Heyworth: Gay Marriage will lead to marrying horses

[travelinman67]

At face value, the premise for overturning the hetero limitation (founded principally on the precept that heteros form contractual relationships with the intent of procreating), to shifting to a precept of marriage as a contract between two people (humans), incapable of procreating, then opens the door to allow marital contracts between any two consenting parties. Since inanimate objects cannot express consent (incapable), then their "consent" is moot. But nothing prevents more than two people from consenting, so any "law" excluding contracts beyond the "two person" codification, become legally untenable (indefensable).

Bet me.

Nice backpeddal, Ass Jack.

How am I backpedaling, Julia?

[UNHWildCats]

If there is a heaven and hell, some of you right wing wackos are going to be in for a rude awakening.

[D1B]

Nice backpeddal, Ass Jack.

How am I backpedaling, Julia?

Ehhh, you just repeated your previous statement without directly addressing Dane's comment.

Funny, a conk like you, comfortable with government telling us who we can marry.

[Appaholic]

How am I backpedaling, Julia?

Ehhh, you just repeated your previous statement without directly addressing Dane's comment.

Funny, a conk like you, comfortable with government telling us who we can marry.

Hey, don't question TMan's conservative principles. I know he doesn't believe in government intervention....(well, outside of government regulating what we can put in our bodies, farm subsidies, water rights, insuring protection for corporations as people, taxpayer-funded roads onto public lands for extraction industry access & bringing treason charges upon anyone who questions the dubious reasons for military intervention overeseas....other than those items, he's all about less government...)

[Ibanez]

If beastiality is wrong, does that make Doggy Style immoral?

[danefan]

Ummm...TMan?...I noticed you hadn't responded to Dane's post regarding the legality of the Mass law? And if Mass can specify two persons in their law, why couldn't AZ, NC, La, etc, etc? just wondering....

At face value, the premise for overturning the hetero limitation (founded principally on the precept that heteros form contractual relationships with the intent of procreating), to shifting to a precept of marriage as a contract between two people (humans), incapable of procreating, then opens the door to allow marital contracts between any two consenting parties. Since inanimate objects cannot express consent (incapable), then their "consent" is moot. But nothing prevents more than two people from consenting, so any "law" excluding contracts beyond the "two person" codification, become legally untenable (indefensable).

Bet me.

Your slippery slope arguments is somewhat legitimate to the point of polygamy. But you get wrung up consistently when you (and others) stretch it to the point of beastiality.

This whole same-sex marriage issue goes to the underlying reason for the existence of any "laws" in society. Laws are intended to merely enforce the mores of the time. Our culture has evolved from the point of the initial enactment of marriage laws. As the realities of marriage have evolved from its original purpose of procreation to its current form of companionship, so too have our laws which sanction marriage.
Its one of the great things about our system of laws. It allows for scoiety to amend them when they feel its necessary. We are clearly in the transition period and as soon as the baby-boomer generation moves along, I can almost guarantee that same-sex marriage will become legal in every state. Talk to some folks in their early 20's. No one cares whether gays get married or not. Its a complete non-issue.

Despite your slippery slope argument, polygamy does not hold the same level of acceptance as same-sex marriage. Could it in the future? Sure it could. And if it does the law will change accordingly. But I can guarantee that our society will not just accept polygamy because gays are granted the right to marry. And that is what you are implying.

[BlueHen86]

At face value, the premise for overturning the hetero limitation (founded principally on the precept that heteros form contractual relationships with the intent of procreating), to shifting to a precept of marriage as a contract between two people (humans), incapable of procreating, then opens the door to allow marital contracts between any two consenting parties. Since inanimate objects cannot express consent (incapable), then their "consent" is moot. But nothing prevents more than two people from consenting, so any "law" excluding contracts beyond the "two person" codification, become legally untenable (indefensable).

Bet me.

Your slippery slope arguments is somewhat legitimate to the point of polygamy. But you get wrung up consistently when you (and others) stretch it to the point of beastiality.

This whole same-sex marriage issue goes to the underlying reason for the existence of any "laws" in society. Laws are intended to merely enforce the mores of the time. Our culture has evolved from the point of the initial enactment of marriage laws. As the realities of marriage have evolved from its original purpose of procreation to its current form of companionship, so too have our laws which sanction marriage.
Its one of the great things about our system of laws. It allows for scoiety to amend them when they feel its necessary. We are clearly in the transition period and as soon as the baby-boomer generation moves along, I can almost guarantee that same-sex marriage will become legal in every state. Talk to some folks in their early 20's. No one cares whether gays get married or not. Its a complete non-issue.

Despite your slippery slope argument, polygamy does not hold the same level of acceptance as same-sex marriage. Could it in the future? Sure it could. And if it does the law will change accordingly. But I can guarantee that our society will not just accept polygamy because gays are granted the right to marry. And that is what you are implying.

Great post.

[andy7171]

No bandle it's not funny, it's creepy.

[bandl]

I'd never marry a horse. But I'm not gay either. So I'm not sure if I can speak knowledgeably on this topic.

[travelinman67]

...As the realities of marriage have evolved from its original purpose of procreation to its current form of companionship, so too have our laws which sanction marriage.
Its one of the great things about our system of laws. It allows for scoiety to amend them when they feel its necessary. We are clearly in the transition period and as soon as the baby-boomer generation moves along, I can almost guarantee that same-sex marriage will become legal in every state. Talk to some folks in their early 20's. No one cares whether gays get married or not. Its a complete non-issue.

Despite your slippery slope argument, polygamy does not hold the same level of acceptance as same-sex marriage. Could it in the future? Sure it could. And if it does the law will change accordingly. But I can guarantee that our society will not just accept polygamy because gays are granted the right to marry. And that is what you are implying.

It's not the issue of "acceptance" that's in question. Many people really don't give a squat who or what a person loves and seeks companionship with. And those that do won't have a legal footing. It's strictly the legal argument (constitutionally). If the law is amended to eliminate the "procreation" element, then who's to say whom or what a person chooses to enter into a binding contract. If they wish to marry their melon-baller, and provide for the care of that mellon-baller (someone needs to rub mineral oil on the wooden handle after their spouse passes), then that seems "acceptable" per the non-creation marital law.

[travelinman67]

I'd never marry a horse. But I'm not gay either. So I'm not sure if I can speak knowledgeably on this topic.

Being gay isn't required to love a horse: i.e., Marry a mare.

...check out those gams...

















(...nag, nag, nag...)

[Appaholic]

I'd never marry a horse. But I'm not gay either. So I'm not sure if I can speak knowledgeably on this topic.

Being gay isn't required to love a horse: i.e., Marry a mare.

...check out those gams...

I know her.....

[Appaholic]

If they wish to marry their melon-baller, and provide for the care of that mellon-baller (someone needs to rub mineral oil on the wooden handle after their spouse passes), then that seems "acceptable" per the non-creation marital law.

Which I'm fine with considering most businesses are now considered "people"......

[travelinman67]

Being gay isn't required to love a horse: i.e., Marry a mare.

...check out those gams...

I know her.....

...in 15 years, it'll all be cottage cheese.

[blueballs]

If beastiality is wrong, does that make Doggy Style immoral?

Only if you miss the ash tray you have on her back and burn her with your cigar ash...

[travelinman67]

...this is soooo wrong.



JSO...jump in anytime to add some sanity to this mess.

[danefan]

...As the realities of marriage have evolved from its original purpose of procreation to its current form of companionship, so too have our laws which sanction marriage.
Its one of the great things about our system of laws. It allows for scoiety to amend them when they feel its necessary. We are clearly in the transition period and as soon as the baby-boomer generation moves along, I can almost guarantee that same-sex marriage will become legal in every state. Talk to some folks in their early 20's. No one cares whether gays get married or not. Its a complete non-issue.

Despite your slippery slope argument, polygamy does not hold the same level of acceptance as same-sex marriage. Could it in the future? Sure it could. And if it does the law will change accordingly. But I can guarantee that our society will not just accept polygamy because gays are granted the right to marry. And that is what you are implying.

It's not the issue of "acceptance" that's in question. Many people really don't give a squat who or what a person loves and seeks companionship with. And those that do won't have a legal footing. It's strictly the legal argument (constitutionally). If the law is amended to eliminate the "procreation" element, then who's to say whom or what a person chooses to enter into a binding contract. If they wish to marry their melon-baller, and provide for the care of that mellon-baller (someone needs to rub mineral oil on the wooden handle after their spouse passes), then that seems "acceptable" per the non-creation marital law.

Go back to my Mass. example. These laws aren't being amended to some open-ended ambiguous form of marriage. They are being amended to include language which defines marriage as that occuring between two consenting adults, regardless of gender.

Sadly, D1B still would not be able to marry his melon baller in Mass.

[Appaholic]

If beastiality is wrong, does that make Doggy Style immoral?

Only if you miss the ash tray you have on her back and burn her with your cigar ash...

[Appaholic]

I know her.....

...in 15 years, it'll all be cottage cheese.

...or glue.

[89Hen]

Animals can't consent.

You just don't listen to them.

[89Hen]

If there is a heaven and hell, some of you right wing wackos are going to be in for a rude awakening.

[grizzaholic]

...in 15 years, it'll all be cottage cheese.

...or glue.

dog food

[BlueHen86]

...this is soooo wrong.



JSO...jump in anytime to add some sanity to this mess.

Let me know when that happens.

[AZGrizFan]

...As the realities of marriage have evolved from its original purpose of procreation to its current form of companionship, so too have our laws which sanction marriage.
Its one of the great things about our system of laws. It allows for scoiety to amend them when they feel its necessary. We are clearly in the transition period and as soon as the baby-boomer generation moves along, I can almost guarantee that same-sex marriage will become legal in every state. Talk to some folks in their early 20's. No one cares whether gays get married or not. Its a complete non-issue.

Despite your slippery slope argument, polygamy does not hold the same level of acceptance as same-sex marriage. Could it in the future? Sure it could. And if it does the law will change accordingly. But I can guarantee that our society will not just accept polygamy because gays are granted the right to marry. And that is what you are implying.

It's not the issue of "acceptance" that's in question. Many people really don't give a squat who or what a person loves and seeks companionship with. And those that do won't have a legal footing. It's strictly the legal argument (constitutionally). If the law is amended to eliminate the "procreation" element, then who's to say whom or what a person chooses to enter into a binding contract. If they wish to marry their melon-baller, and provide for the care of that mellon-baller (someone needs to rub mineral oil on the wooden handle after their spouse passes), then that seems "acceptable" per the non-creation marital law.

How does the melon-baller "consent"? How does it sign the "binding contract"? How does the horse?

Seriously....you're just doing this for shits and grins, right?

[travelinman67]

It's not the issue of "acceptance" that's in question. Many people really don't give a squat who or what a person loves and seeks companionship with. And those that do won't have a legal footing. It's strictly the legal argument (constitutionally). If the law is amended to eliminate the "procreation" element, then who's to say whom or what a person chooses to enter into a binding contract. If they wish to marry their melon-baller, and provide for the care of that mellon-baller (someone needs to rub mineral oil on the wooden handle after their spouse passes), then that seems "acceptable" per the non-creation marital law.

How does the melon-baller "consent"? How does it sign the "binding contract"? How does the horse?

Seriously....you're just doing this for shits and grins, right?

Neigh...

...I'm in love with Harriet. She takes care of me. It's appalling that in America, the civil rights of gays and glove lovers can be hatefully trampled on by the Christian bigots. I hope they all die.





My love, Harriet Hippo


...she understands my needs.