Outrageous? Or logical? Does it matter?
Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 3 months ago to Culture
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 5.
I suspect this man is very shrewd. What he may be trying to do is set legal precedence that would be used for or against legal gay marriage when its argued in the courts. Either that or he's one seriously strange cookie.
What does the mouse think of this?
I do not find the idea of some very liberal state legalizing bestiality hard to believe. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if one of those states legalized pedophilia. I would be completely disgusted but not surprised. I honestly believe it is only a matter of time before something like that is floated as acceptable.
I doubt that bestiality would garner approval status from any state level political body anytime soon. That said, again, those who desire to participate in such behavior, even though illegal, I'm sure are able to do so. Heck, when I was in the army and stationed down at Ft. Bliss the donkey shows in Juarez were infamous.
But as I said, the issue comes about by proffering benefits on those that the state has deemed worthy. Take that away and handle the legal and financial issues via contract. That puts everyone on the same footing.
I have to point out that there are relationships that while they are accepted today that would have been illegal in the past and if we allow states to define these relationships as they see fit. Some of those relationships will be illegal when people cross state borders. I can imagine some state making it legal to marry an animal and another state maintaining the current legal definition of bestiality. So if that couple crossed the border they would then be subject to arrest and whatever penalty is set forth.
Currently pastors across the country have been warned by the IRS and legal counsel that they cannot speak about politics from their pulpit and in a few states like CA, speaking from the pulpit against homosexuals can be considered a hate crime. Business are being forced to provide services even when the religious beliefs of the owners demand that they not.
Soon the religious ceremony of marriage will mean nothing anyway and since this clod's sexual "Friend" (the current level of tolerance demanded for a marriage) is his computer - why not?
As it is today, there's nothing to prevent any number of people living together and engaging in whatever relationships they choose to. The only issue is with a legal stamp of approval on such. Remove the stamp and leave people be to choose what is right for them.
Though I have to wonder how states would address different definitions of marriage. For instance say Texas defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman and California defines marriage as between anyone or anything or any number of them at any age. They get married in California and then later move to Texas, some of the possibilities from California would be illegal without even addressing the marriage issue.
Why can't I marry my horse? Why can't I marry 18 people? Why can't my horse and my dog get married? Etc...
Government just redefining a legal term(marriage) on a whim is yet another sign of the stupidity of our nation
The Government shouldn't be recognizing "marriage" at all. They can recognize civil unions at whatever level (if they're given the authority to do so, which is zero at the Federal level), but not marriage.