Does anyone find this sick?

I don't find it sick at all. I completely concur with it.
 
My problem with the whole deal:

If marriage is NOT between a man and a woman, then its open season. Anything goes. Hope you're ready to open up to incest, beastiality, and etc.

Slightly OT: I love the irony when people scream their support for homosexuals then turn around and scream in outrage at how sick and nasty things like incest and beastiality are :lol:
 
There is a huge difference between homosexual relations and other 'perversions', namely that the activity is between consenting adults.
 
Whats the big deal about incest? If family members want to get married, who cares? If somebody wanted to marry an animal, what do I care? None of my business.
 
Originally posted by superslug
There is a huge difference between homosexual relations and other 'perversions', namely that the activity is between consenting adults.

Incest is between constenting adults. Beastiality only involves one human, so the consent part is irrelevant. (of course, whether or not animals can give consent, and then whether or not their consent is required- are entirely their own discussions)
 
Speedo, I'll fully admit you nailed me on a technicality. However, I simply don't see how recognizing homosexuals leads to endorsement of incest and beastiality. It is possible to draw the line inbetween.
 
The argument I always see is that homosexuals should be allowed to marry because they love each other. Since there is no way to prove the aforementioned love, then it goes to figure that anyone who makes the claim of "being in love" would be allowed to marry.

Why are homosexuals so against having their own thing? Make a law for 'em to have a union or whatever, and slap a label on the front to declare, "THIS IS FOR HOMOSEXUALS." Or hell, even call it "homosexual marriage." But if it is to happen, it must be distinguished from plain "marriage."
 
Incest is a big deal when it concerns parents and children, in which case it's sexual abuse of a child. I suppose nobody denies the difference between "homosexuality" and "abuse".
I don't think that there is a law forbidding relatives to have relationship. Just social pressure.

Bestiality isn't illegal as far as I know (as long as it does not involve bad treatment of the animal). Just social pressure again.


Now, on the social pressure : family love is a different love than romantic one. It's a different kind. Incest is taboo probably because it's felt as a corruption of this love into another one. A defiling of both, in a sense. Not the case in homosexuality.

Bestiality is the same. You can love your pet, but that's another kind of love. Moreover, other animals are unable, like children, to make a reasonable, motivated decision, and can only partially communicate with us, and only on an emotional scale. So it can be seen as abuse.
I can aslo add that it's much more "against nature" than homosexuality. Homosexuality can perhaps be defined as "not natural", as you can't have kids, but bestiality push it much, much, much farther.

Sorry to not equal all these things. Homosexuality is the same form of love than heterosexuality, it's just the sex of the recipient is different.
Bestiality and incest are a twisting of another kind of bond, which can't be seen as the "couple love".
 
Originally posted by Speedo
Why are homosexuals so against having their own thing? Make a law for 'em to have a union or whatever, and slap a label on the front to declare, "THIS IS FOR HOMOSEXUALS."
Yes, perhaps they could be given similarly identifying armbands, their own 'summer camps' and water fountains and restrooms.

I still fail to see how a line can't be drawn after allowing homosexuals to marry. All that is sought is allowing human beings the right to marry one another. The supporters of homosexual marriage are looking to include just that and only that, not incest (which are different laws) and definitely not beastiality.
 
Incest is a big deal when it concerns parents and children, in which case it's sexual abuse of a child.

Child as in their offspring, or as in not of legal age? I thought everything that happened between consenting adults was good & rosy?

Bestiality isn't illegal as far as I know (as long as it does not involve bad treatment of the animal). Just social pressure again.

It ranges from being legal to being a felony in the US depending on the state. IIRC about 80% of the states have some type of law against it.

Now, on the social pressure : family love is a different love than romantic one. It's a different kind. Incest is taboo probably because it's felt as a corruption of this love into another one. A defiling of both, in a sense. Not the case in homosexuality.

Bestiality is the same. You can love your pet, but that's another kind of love. Moreover, other animals are unable, like children, to make a reasonable, motivated decision, and can only partially communicate with us, and only on an emotional scale. So it can be seen as abuse.
I can aslo add that it's much more "against nature" than homosexuality. Homosexuality can perhaps be defined as "not natural", as you can't have kids, but bestiality push it much, much, much farther.

Sorry to not equal all these things. Homosexuality is the same form of love than heterosexuality, it's just the sex of the recipient is different.
Bestiality and incest are a twisting of another kind of bond, which can't be seen as the "couple love".

So because you think that love doesn't work that way means that they can't love that way? That sounds an awful lot like what everyone accuses all of us evil "fag-haters" of.

Yes, perhaps they could be given similarly identifying armbands, their own 'summer camps' and water fountains and restrooms.

Ah yes, the good 'ol paranoia leftover from segregation. Everything must be done together and equal! It doesn't matter if the things are actually distinctly different!

I still fail to see how a line can't be drawn after allowing homosexuals to marry. All that is sought is allowing human beings the right to marry one another.

"Allowing humans to marry one another." Yet you wish to give that right to one group while continuing to deny it to others. A bit of hypocrisy, no?
 
Originally posted by Speedo
Child as in their offspring, or as in not of legal age? I thought everything that happened between consenting adults was good & rosy?
I was talking about the legal part, so I was talking about not being of legal age.
It ranges from being legal to being a felony in the US depending on the state. IIRC about 80% of the states have some type of law against it.
There is law against fellation in some state, after all. It rather prove that it's a not considered universally as illegal anyway.
So because you think that love doesn't work that way means that they can't love that way? That sounds an awful lot like what everyone accuses all of us evil "fag-haters" of.
Not at all.
You asked for a difference between homosexuality and incest/bestiality, I gave it to you.
It's a difference of essence, just as I can love a book, and still not feel any "couple love" toward it. The world "love" encompass a wide range of emotion that have the "attachment" part in common. But the kind of attachment is different. You don't love a friend like you love your child nor like you love God nor like you love your pet nor like you love your creation (as an artist) or the whole human race (as a philanthropist) or your wife.
I say that what make the difference between homosexuality and bestiality/incest is that, at the base, the love is different in essence, the kind of attachment is not the same.
 
Originally posted by Speedo
"Allowing humans to marry one another." Yet you wish to give that right to one group while continuing to deny it to others. A bit of hypocrisy, no?
:confused: Whom am I proposing we deny the right to?
 
Whom am I proposing we deny the right to?

"The supporters of homosexual marriage are looking to include just that and only that, not incest (which are different laws) and definitely not beastiality."

You asked for a difference between homosexuality and incest/bestiality, I gave it to you.
It's a difference of essence, just as I can love a book, and still not feel any "couple love" toward it. The world "love" encompass a wide range of emotion that have the "attachment" part in common. But the kind of attachment is different. You don't love a friend like you love your child nor like you love God nor like you love your pet nor like you love your creation (as an artist) or the whole human race (as a philanthropist) or your wife.

Exactly. This is why I argue that "love" is really irrelevant when talking about the legalities of marriage. If you say that "love" is the only requirement for marriage, then anyone who decides that they're feeling that "couple love", as you put it, would be able to get married.

I say that what make the difference between homosexuality and bestiality/incest is that, at the base, the love is different in essence, the kind of attachment is not the same.

Who defines the type of attachment? It depends entirely on who you ask.
 
Okay, Speedo, so I'm a hypocrite for supporting homosexual marriage, but not marriage within the family or marriage to animals. I'll take that as a left-handed compliment.

I support homosexual marriage because a minority is not being allowed a right of the majority. I don't support incestuous marriage because there's no way to prevent said couples from having children and such children would have their rights to existence curtailed due to crossbreeding. I don't support marriage to animals because my definition of marriage is a union between two consenting adults, which animals are incapable of being.

That is where I draw my line.
 
MarryYourPet.com disclaimer:
MarryYourPet is not responsible for anything, ever. Forever. In fact we're so irresponsible that we frequently talk with our mouths full, don't know the Green Cross Code and often go out without an umbrella. None of us were milk monitors at school.

Although we are happy to marry you, we cannot guarantee that you will happy. MarryYourPet is in no way responsible for anything nasty occurring. If your marriage breaks down or you can no longer stand their smelly breath, it's entirely your own problem. If Fido goes barmy and eats all the china or Fluffy piddles in your trainer, we will only laugh. Don't think of suing us. We have no money and what little we do have goes on salmon filet for the cats on Saturdays and pocket money. (Have you no idea how much pet pocket money has increased in the last six years?)

This union is a marriage of minds and companionship. You have no conjugal rights. You are not allowed to have sex with your pet. (Yes, I’m sure that for the vast majority of us it wouldn’t even cross our minds, but just to make it quite, quite, clear: Perverts are not welcome on this site.

MarryYourPet agrees only to marry you and to try to do fun things. This marriage is not recognised either by the court of law or the church, but by the much higher realm of the great pet god in the sky - Mr. Mustofales. Although a mere cat, he is however, omniscient. Don't think you can fool him, ever. If you feed your pet substandard or (heaven forbid) supermarket's own pet food, he will know and you will suffer later.

If you disclose anything to us - it's ours. If you sleep walk to the post box and accidentally mail us something that you don't want us to have - it's ours. If you don't disclose it, but your Aunty's Uncle or even your Aunty's Uncle's dog does so without your permission - it's still ours. And as it's ours, we can do whatever we like with it. Yep, thatÕs right. We can broadcast, disclose or publish it. We can take your ideas, market and develop them and make a fortune and not even send you a dodgy thank you card. And anything else we haven't mentioned too. But don't worry, we'll only use it for the site and entertainment purposes and possibly won't even want to, but just so as you know in advance that we can.


No animals were harmed in the making of this website, but a couple of managers did get their fingers bitten off and one was humiliated by a parrot. (Although the parrot was singing 'Waltzing Matilda' at the time, we would like to stress that this has nothing to do with Matilda our pet priest.)

Both this site and Pet Heaven are governed by Mr. Mustofales - cats are the most supreme of all animals and anyway he got there first* (the fact that he poisoned all other contestants is incidental). *Further reading: 'Getting one over on the world: My life as a god by M. K. G. Mustofales'.

MarryYourPet has the right to alter its policies at any time, especially if this renders us less responsible. We can also change absolutely anything on the site at any time, and when you visit the site, you're bound by those changes too.
Speedo, the link you provided is not to a website advocating the legal right for people to marry or screw their pets. It's nothing more than a commercial novelty, much akin to buying the name of a star or alien abduction insurance.

Did you even look at their so called marriage certificate? Very few (if any) governments would give legal recognition to that document.

I know you said the link "somewhat" off-topic, but I find it to be utterly off-topic, degenerative of the conversation and tantamount to spam.
 
I think that there should be some kind of homosexual marriages. Gay couples should have most of the rights that heterosexual marriages have: they should be able to inherit from their partner, visit him(her) in hospital or pay taxes together.

But there is one thing I would never give to homosexual marriages: the right to adopt children. Growing up in a family where both parents are of the same sex is practically like growing up with only one parent. Having two dads or two moms is not the same as having a mom and a dad. So if the law is very strict on allowing single people to adopt children, then it should also be strict for homosexual marriages.
 
Speedo, the link you provided is not to a website advocating the legal right for people to marry or screw their pets.

Congrats Captain Obvious. I just thought it was a funny link, hence the " ;) " thrown in there.
 
I like the idea of a life union between gay people.

an official nod from the gov't is deserved. All laws related to marriage and divorce apply to people in a life union.

just don't call it marriage

because it's not marriage..

that's my opinion, and i don't give a rat's arse about anyone else's logical spin on this subject.
 
As long as the rights are there, I don't care what it's called. If the two people want a service to celebrate it, like a traditional marriage, there are people willing to "marry" them. I don't see why there's a big deal about it. Homosexual acts is not the same as murder, as someone hinted to earlier. It's not the same as raping a dog...come on. Common sense people.


These people must also be having nightmares now that Massachusetts court has allowed the union for homosexuals. Oh no, the world is going to end!!!

Just a cover for bigotry. Might as well put the pink triangles back on the people, the yellow Stars of David on others, etcetera.
 
Top Bottom