer got a chance to get hitched. I myself don't have any beef with animal marriages. Oh wait I guess I will. Hahaha. Oh damn I'll be quiet now. Errrr yeah lol :)

j/k btw...really lol

[Funka Genocide]

hmmm, I've heard that particular "argument" before, but its all BS used to hide the fact that "god hates fags" or something like that. This mentality is why I hate the world, and especially ignorant bible beating mofos. I really can't be objective about this topic, it brings an unreasoning hatred to the forefront of my mind. So I'll just say this, if I ever met a great guy who I'd want to spend the rest of my life with, I would demand the option of marriage, why should it matter what sex the couple is? The law should state that any 2 humans can be married, plain and simple. The less quoted, but more valid argument is polygamy. If I can marry a man then why not get myself a harem too? its just as ignorant, albeit a bit more plausible. Religion has no place in politics, but that doesn't stop it from taking them over completely.

[MY2K]

oh, yeah. totally. Two normal people marrying...my fucking GOD...it's just so wrong. next they'll be marrying animals. and then, objects. I wanna marry my computer! why not! gay people can marry!!


look, if you don't wanna fuck up the sanctity of marriage or whatever, call it something else then. "unity." whatever. Just write the two people down in the records as legally unified. See...it's examples like this that really show how christianity has a huge rule over society and government. :|
edit: not talking to 'you', more like a general expression, I'm not harassing you here. Yannow what I mean XD

[Funka Genocide]

I'm having trouble deciphering your post, are you for or against gay marriage? It seems like there is a sarcastic air about your statements, but I can't quite be sure. a little clarification would do wonders, thanks.

[Krylo]

Pay no attention to Zoamelgustar. He's gullible as hell and has no sarcasm detector at all.

Yes, she's being sarcastic... Although, that comment about the computer hurts. Me and my computer love each other. We've been through a lot, and it's always done it's best to support me, even as it's motherboard and RAM slowly become out of date. Some day, I hope to build a real and long lasting relationship. Just like I had with my old one... before her motherboard went out. There was nothing I could do... and I still feel the pain from that loss, but I know she'd want me to move on and find a new partner.

[MasterOfMagic]

I agree that the whole idea is stupid, which is exactly why some idiot, somewhere, someday, will actually try to do it. You can't deny it, there has to be someone stupid enough out there.

[Funka Genocide]

I knew that, I was just testing you, yeah, thats it, except that I'm lying... I really need to work on that whole "understanding what other people are talking about" thing.

In any case, I agree with the suggestion that you could change the legal name of marriage to "civil union" and leave the actual marriage thing to the religious folk, or those who pretend to be because its socially acceptable, or pretty much all straight couples, but what if a gay couple wanted to attach a religious significance to their union? it seems a highly logical thing to do, practically everyone in the worls has some sort of faith, and marriage is deeply tied to most faiths. So in reality there would only be one distinction between Straight and gay couples, the ability to reproduce, and even that isn't much of a problem with the number of children up for adoption, a family that can never have its own children seems like it would help those kids out. So the only roadblock is one of worlwide anti homosexual programming derived from religious teachings which were engineered to ensure the human race could survive its own stupidity and ignorance. It seems a shame that ignorance is still here, but I suppose if we left it behind we'd have no need for religion, can't have that now can we?

makes no sense does it? sorry for being incoherent, just pissed off.

[Archbio]

Changing its legal name wouldn't really bother me, but I can't help thinking that it could be taken to mean abandonning marriage to a religion in particular, especially since I think I remember hearing it was a civil institution before it was monopolised by the church in the twelfth century, in Europe.

But then I remember it's now mostly a bureaucratic/financial tool, what with those most concerned with it being diamond peddlers and governments.

(I think this post doesn't make sense, but I can't put my finger on why)

[Dona Maria]

Why isn't this in the Discussion forum? That and I think Mash might close this one, it's been done so many times already. Oh well, you all know how I feel. Remember! Show your pride June 26-27! Gotta love the SF man :)

[shiney]

This is too bizarre for discussion. O_o

[Atronflame]

Its so strange, because Bush is trying to pass a law that will make it a felony for a person to marry a gay couple. Not the gay couple being married, but the person marrying the gay couple.

You know, thats funny, because a felony in my book would count as something like, rape, or murder... Or something thats ACTUALLY FUCKING WRONG??? Bush needs to die. -.-

[Muffin Mage]

Here's an idea... Why not make a religion in which gay marriage is acceptable? Find some poor old guy and tell him to say publicly that God came to him in a dream and said that he should make a religion in which gay marriage is acceptable. Then do it, and...yeah.

[Lucas]

You know, thats funny, because a felony in my book would count as something like, rape, or murder... Or something thats ACTUALLY FUCKING WRONG??? Bush needs to die. -.- why are rape and murder wrong? well, maybe because if they run rampant they ruin the society? the entire outrage over gay marriages isn't over penis to butt secks, its about the protection of the family unit, which, until recently, was the support and pillar of most western ways of life. i.e. the society. why is it that no one actually disputes that (its highly disputable and defendable) instead of harping on about religion?

[Osterbaum]

its about the protection of the family unit

There cant be a family unit if the parents are of the same gender? Is that what you mean?

instead of harping on about religion?

People care about religion too much. Besides if God should be all that they say, wouldn't he/she/it aprove gay marriages too?

[Lucas]

There cant be a family unit if the parents are of the same gender? Is that what you mean? you try having kids with a set of equipment that doesn't match.

edit: isn't this supposed to be about animal marriage? they do that in hinduism to prevent curses.

edit again: so what's so wrong about being married to an animal?

[Atronflame]

Its called adoption...

[Osterbaum]

you try having kids with a set of equipment that doesn't match.

Thats not what I ment...

Animal marriage...Really, how does gay marriage lead to animal marriage? WTF!

[MP37a]

Animal marriage is wrong because you don't know if the animal actually would consent to marriage. Unless of course you're crazy and you think the animal really is talking to you. lol

[Elminster_Amaur]

Unless the animal really is talking to you....what?

Okay, what I think Lucas was trying to say about the family unit, is that a majority of the people opposed to gay marriage are opposed to it because it might harm the image of the family unit, as if it hasn't already fallen and been trampled on by the latest generation of parents.

And I don't think adoption is such a good idea, as you have to consider what the kid will go through for your decision, and through no *fault of their own. Don't you want your kid to go through a normal life...or, as normal as life can get? Really, do you want someone else to explain to the kid that their daddies/mommies are not a normal couple, and had no hand in their creation? Because someone definitely will, and almost always, it will be before you have the chance to, and before they are ready to hear such a thing.

*this word was used, as I couldn't think of another word to describe how the child will have no voice in the matter.

[Atronflame]

Regardless the child is going to be adopted and hes going to know through some manner that his parents didnt have him. How it involves in ANY way that it would be any better if his parents were hetero doesnt make any sense because, simply, if they were having the kid in the first place it wouldnt be adoption.

I as a person want to have kids. If, say, I marry a man, suddenly Im not allowed to have children? Why is that? Is it because Im wrong as a person to decide that I want to marry the person I love? Is it wrong to raise my kids to believe that if they love someone, thats who they should want to marry? Is it wrong that Ive married a man?

No. Not at all, and it shouldnt ever be. You need to know the incredible distinction of what marriage is for, and what "proper marriage" is turning out to be.

[Dona Maria]

Okay, what I think Lucas was trying to say about the family unit, is that a majority of the people opposed to gay marriage are opposed to it because it might harm the image of the family unit, as if it hasn't already fallen and been trampled on by the latest generation of parents.

And I don't think adoption is such a good idea, as you have to consider what the kid will go through for your decision, and through no *fault of their own. Don't you want your kid to go through a normal life...or, as normal as life can get? Really, do you want someone else to explain to the kid that their daddies/mommies are not a normal couple, and had no hand in their creation? Because someone definitely will, and almost always, it will be before you have the chance to, and before they are ready to hear such a thing.

A negative impact on the image of the family unit? So two loving adults are now considered a disgrace? "Had no hand in their creation" - that's what adoption IS! You say that the kid will have to go through life knowing that the people that adopted them aren't their real parents? I'm sorry, but "duh" doesn't seem to cover it. Besides, there are other ways to have children: artificial insemination and birth-moms cover that pretty well. In these cases the child resulting belongs (genetically) to one of the partners, making it a valid offspring.

Your argument...it makes me....annoyed.

[Archbio]

I thought rape and murder were wrong, in our supposedly individual oriented societies (with liberties and the like running rampant), because they cause extreme, and in the case of all murders and of some rapes, irreversible prejudice to the victimes. Laws against rape and murder aren't automatically repressive because they aim to repress repressive acts ("being repetitive is my job, my job!").

But if you take the situation from the opposite point of view, expressed earlier in the thread: that acts are wrong because they damage the tissue of society on a larger scale, then I still say it's moot. Even if you consider every gay marriage to be a sham from the start, they aren't any more damaging to society than the numerous other potential sham marriages. The marriage of two sterile people can be thought to be a sham according to a certain point of view (that the goal of marriage is the production of offsprings). So could be a marriage made for purely financial reasons. It seems a lot of people suddenly started thinking it was right to be very particular on the definition of marriage.

I'll even go further and say gay marriage affirms some new validity to both the institution of monogamous marriage and of the "family unit", just by the interest it shows for concepts some people believe unnecessary (including me).

As for the adoption thing, I'm afraid Elminster may be right, altough it's mostly because of the present context and populations we live in. What I mean is, you can't blame the adopting parents for the narrow mentality that makes normality the foundation of happiness.

Marriage, marriage, marriage.

[Osterbaum]

Don't you want your kid to go through a normal life

Normal? I'm sorry, but who are you to define 'normal'? No one can define normal. Offcourse reproducing would be necesary to keep on living, but if gay marriages are allowed it doesent mean that everyone will become gay or that the heterosexual couples will stop having kids, and it definetly does not mean that animal marriage will be allowed.

what the kid will go through for your decision

He shouldn't have to go through anything, and he wont if gays are completely accepted and allowing them to get married will take this issue forwards. Besides what if the child is adopted and he is an orphon (as almost always is the case)? Then it would be better for him to have parents than no parrents at all.

[Funka Genocide]

to state my opinions on a few points, for one, a child raised by gay parents will not be normal. This has already been stated, but what is normal? The answer on most peoples minds would probably coincide more with "successful" in that a normal person will have a better than average chance at a "happy" life. Two homosexuals who adopt a child are more likely to actually want children than two 18 year olds that get married because they had unprotected sex. if a child is wanted, it stands to reason that it will be loved, and by loved I mean shown how to live in society and supported physically and emotionally. Seeing as adoption typically is an involved process, the two people adopting will most likely make more suitable parents than an average accident baby family. So, a child raised by gay parents would have a higher chance of being "normal", at least thats the way I see it.

As far as the kid being thrown into emotional dissaray because of the horrible revelation that he was adopted and his parents aren't "normal" that would only happen if the kid lived in a closet his whole life, and his parents told him absolutely nothing (I use him instead of it, her works too) This would never happen, I for one would always be honest with my children, and try to answer any questions they had. So the only real problem would be the societal view that "fags are the devil" which is promulgated by religion through politics. The family unit would be unnaffected by gay marriage, its only widespread belief that would be slighted.

Gay marriage should be legal, it would not deteriorate society, except in the case of religion, it would challenge old views and force people to accept something radically different.

gee, this sounds kind of familiar, what subgroup of society was it that was repressed for generations and then finally allowed to be free, hmmm, its right there... Ah! yes! African Americans! Think back on that particular example, what self respecting "normal" American would say that "we need to make slavery legal again" the very statement itself is enough to start tempers flaring. Well, I feel the same way about gay rights.

-edit-

to reply to a statement which said something to the nature of "Why choose to harp on religion, when it is really the degradation of the family unit which is seen as the threat posed by same sex marriage" (this is not a direct quote, a paraphrasing, I can't remember who brought it up either) The only reason that this is even brought up is because it would be politically incorrect to say "fags make the baby Jesus cry" it political double talk. The government is run by people who are the product of mainstream society, they embody the status quo. They must at least appear like they stand on a platform that is based on logic. In reality, they are following tradition blindly, because not only are they comfortable with it, but so are there constituents. Its just another example of people cherishing their ignorance.

[Lucas]

Its just another example of people cherishing their ignorance. um, so if you're against gay marriage you must be ignorant? well, damn, i must be ignorant then, because from the start of the discussions on gay marriage in this forum, i've been against the government having any relation with marriage. frankly, i don't care if someone marries 2 sheep, a daughter and her mother, and a ranch in new mexico, so i'm wondering why the government does. saying "tax laws and rights" isn't a valid defence, since simple amendments to the taxation system would rid the preferential treatment to recognized families as opposed to non-recognized ones.

anyways, all that to say that you didn't give a reason for why religion is being used a central point for the "against" side (the baby jesus thing didn't make sense), when in reality, there's far more logical and pressing arguments that haven't been debated.

edit: i still don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to marry animals. if an animal needs "consent" to be married, then said animal probably needed to be consented when he was raised as a hunk of meat/ captured in the wild/ etc... obviously animal rights just don't go that far. if we can breed them to slaughter them, why is marriage so far out. i mean if a farmer LOVES his cow, let him go nuts.

what subgroup of society was it that was repressed for generations and then finally allowed to be free uh, gays aren't "repressed". they made a few large demonstrations in quebec, which allows civil unions, and thus equal rights. their main goal was changing the semantics involved, i.e. they wanted a piece of the word marriage. oh, and this is a big hint as to why religion is always played up.

[Krylo]

i.e. they wanted a piece of the word marriage. oh, and this is a big hint as to why religion is always played up.Except christianity isn't the only religion that uses the word marriage, and there are sects of christianity willing to marry gays, due to Jesus barely mentioning homosexuality in the new testament.

AND, an american supreme court case came around saying there is no such thing as seperate but equal, because the very fact that something is seperate places a constaint on the mind of the individual telling them that they are lesser.

Ergo: if civil unions are seperate from marriage, no matter what rights they give, they can never be equal.

Also, Lucas, you're presenting only two arguements.

Arguement a: Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Well, that's all well in good, except that it will never happen. They've gotten into it, they aren't going to let go. As hard as it is to get all people who wish to marry treated equally, it's easier than trying to abolish marriage altogether. At least in most countries. This has been argued before... and it's really just a pointless arguement.

The debate is: Should gays be allowed to be married?

This is a yes or no question.

An answer that is not yes or no, such as: "Government should have no bearing on marriage," doesn't answer the question. It kind of hints toward you not giving a shit either way, but it doesn't answer the question, and avoids the debate as well as steering it in a totally new direction that would be better for another thread... that's actually about whether or not government should be in marriage.

Your arguement b, which I assume was just you playing devil's advocate, had to do with the family unit. It was dismembered. A gay couple can adopt a child and give them just as good a home as a straight couple could. The only possible difference/detriment, on average, to a heterosexual couple adopting, or having a child, is directly related to the fact that homosexuality is stigmatized. Keeping them from marrying and adopting because their children might be picked on does everything EXCEPT remove that stigmatization, and it's downright hypocritical.

If you're going to keep people from having families because their children may be picked on because of their family, then you'd have to stop black people, jewish people, caucasian people... in other words, everybody. Unless you set a certain degree, in which case all of those people would STILL have to be stopped, just not everywhere.

So, in short, homosexuality only challenges the preconcieved notion of the family unit, but in no way challenges the family unit itself, and, without challenging preconceived notions there is no progress. Besides... society is moving that way anyway.

[Archbio]

And gays *were* repressed.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Gay%20rights%20timeline

Of course it's been freeing up for quite a while, but the stigmatization remains, and that's the point they are making with gay marriage.

[Otaku Son]

Don't animals get married all the time? I saw a groom crab and a bride crab all dressed up together on Virginia Beach (I kinda wish I made that up...some really bored people out there...)
I think we mean human/animal marriages, big guy. As in you marrying your dog. As in...beastality.

Which I believe is wrong to the extreme. But, I'll hold my thoughts a little longer...

[Trev-MUN Hates AOL]

... and the meantime, I'm sitting in the back, chuckling over how stupid the whole argument is. "OMG WE MUST PASS LAWS FOR GAY MARRAEG AND FOREC TEH CHURHIZ TO COMPLY!11" "OMG WE MUST BAN GAY MARRAEG IN TEH CONSTITUTION!!!1"

We're all so concerned with any hint of the church creeping its way into state matters (like the twelve commandments statue a while back), but everyone's missing the fact that this is a state-into-church situation. Marriage is primarily a religious institution. Only through tax benefits, a multitude of other things, and general recognition of marriage did it become something a part of law or whatever.

And this is why I say we should let religions have the freedom to decide whether they will marry gays or not. There shouldn't be laws forbidding or approving universal gay marriage (or for that matter, animal marriages, given the mentioning that it's a part of hinduism). In fact, I say we revamp the laws so that any kind of union/marriage recognized by government is considered a civil union, with all the benefits given to marriages now put under that title.

I wonder whatever happened to that one bill of rights saying we had a freedom of religion ... Oh, right, it's been obscured by the "MARRIAGE IS LOVE!" "GAYS ARE EVIL!" crap.

[Osterbaum]

Ok, so I don't want anyone to say the word 'normal' anymore. We aren't anyone to deside the meaning of that word. Usually 'normal' is used about the way that most people choose etc., but...WTF?!? No one can say what is 'normal' cause nothing is!

Religion shouldn't get too interested about gay marriages. What the hell does it matter if they wed to ppl of the same gender? It's just stupid. Some times I'm ashamed of my religion. Besides 'true believers' should believe that god is what they first said: Lovinng, cairing etc. Why would such a person (or what ever) not allow gay marriages? This hole argument about animals or gay marriages, or what ever, is just stupid.

What does animal marriage have to do with allowing gay marriage?!?

[Dragonsbane]

After reading this thread, I'm starting to believe that marriage should be something that the church isn't allowed to have anything to do with....but there's no chance of that happening, so this is what I propose.

You have the right to be legally married regardless of gender or sexual orientation (but NO animals, they can't give consent). This allows you all the rights, tax stuff, and freedoms of being married.....basically the legal side.

If you're religious, you can also have a ceremony or whatever, but the church in question doesn't have to perform the marriage if it is against the beliefs they espouse. If you want to change your religion to allow gay marriage or whatever, so that you can be married in the traditional fashion, then start a new sect or find one that permits that sort of thing.

The problem here is that the church abducted the concept of marriage, and that there is a difference in the legal and religious sides of it....people tend to forget this. People have the right to get married if they want to, but religions also have their rights, as long as they don't use them to oppress others.

[Archbio]

And I here I thought this was an issue because no church could perform a legally binding gay marriage (the problem being within the laws) and no an issue of most church not wanting to perform ceremonies for gay people (it would then be a problem with the churches). Was I wrong?

Altough this is obviously a religious problem at its base, I didn't think anywhere here had suggested churches should be forced to perform ceremonies they disagree with.
And no, marriage used to be a civil institution (long, long ago), and can be independent of religion. Of course I think it should be independent of the state, but that'll make the whole point moot.

Dr EDIT says: I agree with the idea that animal marriage, while it shouldn't be wrong according to the law (which treats animals as virtual non-persons in most other ways), shouldn't be treated like a valid union (the no-consent thing. Think the cow will have any idea of what's happening?)

[Krylo]

Altough this is obviously a religious problem at its base, I didn't think anywhere here had suggested churches should be forced to perform ceremonies they disagree with.Precisely. But allow me to expound on it.

If I go into a church and tell them all that I'm a satanist, pig-fucking, god hating, serial killer and paint their walls with blood (or even if they just don't like me), then I bring a woman to get married, they are in their FULL legal right to deny me.

Churches already have the ability to deny marriage to anyone they want. Just like there are a few people on the forums who are licensed to give out marriage licenses in some states (due to silly online 'become an ordained minister' things). If I ask them to marry me and little susie sunshine, they can tell me to go fuck myself.

You can't FORCE anyone to marry anyone. That's already law. It's a non-issue in the respect of "OMG WE MUST PASS LAWS FOR GAY MARRAEG AND FOREC TEH CHURHIZ TO COMPLY!11"

Perhaps it would be a good idea to see if an arguement has actually come up before parodying it? Just a thought...

[Dragonsbane]

I still think you should be able to get married (at least in the eyes of the law), even if the church turns you down......it would be more paperwork than ceremony, though, with the signatures of the two partners.

[Krylo]

They already do that. You can get married in a court. You can also get married by elvis, so long as you're in LA.

[Mashirosen]

I still think you should be able to get married (at least in the eyes of the law), even if the church turns you down......it would be more paperwork than ceremony, though, with the signatures of the two partners.

You can, if you're straight (or a transsexual who's marrying someone of opposite sex to the one you're physically assuming) -- it's called a civil ceremony. What did you think atheists do, cross their fingers during all the god parts of a church ceremony? Churches don't have to enter into the equation at all.

I wish the people who get their panties in a wad about "governments forcing churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies" would get that through their goddamn heads. NOBODY'S ASKING FOR THAT. All that's wanted is full legal recognization of homosexual marital unions, equal to that already granted to heterosexuals. Either churches will come around or they won't, although I suspect they eventually will in the face of growing societal disapproval of anti-homosexual prejudice. What part of this is too complicated for some of y'all to grasp?

Brian and I are thinking of making this a verboten subject along with religion, for largely the same reasons -- it's never going to go anywhere.

[Swift Wang]

Don't know if anyone has read about this before. Honestly I didn't read through all the posts to see if anyone mentioned this but... I remember reading that someone married one of thier pets. Not in this country but somewhere in Europe or Africa.

I think it was in Holland or some country like that where a little boy married a puppy also.

[Krylo]

Mash: Even though I probably don't really have a vote, I'll second... or third... or whatever, the idea of banning this topic.

It's been done into the ground, and, as you said, it never goes anywhere.

It's hard for me to even take it seriously when I see one of these threads now, as is evidenced by my first post or two here. But then someone says something that annoys me, and I get dragged into the same arguements I've played through ten billion times before.

I'm sure most everyone who frequents any forums with 'intellectual debates' (and I use the term loosely) has similiar feelings.

Granted... there is a part of me that says maybe... someday... someone might bring up something new to the debate that I haven't heard/argued, but then I remember the debate has been going on for years with no change.

[Archbio]

Hooray for verboten topics!

I just have to respond when I see it discussed, it's a compulsion

[Dragonsbane]

yeah, I know how Krylo feels........its like arguing with IHMN on the Battle Royale thread...

[MasterOfMagic]

Religion shouldn't get too interested about gay marriages. What the hell does it matter if they wed to ppl of the same gender? It's just stupid. Some times I'm ashamed of my religion. Besides 'true believers' should believe that god is what they first said: Lovinng, cairing etc. Why would such a person (or what ever) not allow gay marriages? This hole argument about animals or gay marriages, or what ever, is just stupid.
Ok, I was trying to stay out of this thing (I hate discussions like this), but you've dragged me in. Christians (or at least the ones against gay marriage) beleive that gay marriage is wrong b/c it is a preversion of what God intended it to be; between a man and a woman. There is plenty of evidence of that intention in the Bible. Someone said something earlier about Jesus not saying anything about gays in the New Testament. That was simply b/c, back then, he didn't need to. Everyone new(believed) that was a detestible act, and if you were caught, you were probably stoned to death.

Now, this is not my opinion on the matter. I have not formed one yet, and hope that I never have to. I'm simply explaining what I have heard from my Sunday School teacher.

EDIT: Mash, I to wouldn't mind it at all if this topic was to be banned (meaning I think it should be). All it does is make people flame. Not each other, but flaming none-the-less.

EDIT 2: Just noticed this:
(like the twelve commandments statue a while back)
It is The Ten Commandments, not the 12. Not offended, just informing.

[Krylo]

Everyone new(believed) that was a detestible act, and if you were caught, you were probably stoned to death.Just for your information... Jesus was around during the mid-roman empire. Shortly after the time of such people like Caligula, who, if memory serves (if it doesn't, then it was another emperor), had a troop of young men and women (like 13ish) follow him around to perform sexual favors on each other. Both male and female. The romans also were known for having bisexual orgies, and for having a good amount of lesbianism. They also had legalized prostitution, and, in fact, it was considered a RESPECTABLE job.

Your sunday teacher either didn't know history, or was lying.

I'd point out specific bible verses that conflict with that reason for him not mentioning it new testament (as that he DID mention it, but not in the purpose of condeming it), but I REALLY don't want to start a religious debate. A history one is ok, though.

[DreamWalker]

Marrying animals!?!?!?!? Maybe there is hope I can marry my right hand now. I mean if you can marry a animal why not. And that way nobody can make fun of me for masterbating. I can just say Im making love to my wife.

[MasterOfMagic]

It was also dealt with in the Old Testament. I don't know verses, I just have a general understanding of the bible. Note: you can't just take one verse out of the Bible and use it to justify things. If you did, you could justify doing just about anything. You have to use it in context.

Also, I doubt those people were jewish. That is the main portion of the people he preached to.

I agree about the religous debate thing too. Always a bad thing.

I'm really weird about not wanting to piss people off (unless they provoke me), so I want to state agian: I have no opinion on this issue. The only reason I posted here was that it seemed to be all one sided. No one was looking at it from a different point of view. (at least, not that I saw. correct me, please, if I'm wrong. I will promptly leave)

[Trev-MUN Hates AOL]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to see if an arguement has actually come up before parodying it? Just a thought...

Uh... hasn't it? I'm pretty sure that legalizing gay marriages and making churches do them upon request has been one of the several camps in this whole argument.

I wish the people who get their panties in a wad about "governments forcing churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies" would get that through their goddamn heads. NOBODY'S ASKING FOR THAT. All that's wanted is full legal recognization of homosexual marital unions, equal to that already granted to heterosexuals. Either churches will come around or they won't, although I suspect they eventually will in the face of growing societal disapproval of anti-homosexual prejudice. What part of this is too complicated for some of y'all to grasp?

... Ooh. Zing. I know that was directed to me, Mashiro. Thing is, I recalled reading the news and reading all about the ruckus in San Fransisco and allowing gay marriages to be done. No, I don't know the details, not until you cleared it up anyway.

But quite frankly, I still stand behind my ideas on the matter, seeing as they ARE NOT born out of anti-homosexualism or whatever, but on the grounds of trying to redefine unions as they are stated in law, so that there WON'T be any ordering churches around ... (edit: And to ensure equality for all unions. Can't forget that. )

It is The Ten Commandments, not the 12. Not offended, just informing.

... oops. Where the hell did I get TWELVE from? *is a Christian too*



... but yeah, these things tend to go round and round.

[Osterbaum]

The only reason I posted here was that it seemed to be all one sided.

I wasn't being one sided. I always try to consider the other points of view, but right now I dissagree with most of them. Just what church do you belong to? Just asking out of interest.

Where the hell did I get TWELVE from? *is a Christian too*

Twelwe apostols.

It's hard for me to even take it seriously when I see one of these threads now

True. There are a lot of these kind of debates. I'm not jsut taking about these forums now, or even internet. I've debated these a hundred times, but the reason I do it again and again is because I form new opinions and because if there are poeple that I havent seen debating the issue then it's good to get even more opinions. I just don't get tired of debates...But thats just me.

As to banning this topic...It wouldn't work. Closing the thread and telling people to continue privatemessaging could work.

[Trev-MUN Hates AOL]

Just one other thing... someone here said that marriage should be taken out of the hands of religion - marriage is a religious ceremony, an institution. It was born in religion. It has a religious context. This is what I understand it to be. Someone else is welcome to poke me in the eye with a cotton candy spear if I'm just BSing and I have no clue as to how marriage ceremonies began.

I support the whole redefining unions as it is stated in law so that there is no angsting over gay/straight/animal marriage rights - removing the religious context within the law itself, see. Like I said earlier, I think that makes it equal to anyone, giving benefits regardless of the type of union it is - even if it's just a union in law without any religious marriage having happened.

... I don't think I'm making sense. Am I making sense?

[Archbio]

It wasn't born in religion. I know I said this before, and it's the only thing I'm going to repeat (in case I'm not supposed to be posting in this).

Marriage in medieval Europe was gradually associated with religion from the IXth century and it was totally absorbed into the church by the XIIth century. That's when the church was trying to include all aspects of life and society into itself (I think that's when they also tried to be more inclusive toward women too). That's when the sacrament of matrimony was invented. I'm just going by memory, but I think that's pretty much it: in Europe, marriage existed as a legal, civil institution from the Justinian Code in the VIth century, in the roman empire, to the XIIth century, in the middle-ages. Before the Justinian Code the tradition was there but not as tightly regulated. And that's where we got it from.

[MasterOfMagic]

I wasn't being one sided. I always try to consider the other points of view, but right now I dissagree with most of them. Just what church do you belong to? Just asking out of interest.
Didn't mean you in particular, meant the thread as a whole.

I'm Methodist, which is why I've heard this alot in Sunday School. We'll probably have a schism b/c of this debate. Plus my teacher likes discussing things happening in the news alot.

[Trev-MUN Hates AOL]

It wasn't born in religion. I know I said this before, and it's the only thing I'm going to repeat (in case I'm not supposed to be posting in this).

Marriage in medieval Europe was gradually associated with religion from the IXth century and it was totally absorbed into the church by the XIIth century. That's when the church was trying to include all aspects of life and society into itself (I think that's when they also tried to be more inclusive toward women too). That's when the sacrament of matrimony was invented. I'm just going by memory, but I think that's pretty much it: in Europe, marriage existed as a legal, civil institution from the Justinian Code in the VIth century, in the roman empire, to the XIIth century, in the middle-ages. Before the Justinian Code the tradition was there but not as tightly regulated. And that's where we got it from.

... Oh.

Well, then! Pardon me, I need to go find a rock to plant my face in. I have made a complete dumbface out of myself :( .

(Though I wonder if marriage was a part of other religions ... ? Hey, whoever mentioned Hinduism, could you clear that up? )

[Lucas]

Sorry for the late reply, but i've been busy.

My main argument wasn't actually in your abstract krylo, because i didn't have an argument. in fact, i said i don't care if homosexuals marry, so your entire "this is a yes or no" thing is bunk; i said yes. i pointed out that religion shouldn't be the focus of these debates, since there's better fodder to cover, and that marrying animals isn't evil. you stated that not only christianity has marriage as a counterpoint to... something, and that's pretty much my point: marriage in other cultures allows people/animal marriages.

example: a 6 year old girl in india was wedded last year to ward off bad karma because of certain hindu-pop culture traditions. not only was she 6, but the groom was a dog. i mentioned this before.

so why is animal marriage wrong? no one's actually answered that.

[Atronflame]

Did they kiss? Oh god, please tell me the 6 year old girl did not kiss the dog. :(

[MasterOfMagic]

Think about it Lucas, a human. Marrying an animal. *shudders* Just b/c someone has done it doesn't make it right. Anyway, we can't prove that it is wrong, all we can do is go with what our conscience (or lack of one) tells us. So, this entire argument is pointless.

[Lockeownzj00]

I don't think Lucas is a furry and I don't think any of us would normally want to marry an animal. But please explain why it is wrong. This is ultimate neutrality. If you want to make a point, think about why you are.

As lucas said, there has so far been no reason stated why marrying animals is wrong or evil. I think it is simply the way our society's traditions have a hold of you.

[Mashirosen]

It's wrong because an animal is incapable of giving informed consent to any kind of sexual/romantic relationship, and even if they were, there's no way for them to clearly communicate it to us. It's like having sex with a severely retarded person -- it may not exactly be rape, but it's not that far off from it either. (Please, surprise me by not responding with "OMG WAT IF U HOOKED A DOG UP 2 A MACINE TAHT WUD LETTED IT TALK".) Which leads to the question of why exactly a person would seek out that kind of encounter or relationship instead of one with an equal in the first place.

[Lockeownzj00]

Hey, not that I'd do it, I just think people are jumping the gun; it's the same reason the initial reaction to gay marriage is "EW!" I was just trying to look at it more abstractly.

[MasterOfMagic]

Well, i don't consider gay marriage to be anywhere near animal/human marriage. At least with gay marriage they are the same species and *add in Mash's point here* (b/c I was to stupid to think of it earlier).

[Mashirosen]

Hey, not that I'd do it, I just think people are jumping the gun; it's the same reason the initial reaction to gay marriage is "EW!" I was just trying to look at it more abstractly.

Oh, I'm not trying to say you're for it -- it's just that bestiality is such clearly, deeply mentally unhealthy behavior that comparing it to homosexuality at all is kind of...off, even if it's only for the purposes of entertaining an argument to its fullest extent.

I disagree that people are appalled by it for the same reasons they object to gay marriage, though, and that's putting the taboo element of animal sex aside -- I don't think even the most foamy-mouthed homophobe could argue that gay marriage isn't a fully consensual partnership of equals.