Should other types of marriage be legalized

[Gaztopian]

I didn't know that. That's some backwards, sick **** and anyone engaging in it is nothing but a worthless drain on humanity.

That is inaccurate. Bestiality being legal in some parts of the U.S is a legal technicality in the sense that there's no deliberate legislation proscribing it, which is understandable, as it didn't occur to the lawmakers that a day might come in which they'd have to specifically criminalize the act. For instance, Florida criminalized bestiality in 2008 I believe following a series of sexual escapades with horses.

 

[Riveroaks]

Gay marriage was legalized awhile back. In 50 years, there will probably be talks of recognizing civil unions between siblings and cousins and then in another 50 years, polygamy. Do you think any of the other types of marriage should be legalized other than gay marriage?

Any marriage under age 18 should not be allowed.

The health risks of marriage between siblings and cousins make it foolishness and it should never be allowed.

Polygamy is an Arab thing and it should not be allowed.

 

[roguenuke]

Fantastic, as that debunks the core of your argument against bestiality throughout this subject. Since consent is needed only for certain affairs and it's culturally dependent, you have no basis for requiring consent to sanction bestiality, whether in the form of sexual intercourse with an animal or even giving marriage to it. Meaning, you need to come up with a non-legal argument against bestiality, as you just undid it.

So, roguenuke, why don't you approve of goat ****ers?

We have the only basis needed, that people want it in a democracy, and having laws against it further a legitimate state interest (in animal welfare as well as keeping people safer from being attacked by animals they are trying to bugger).

 

[maquiscat]

Oh you, maquiscat, pedant extraordinaire, though I'm not sure whether you qualify as a pedant at this point, as your prose has the appearance of pedantry while being gibberish in totality.

I'm sorry if you are incapable of expanding you mind beyond the current and encompassing the potential future to discover the true base of a principle. As another example, should there be developed another process that would be able to transfer a ZEF from a womb to either another womb or an artificial womb, and can be performed with equal or less trauma that an abortion, does a woman still have a right to an abortion, i.e. termination of the ZEF, or is her only right the ending of the pregnancy, if the father wants the ZEF transferred to his care? Now please don't answer this as far as debating the principles and such. It is merely an example of forward thinking to determine the true base of a principle. If you wish to see what was previously debated on this the thread is somewhere in the abortion group. I'd advise against necro-ing it. Or you can start a new thread in that section and we can discuss it there.

 

[maquiscat]

Polygamy is an Arab thing and it should not be allowed.

You are so woefully ignorant and uneducated. Polygamy has been practiced in every society at one point or another in their history. Sometimes it has been polyandry, and most times it was polygyny. Today, even in the US, polygamy is still being practiced, albeit not always as a legal entity. I myself am in a polygamous marriage, having one husband and two wives. Two of us are Christian and two of us are Wiccan, and none of us are Arab. There is a large poly community in the US, although not all go as far as marriage, or marriage only occurs with some of the relationships.

 

[maquiscat]

We have the only basis needed, that people want it in a democracy, and having laws against it further a legitimate state interest (in animal welfare as well as keeping people safer from being attacked by animals they are trying to bugger).

I have no problem with people applying for Darwin Awards by buggering animals. Any principle behind such laws would be the consent ability issue and not the safety of the human.

 

[TheGoverness]

Any marriage under age 18 should not be allowed.

The health risks of marriage between siblings and cousins make it foolishness and it should never be allowed.

Polygamy is an Arab thing and it should not be allowed.

That's pretty ignorant.

Polygamy has been practiced all around the world, by all types of people. Not just Arabs.

 

[Southern Dad]

Endorse bestiality, no. Accept it as legal, I can accept. I don't have to agree with something to accept it as legal.

You do realize that bestiality is legal in some parts of the US, right?

And you trying to get a direct answer on such a question is your attempt to try to divert from the subject.

Bestiality is a misdemeanor in the following 19 states (or territories):

Alaska; California; Colorado; Connecticut; Florida; Iowa; Kansas; Louisiana; Maine; Maryland; Minnesota; Nebraska; New York; North Dakota; Oregon; Pennsylvania; Utah; Virgin Islands; and Wisconsin

Bestiality is charged as a felony in these 16 states (or territories) :

Arizona; Deleware; Georgia; Illinois; Indiana; Massachusetts; Michigan; Mississippi; North Carolina; Oklahoma; Puerto Rico; Rhode Island; South Carolina; South Dakota; Tennessee; and Washington

Bestiality is completely legal in the following 18 states, districts, and territories:

Alabama; Arkansas; Washington, D.C.; Guam; Hawaii; Kentucky; Montana; Nevada; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New Mexico; Ohio; Texas; Vermont; Virginia; West Virginia; and Wyoming

 

[Palliative]

seriously?

 

[Deuce]

That's pretty ignorant.

Polygamy has been practiced all around the world, by all types of people. Not just Arabs.

Dude's never heard of mormons i guess.

Or read a bible, now that I think of it.

 

[roguenuke]

I have no problem with people applying for Darwin Awards by buggering animals. Any principle behind such laws would be the consent ability issue and not the safety of the human.

While you may not agree, safety of humans is considered, to at least a certain extent, as a legitimate basis for laws. While many would argue that the Darwin principle should apply in such situations (assuming no harm to the animals), that isn't how everyone views it.

 

[maquiscat]

While you may not agree, safety of humans is considered, to at least a certain extent, as a legitimate basis for laws. While many would argue that the Darwin principle should apply in such situations (assuming no harm to the animals), that isn't how everyone views it.

I am all for the safety of humans from any agency outside of themselves, or when their own actions also impact on others. And yes one could argue that all actions impact on others, but reality is that we place limits on whether that impact is significant or not. But I have no problem with letting fools, including myself, harm themselves when they are the only true victim.

 

[roguenuke]

I am all for the safety of humans from any agency outside of themselves, or when their own actions also impact on others. And yes one could argue that all actions impact on others, but reality is that we place limits on whether that impact is significant or not. But I have no problem with letting fools, including myself, harm themselves when they are the only true victim.

I'm not really arguing that it should be significant only that it is a consideration. Personally I don't have any sympathy for someone killed trying to screw an animal.

 

[kaiserwilhelm]

You would allow homosexuals to be grouped with serial killers and child rapists? If you know a man who pays his taxes, volunteers at his church, school, and community center, runs a charity and is a model citizen and you find out he's gay would you still insist on it being a capital offense. Homosexuals are not evil people. Hitler had the same view of homosexuality and we see where that went. Homosexuality is not worthy of death or life in prison. Your argument relies on the bible. I will not try to degrade the good book since I myself am a Christian but if you are hell bent on using it read a little part of it called, The New Testament. Jesus said love all men. Jesus taught love so why do we hate. Also there is a little thing called the Division of Church and State. It says that religion should play little to no part in government. There is no legal reason to put homosexuals in the same circle of serial killers and child rapist killers.

 

[TheGoverness]

And Jesus himself never actually stated his opinion on gay marriage or even homosexuality.

The 'man lying with another man is a abomination' is taken straight from Leviticus, but there's also a whole bunch of other rules in that very same book that the majority of Christians don't follow, like not eating shellfish, wearing two different fabrics, and not to plant two different kinds of crops in the same field.

 

[CLAX1911]

And Jesus himself never actually stated his opinion on gay marriage or even homosexuality.

The 'man lying with another man is a abomination' is taken straight from Leviticus, but there's also a whole bunch of other rules in that very same book that the majority of Christians don't follow, like not eating shellfish, wearing two different fabrics, and not to plant two different kinds of crops in the same field.

This abomination thing is a little hypocritical. Abomination means something to be hated. Jesus commanded us to love one another, so he forbade the law in Leviticus.