Gay vs. 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. We wanted to ask what your thoughts were…

For more on this and other amazing truths, tune-in to The Smoking Gun TV, premiering this Monday and Tuesday, 10:30PM EST, on Court TV.

[Black Dog]

It is crazy. Crazy and stupid. The idea that gay marriage would somehow open the door to bestiality is an reductio ad absurdum fallacy and a scare tactic devoted to making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. It's bull, of course.

There's no evidence gay marriage would lead to legfal besitality or incest or any of the other bugbears anti-gay types trot out.

[Reverend Blair]

No evidence at all. The radical religious right likes to use scare tactics. They started with, They'll turn your kids gay," and have moved on to the animal angle. These are the same people who tell us that jerking off will make you go blind and sex other than for procreation is wrong. They are a dangerous bunch, preferring superstition over science and mind control over freedom.

They've taken over the Republican party in the US and own the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives here in Canada.

[CanadianPatriot]

It is crazy. Crazy and stupid. The idea that gay marriage would somehow open the door to bestiality is an reductio ad absurdum fallacy and a scare tactic devoted to making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. It's bull, of course.

But is it bull? I know right now it seems absurd, however we have constantly been pushing the moral envelope. 50 years ago homosexuality was something detestable and wrong and now its almost completely accepted. Who´s to say that bestiality won´t become something that people push to accept a few years down the road? When does the moral decay of our society stop????

[remrem]

Hey,

Suppose gay marriage does push the envelope? So what, so be it, it's not gay people's fault that people may seek change on their fight for equality. Comparing the situations is obviously ridiculous and incites further bigotry that shouldn't be acceptable in a democratic society. The plain fact is that gay people are getting the shaft by Christian conservative aka Bush and Co. and don't deserve to be. Honestly I'm appalled by John Kerry's stance as well, a masked liberal but truly moderate democrat doesn't have the first clue on what equality is, he's just desperately trying to make as many people happy as possible, to lock in the presidency, and it's not working.

Remi

[Hawk]

Hey,

Suppose gay marriage does push the envelope? So what, so be it, it's not gay people's fault that people may seek change on their fight for equality. Comparing the situations is obviously ridiculous and incites further bigotry that shouldn't be acceptable in a democratic society. The plain fact is that gay people are getting the shaft by Christian conservative aka Bush and Co. and don't deserve to be. Honestly I'm appalled by John Kerry's stance as well, a masked liberal but truly moderate democrat doesn't have the first clue on what equality is, he's just desperately trying to make as many people happy as possible, to lock in the presidency, and it's not working.

Remi

The comparison is not so ridiculous as you claim, as was stated earlier 50 years ago same-sex marriage would be completely unacceptable yet today you are called a bigot if you dont accept them. Is that tolerance on either side?

Not to mention, if I am a bigot for denouncing homosexuality are you a bigot for denouncing child pornography? Or for denouncing poligamy? Or for denouncing rapists? Where does your 'tolerance' become no longer tolerant sir and how will you ensure the envelope isn't pushed any furthur?

As one of my favorite authors (Terry Goodkind) puts so clearly, "... it proliferates until anarchy wears the robes of tolerance and understanding"

Are you willing to sacrifice everything for tolerance? Are you really so enlightened as you believe your views are, or are you simply being intentionally ignorant?

[remrem]

Hawk,

You were a bigot 50 years ago and you're a bigot today, I guess the times haven't changed that much.

Child pornography is an act that leads to illegal activity with adolescents that haven't fully sexually or mentally matured. Homosexuality is an act between two consenting adults that have had the opportunity to age to a point where they have sexually and mentally matured (excluding dysfunctional cases gay or straight)

Rape is a forceful act that involves brutality and violence, homosexuality does not.

Well unfortunately polygamy is not an issue that our society really needs to address because there isn't outcry for it. Pertaining to being gay, it is shown that it is normal, genetic in many cases, and we're finding that a good portion of the American population is gay. If, in our democratic society, 80 percent of people were for polygamy and there was an outline to legalize it, I wouldn't see the problem. The factor we face today is equality, if men and women are allowed to be married, then men and men - women and women should be allowed to marry as well, with the same financially and federal rights.

Remi

[August1991]

Marriage is best understood as a long term contract signed between two people. It is impossible for an animal to sign a contract.

I don't mean to be legalistic about this; I'm just applying common sense. Could you hold an animal liable for breach? How?

Incidentally, the same logic applies in the case of children.

The idea that gay marriage would somehow open the door to bestiality is an reductio ad absurdum fallacy and a scare tactic devoted to making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken.

I agree with BD. I can understand though how some might prefer the term "civil union" and keep the word "marriage" solely for opposite sex unions.

[ft.niagara]

Certainly, is homosexual marriage is to be made legal, then polygamy should be allowed. And if it is allowed, then group marriage should be allowed. The possibilities are endless.

[KrustyKidd]

There's no evidence gay marriage would lead to legfal besitality or incest or any of the other bugbears anti-gay types trot out.

Agreed. The fundamental change occurs when marriage is taken away from the union of a man or woman. You can throw in the issue of procreation and whatever using barren women to make the point but the main focus of marriage is still the same.

August made a great point in the legal consent issue, however, the point that I make is that a door is opened that those who invented marriage never intended. Now, marriage is up for grabs to whoever wants a piece of it - gays, dogs, cats, fire hydrants.

[Big Blue Machine]

Marriage should be between a man and a woman. Society has always been based on that. If that falls, whats next, multiple marriages at once between 4 people? I'm also against people getting marriage beliefs for wed-lock.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It is crazy. Crazy and stupid. The idea that gay marriage would somehow open the door to bestiality is an reductio ad absurdum fallacy and a scare tactic devoted to making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. It's bull, of course.

But is it bull? I know right now it seems absurd, however we have constantly been pushing the moral envelope. 50 years ago homosexuality was something detestable and wrong and now its almost completely accepted. Who´s to say that bestiality won´t become something that people push to accept a few years down the road? When does the moral decay of our society stop????

Probably when social conservatives develop a sense of intellectual integrity ... i.e. when hell freezes over (so to speak).

I have rarely heard such utter bumf as has accumulated on this thread. There a blindingly obvious ethical and public policy differences between same sex marriage and bestiality, polygamy, and other horrors some fertile imaginations seem so quick to conjure.

[Black Dog]

But is it bull? I know right now it seems absurd, however we have constantly been pushing the moral envelope. 50 years ago homosexuality was something detestable and wrong and now its almost completely accepted. Who´s to say that bestiality won´t become something that people push to accept a few years down the road? When does the moral decay of our society stop????

First: homosexuality is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "completely accepted".

Second: the reason homosexuality is no longer considered "detestable and wrong" is because we have recognized that it is not a choice or a disease and should not be stigmatized as such. Nor should the behaviors of consenting adults be subject to legal prohibitions.

Bestiality and pedophilia lack the element of consent required by akll socially acceptable forms of sexual conduct. I don't esee that changing.

[takeanumber]

" Certainly, is homosexual marriage is to be made legal, then polygamy should be allowed. And if it is allowed, then group marriage should be allowed. The possibilities are endless."

I find it funny that ppl are still using arguements with induction.

So, using the same logic, if we allow people to listen to music, then they'll have the right to listen to it on the bus on the walkman, and if that's granted, then they'll have the right to play it really loud at home, and if that's granted, they'll be allowed to play it really loudly outside on their patio at night, and if that's granted, then they'll be allowed to blare it a 3am, and they'll have that right to do it.

So let's not allow anybody to listen to music, because it'll result in everybody being kept awake at night.

Now, if induction sounds stupid applied to this arguement, good. It shows that you understand induction.

And it illustrates just how idiotic arguing by induction truly is.

After all, if we allow somebody to listen to music, the possibilities are ENDLESS!

[KrustyKidd]

So, using the same logic, if we allow people to listen to music, then they'll have the right to listen to it on the bus on the walkman, and if that's granted, then they'll have the right to play it really loud at home, and if that's granted, they'll be allowed to play it really loudly outside on their patio at night, and if that's granted, then they'll be allowed to blare it a 3am, and they'll have that right to do it.

Mariage has been the union of a man and woman for thousands of years, with the reasoning that they are the core of the family unit. Now that political corrctness has come along this has changed for the first time in thousands of years.

In order to make your example correct, we would have to have a guy get on the bus with a group of accompanying drumists from an ancient civilization, they would have to play it loud wherever they go in your town rather than at a ceremony in a remote region of the world. They might even do it during a private sacred homo wedding ceremony.

Main point is that with this law the world has changed, period. For the better or worse? Who knows, I just know that it opens all sorts of doors as thousands of years of previous custom have been changed. If people don't understand that one and the opportunities it leads to for further change then thier imagination lacks.

[takeanumber]

Oh, alright.

So we're going by that logic are we?

Well then, you know, genocide has been a way of life for thousands of years for mankind.

Therefore, we should keep it, forever and ever, and enshrine it and worship it. Just because it's been around for thousands of years.

And rape during wars? Why YES! It's been around for thousands and thousands of years too. So let's just tear up that Geneva Convention right now! Because if we start having any sort of honour in wars, what's next?

Pretty soon, it'll get to the point where you can't even carpet bomb a refugee camp!

And what about slavery? That's certainly been around for thousands upon thousands of years! What are we doing banning it?

And social mobility? My god! The Greeks would be spinning in their graves! We should do away with that to.

Huge mistakes all.

So, using your logic, there should be no progress in society and things that have been a fact for thousands of years shouldn't be altered.

Bravo! Logic is your strong point!

[KrustyKidd]

Well then, you know, genocide has been a way of life for thousands of years for mankind.

I don't think that genocide can be construed as a normal process in life. Unless of course you are Stalin or Pol Pot. You can't be though as your English is pretty good so you must be another of the handfull of Genocidal Maniacs that have and still grace our earth, hardly mainstream society.

Logic?

So, using your logic, there should be no progress in society and things that have been a fact for thousands of years shouldn't be altered.

No, I ask that you read my post and challenge you to show where my logic led you to believe that.

Again, using my logic ......

I just know that it opens all sorts of doors as thousands of years of previous custom have been changed. If people don't understand that one and the opportunities it leads to for further change then thier imagination lacks.

IOWs, what has been normal for thousands of years has changed. It opens doors and the opportunity for a lot of social norms to be changed drasticly in ways that those who wanted this change cannot predict. Some have said that a man may not marry an animal because that animal may not give it's consent. LOL, is that the new criteria? It used to be simply a man and a woman, now it is consent. However, in some societies, consent is not given by the woman so that throws that criteria to the winds. So, I guess we are into a whole new ball game where the possibility to marry yourself or your child whatever, the fire hydrant down the street is all a possibility. Unless of course one is so closeminded to think that this is the end rather than the still unfolding adventure.

Bravo! Logic is your strong point!

Thank you. Your's sucks big time.

[RB]

Firstly I don’t believe the marriage vows are working because > 50% of the time:

1) it is at divorce we shall part

2) if you are broke we part

3) in sickness you are on your own

4) it is mostly for richer otherwise no marriage

5) when the money goes so does the marriage

6) the marriage is join between crowds, as it is common for spouses to seek pleasures elsewhere

7) if the man cheats the women gets 80% of the wealth

8) when the women cheats she gets 80% of the wealth

9) also you can count on hearing of your financial ruin and see your demise forever in the case of child support

well I can go on with this…man I can even be convince that marriage is not a happy state

Well there is the procreation theory of the marriage and other lawful benefits, but I wanted to talk about the sexual benefit of the marriage.

I wanted to say that man can experience and emulate the SAME sexual feelings, urgency, responses and the eventually orgasm as he would with the fire hydrant, other males, the Venus flytrap, inflatable doll, with an animal as with a woman.

But I believe that even though man can experience these and I hope I am allow to say “fetish” (animal and sorts)pleasures, that the final actualisation of fulfilled contentment is between a man and woman as they are equal in their union.

This is because this “god” has mimicked himself and allowed the worldly man and woman to procreate visions of him as he had created man and woman but allowed the same to experience the creation with sexual activity.

If we can say that:

Married people enjoy greater sexual fulfillment:

Research shows that sexuality functions best within the confines of marriage and that married people are most likely to report they are "extremely" or "very satisfied" with the physical and emotional parts of their sex life."

Originally published in the September 1999 issue of the Canadian Citizen magazine.

and that if there is ONLY ONE basis of marriage and it is to enjoy greater sexual fulfilment and gratification and because now marriage don’t work anyway, then I think we should allow gay and animal marriage as it is a step towards the eventual contentment

[takeanumber]

You said it Kidd.

And yes, genocide dates well back before Stalin and Hitler.

For somebody who knows oh-so-much about life thousands and thousands of years ago, you sure don't see past it.

It was your logic Kidd, that since something has been going on for thousands of years, it should stay the same.

I noticed that you didn't address rape, slavery, and the Geneva Convention.

But I suppose those are harder to defend using your past logic.

You're retreating. It's nice to see.

[Black Dog]

Mariage has been the union of a man and woman for thousands of years, with the reasoning that they are the core of the family unit. Now that political corrctness has come along this has changed for the first time in thousands of years.

Marriage was (and in some places, still is) an institution where women are considered property. Marriage was/is a transaction. In contemporary western society, the theory behind marriage is a partnership of equals. So the idea that marriage hasn't changed in the past thousand (or even 200) years is a fallacy.

Some have said that a man may not marry an animal because that animal may not give it's consent. LOL, is that the new criteria? It used to be simply a man and a woman, now it is consent. However, in some societies, consent is not given by the woman so that throws that criteria to the winds.

In our society (the one currently struggling with the whole gay marriage issue) consent is a factor in marriage and sexual relationship. So the argument against child, animal or fire hydrant marriage stands.

[KrustyKidd]

It was your logic Kidd, that since something has been going on for thousands of years, it should stay the same.

I think I made the point that marriage is somewhat more common than genocide with this comment:

I don't think that genocide can be construed as a normal process in life. Unless of course you are Stalin or Pol Pot.

Maybe you can conduct your own poll to see how many mass murderers you know compared to the number of married people. That should set you in the right direction as to what is considered normal and abnormal behavior and can be construed as traditional. Get back to me.

Black Dog

Marriage was (and in some places, still is) an institution where women are considered property. Marriage was/is a transaction. In contemporary western society, the theory behind marriage is a partnership of equals. So the idea that marriage hasn't changed in the past thousand (or even 200) years is a fallacy.

Not too often you and I agree Black Dog, this is one of them.

KK

However, in some societies, consent is not given by the woman so that throws that criteria to the winds.

Black Dog

So the argument against child, animal or fire hydrant marriage stands.

No, we both determined that frequently consent is not the criteria, therefore, scince the other main criteria of marriage (opposite sex) has been thrown out the window, why would this consent issue not be as well scince it is fairly common not to have it in many societies. Are non-consentual marriages honored when immigrants come to Canada? Yes.

[Black Dog]

No, we both determined that frequently consent is not the criteria, therefore, scince the other main criteria of marriage (opposite sex) has been thrown out the window, why would this consent issue not be as well scince it is fairly common not to have it in many societies. Are non-consentual marriages honored when immigrants come to Canada? Yes.

Under Canadian law, consent is required for any sexual relationship. It's far more fundamental to the integrity of the institution of marriage than the gender of its participants. Why would anyone want to get rid of consent as a criteria anyway? We want to move forward, not backwards.

[KrustyKidd]

Why would anyone want to get rid of consent as a criteria anyway? We want to move forward, not backwards.

Forgive me but I wasn't confining my thought process to Canada. Rather human society as a whole.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

Under Canadian law, consent is required for any sexual relationship. It's far more fundamental to the integrity of the institution of marriage than the gender of its participants.

Amen, KK, Amen.

Equality itself should not rely on gender, nor race nor creed. We still have a ways to go, mind you, but I believe Canada is moving sluggishly in the right direction.

[Big Blue Machine]

I think Canada should oppose same sex and abortion.