From gay marriage to polygamy?

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea

originally posted by: Ghost147
Let's see, on one end you have a natural order where other animals are eaten by other animals.

It's natural order to breed dogs who can't survive on their own because people find them cute and like to make them do tricks for treats? It's natural order to breed dogs who can't give birth naturally because their body structure has been so distorted, and they struggle to breathe because we like the way their scrunched noses look?

Nope, and I never said it was. But simply because some people choose to make new breeds of dogs, ride on a horse, or teach it tricks does not justify having sexual relations with one or manipulating it into pleasuring you (which is technically rape). I actually fully go against selective breeding for aesthetic purposes. Just as you stated, it can have very horrid effect on the animal itself.

Let me ask you this... Why is it exactly that you are so interested in fighting for the right to have sex with animals and your direct relatives. Hiding a secret are we?

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
You're naive if you think that happens only by tricking. Anyone with a leg knows that sometimes the pet initiates.

That was a direct response to your example. Nevertheless, a simple instinct to hump anything that moves does not therefore justify an understanding of a monogamous, married relationship between two beings. "Ive got to have sex" and "I want to be with you for the rest of your life because we have an emotional connection" are two very different things.

Or are you "That naive" to think otherwise?

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Then it should be easy to provide a specific boundary. Tell me... at what age are you prepared to say with absolute certainty this person CAN consent... and absolute certainty that person CAN'T consent... and set it in law.

There are no absolutes with biology. Everything is a matter of statistical values when referencing specific mutations. So all we can go on is when the general populous reaches a point of maturity, rather than go on every single case.

There are some individuals who's brains develop in there early teens to a maximum level, and some that never develop to that level no matter what their age. The majority is what we would then need to focus on to be reasonable.

From a biological position that age would be at least 20 years old. that's in accordance to the brain becoming fully mature, of course we could look further into the matter of judgement and when the specific points within the brain that allow for judgement to be accurate to fully develop, which would be slightly lower. Which means 18 is a pretty reasonable number.
Source

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
Same holds true for women as they age. At what point are you prepared to say that a woman can not have a child because they chance of birth defect is too great?

Again, the chances do increase slightly, but not to the point that it is 50% at the beginning. In a perfect world there would be such regulations in order to prevent such chances of defects to occur. At the moment, however, it is merely sometimes viewed as irresponsible.

Once again, your reasoning is absurd and ridiculous

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea
If there is no reproduction, then there should be no argument from those who support gay marriage as well.

I actually agree with you on this.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I honestly don't have a problem with polygamy between multiple consenting ADULTS.

Polygamy is tainted from Mormons marrying multiple young girls to old men.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Doom and Gloom

This is the most tired argument anyone can have, it's laughable at best anyone actually thinks that Same-Sex Marriage could lead to Animal-Marriage

Who are you to tell anyone who they can love?

Wasnt the gay mantra that no love is greater or better than any other love and deserve equal rights?

Now you think homosexuals are fine but thats not?

Hypocrite

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Doom and Gloom

This is the most tired argument anyone can have, it's laughable at best anyone actually thinks that Same-Sex Marriage could lead to Animal-Marriage

Who are you to tell anyone who they can love?

Wasnt the gay mantra that no love is greater or better than any other love and deserve equal rights?

Now you think homosexuals are fine but thats not?

Hypocrite

Gay marriage was more about legal equality than it was about love.

Gay couples had issues with life insurance, health insurance, next of kin, hospital visitations and all other sorts of legal issues.

A person loving an animal doesn't have those problems...there is not equality issue because an animal is not a human. With the Gay marriage issue, he had two groups of humans having different rights.

Anyone trying to compare gay marriage to animal/human marriage is just logically way off the radar.

a reply to: BinaryGreyArea

Heterosexual non-incest couples also result in birth defects, and not all incest couplings result in birth defects. Older women and men also increases the chance of birth defects. Shall we put an age cap to prevent the "risk" there too?

This is true, and I have known a few people in my life who were the product of incest. They were perfectly normal, and well adjusted people. But unfortunately, that is not the norm, and as Ghost has demonstrated, the chances of birth defects are higher than any other group, as well as a higher potential for emotional and mental problems. I think incestuous couples would do well to consider the harsh reality any child they bring into this world could encounter, and choose to do the right thing. As should any non-incestual couple that run a higher risk of such problems.

a reply to: kruphix

Whose logic? This isn't about laws and rights, it is about a person's freedom to live free and love who/whatever they want, without holy than thou people preventing them from doing what makes them happy.

a reply to: kruphix

Gay marriage was more about legal equality than it was about love.

Then why was the slogan "love wins"?

Gay couples had issues with life insurance, health insurance, next of kin, hospital visitations and all other sorts of legal issues.

Im sure those in incestuous and "animal friendly" relationships will have the same problems since its not legal...

A person loving an animal doesn't have those problems...there is not equality issue because an animal is not a human. With the Gay marriage issue, he had two groups of humans having different rights.

how insensitive is that? You dont know their struggles, who are you to judge them?

Anyone trying to compare gay marriage to animal/human marriage is just logically way off the radar.

Same thing was said about gay marriage compared to straight marriage.........

a reply to: Klassified

If they are willing to accept those risks then who are you to dictate whether or not they can have children?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: whyamIhere

Cheapens? How? Are polygamists not entitled to be happy either? Why are more freedoms a bad thing?

I didn't mean Polygamists.

I was referring to the lame Animal/Human thing. We are not Sumerians.

Actually, the more I think about it...The better my Dog looks.

originally posted by: Doom and Gloom
a reply to: Klassified

If they are willing to accept those risks then who are you to dictate whether or not they can have children?

Who are they to make that kind of decision for an as yet unborn child who cannot make that determination for itself? I think it would be quite cold and heartless of me to bring a child into this world with say... my mother, knowing the chances are good that child will suffer with defects as well as emotional and mental issues throughout their life.

If you have to pull out the animal-sex and incest card, then you have already lost the debate.

The animal issue falls on it's face right away because an animal cannot intelligently represent itself in a court of law or sign/understand a legally binding contract.

Incest is illegal because it has some biological repercussions that are damaging to society. Even plants and animals have evolved anti-incest properties. Homosexuality does not even come close to being in the same arena.

So the arguments are not very good, and quite lame.

originally posted by: BinaryGreyArea

originally posted by: introvert
Incest is illegal because it has some biological repercussions that are damaging to society. Even plants and animals have evolved anti-incest properties. Homosexuality does not even come close to being in the same arena.

Gay or sterile incest couples. Provide the legal reason to deny them marriage.

Equal application of the law. If we allow gay or sterile people to enter an incestuous marriage, you would be discriminating against heterosexuals that are able to procreate.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Then why was the slogan "love wins"?

Because every movement needs two motivators...the logical/legal motivation and the emotional/moral motivation. The logical/legal motivation is the core of what the movement wants to accomplish. The emotional/moral motivation is the driving force behind the movement.

If a movement lacks one of those, it's not going to succeed.

Im sure those in incestuous and "animal friendly" relationships will have the same problems since its not legal

But there is no equality issue. The legal issues with gay marriage were equality issues...which are protected by the Constitution.

how insensitive is that? You dont know their struggles, who are you to judge them?

It's not insensitive at all. Someone can love their dog all they want...but they can't enter into a legally binding contract with them because the dog is not a human.

Same thing was said about gay marriage compared to straight marriage

Only by the illogical.

If people can't see the difference...that is their own lack of reasoning.

a reply to: introvert

Incest is illegal because it has some biological repercussions that are damaging to society. Even plants and animals have evolved anti-incest properties.

You mean some have evolved "anti-incest properties". Incest is still widely practiced in the animal kingdom.

a reply to: BinaryGreyArea

So it's better to force those people to suffer the legal hardships because of some other people they have no control over?

What legal hardships? Incest is illegal.

Why doesn't their homosexuality override their relatedness when it comes to figuring out where to draw the line?

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not.

Why not just make it illegal for an incest couple to do anything but adopt?

Again, equal application of the law.