PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     Animal Marriage?
       What next...

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
altehase

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm taking a neutral stance on this issue for one thing. But was just wondering...what about people who want to marry an animal?
Is that OK? What about these peoples civil rights? Don't they get a say so? Will homosexuals support them? I'm not talking animal cruelty, what if the animal didn't seem to mind?

How is it that people are putting it..."Who are you to say what I do?"

Or "It's none of your business!"

Will the goat lovers have a so-called "choice"?.  Just curious, since this is the issue that will probably be next. Will gay people point fingers and make rude comments to an individual and his sheep?

I would imagine they wouldn't have the right to say anything. Will this be considered a persons right. It now seems it should be. Right? Don't get mad at this post PLEASE! What I've said here makes 100% sense.

The goat lovers are Americans as well, and just want the same rights as anyone else. Just wondering what the general populous thinks of this.
Before anyone judges anyone else and their "preferences"...be prepared...it's gonna get worse This issue will make for some great TV...don't you agree?



-------
Der Altehase...
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 8:51 PM on May 18, 2004 | IP
sailonsilvergirl

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I suppose you COULD marry an animal, If it were Mr. Ed.  

Marriage must be consentual.  If the animal can give it's consent....


 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 01:18 AM on June 29, 2004 | IP
btimsah1

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Beastiality,

Pedophila,

Poligamy,  are not sexual orientations.

Homo, hetero and bisexuality are orientations which should all be allowed the right of marriage if they so choose.

-Robby

(Edited by btimsah1 7/29/2004 at 01:20 AM).


-------
"You're Bias Decides You're Opinion About Everything".
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 01:19 AM on July 29, 2004 | IP
fallingisfun

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This argument (which I've heard too many times) is by far the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.  Animals can't sign the divorce papers, duh!

No, seriously, marraige is a contract under law soooo, in order to enter into marraige, you must be legal to enter into a contract.  Animals therefore forfeit their placement in this argument.


-------
Don't take life so seriously, you won't make it out alive.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 10:53 AM on August 5, 2004 | IP
JustineCredible

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's about as logical as was over a hudred years ago when they tried that with women and the right to vote.

How on earth one leads to the other is rediculous.

Hey, why not say that if gays can marry it will somehow advercely effect heterosexual marriages!
Or that if two guys/gals can marry what about three or four?


The issue is TWO CONCENTING ADULT HUMANS>

Stick with it.


-------
"All those who believe in physcokenetics ~ Raise My Hand!"
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 11:01 AM on August 11, 2004 | IP
altehase

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yup...I got the response I figured. I love it...LOL! Gotta love the so-called "closed mindedness". So much for the debate aspect of it. The responses amount to nothing more than "I'm not stupid, you're stupid".

So, with that in mind, allow me to respond in a way that the opposition usually does. Keep in mind, I'm not taking sides. JUST...proving a point.

First of all, the person that made the claim that beastiality, pedophilia and poligamy are not sexual orientations? Please don't post again unless you think about what you're going to say before you actually say it. By pure definition of the words...they are orientations. Whether you agree with them or not. One thing is also for sure, you are NOT a Supreme Court judge. So your claim did nothing more than make you look like one of those nutcases that stand on street corners and yell obscenties as people walk by. Stay away from this post or go back to school. Sorry to have to come across as so firm

Ok, here's the way you'd hear it. The same way we're ALL hearing it on the TV everyday...

---

"What about the animals right? So you're now against animal rights? You hate animals? Who are YOU to say what I do with my animal?"

---

"I've seen animals make their mark on paper before. I've even seen an elephant paint pictures. Animals are perfectly capable of signing contracts. Who are you to say otherwise? Animals agree and disagree just like humas do. You're not a zoologist. Don't tell me what they can or cannot consent to. You're just being prejudiced and closed minded."

---

"So you're saying that I'm a lesser human being because my mate is not human? Wow...you also must be a racist." (everyone else plays the race card, so I guess for the purpose of this debate I will as well)

---

All this starting to sound familiar? I hear it all day long. And NOT just on TV. I'm just really curious...thats it! This issue is totally serious to me. I'm NOT just out to prove hypocrisy on either side. I want to actually HEAR a REAL debate about this issue. If both sides are wrong, prove it.

If one side is right, the other wrong, once again...prove it. Is someone lying? Don't try to argue useless legal rhetoric. Homosexuals claim that the laws should be changed in favor of their rights. Cool. Then so can those in favor of animal marriage. And YOU...have to support them. It only makes sense. Otherwise YOU...are now on the side of evil. Right?

If not, prove me wrong. I challenge anyone. I just want to know. I just want everyone to be happy. Oh, and by the way, don't try to use the "not logical" excuse. Thats just a childish way of avoiding the issue at hand. It also has nothing to do with the purpose of this debate. Go somewhere else. I'm not debating RPG games and hobbits. My examples ARE relevant and are 100% applicable. Sorry if the truth hurts...try opening your mind.

Now lets hear from someone who knows how to take a deep breath and count to ten...THEN type. It's easier than it looks. Just pay attention;)

(Edited by altehase 9/17/2004 at 02:44 AM).


-------
Der Altehase...
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 02:38 AM on September 17, 2004 | IP
TonyAdrianGwenTom

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is the most absurd thinking ever. Excuse me, but two people who love each other regardless of sexual orientation, is not the same as wanting to have a relationship with an animal or object. We are talking about human beings here, TWO human beings who love each other dearly. Someone who wants to wed there pet fish or wooden table, than that is a total different situation. If you want to marry something other than another human, than you really do have a problem & need to seek help. Because first of all,love and relationships is fueled by actual chemicals in our brains such as pheromones, a form of non-verbal chemical communication that only two human beings can experience. Also phenylethylamine, oxytocin to name a couple others that play an important role. It would be impossible to love your wooden chair in the sense of "Romantic Love" because there isn't no natural chemistry unlike what two human beings can experience. The belief that same-sex marriages will cause animal/object marriages is absolutely invalid & false and is only a statement used by the many "anti-gay/marriage" supporters. Homosexuality has been around ever since the beginning of time & a person has a pre-determined sexuality at birth. Homosexuality is a real natural attraction to a same-sexed homosapien. But have you ever seen anyone claim to be tablesexuals, radiosexuals, or fishsexuals? NO! WHY?  Because it is impossible due to the natural chemistry that can only take place between two human beings, and plus your sexuality is already determined at birth. So if you claimed to be a radiosexual, it would be just that, "a claim", nothing more. That is why we don't have such a thing, and can't, because you simply can't be born radiosexual & fall romanticly in love with radios & have a relationship & marry them. Love all depends on natural chemicals in our brains that only human beings can possess & feel for one another. Human Love is a human trait for only Humans.  Period.


-------
"Let's get one thing straight, I'm Not!" "A real love survives, A Rock Steady Vibe!"
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 8:09 PM on November 26, 2004 | IP
Wrathchild

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

> Homosexuality has been around ever since the beginning of time

You acknowledge the presence of homosexuality in ancient times; however, this is a self-defeating argument.  Obviously you imply that human to animal sexuality did not exist, which one can almost certainly conclude that other deviance must also have existed.  So, it's not entirely impossible that ancient man had a better-than-man's-best-friend relationship with animals.

> & a person has a pre-determined sexuality at birth.

Really?  I am unaware of any reputable and conclusive study which has indicated this to be the case.  Although it's widely speculated that this is one possible explanation, it can't be argued as fact.  


Now, you (incorrectly) equate animals to objects.  While in the property sense that under laws animals are property and can be sold at will, and thus are in a sense an object, you make absurd abstractions which go far beyond the scope of what is being discussed in this thread.  For instance you suggest human to electronic device sexuality, or human to table sexuality.  These are inanimate objects.  Animals are not.

Of course it *sounds absurd* to suggest marriage between a human and an animal.  And I don't believe it was the intent of this thread to make it sound less absurd.  The point is that if we recognize one form of sexual deviance, how can we rightly exclude another?

(Side note
And before I go any further, I'd like to say something as I'm anticipating that some people may feel the need to lash out at me for classifying homosexuality as a sexual deviance.  In classifying it as such I don't intend to offend anyone.  Plain and simple, homosexuality is a sexual deviance.  And it's not because I do or don't like or approve of it, but because it differs from commonly-accepted social norms..  Anywho, I apologize for *my* deviance (heh) from the issue at hand.

(Back on topic
> Love all depends on natural chemicals in our brains that only human beings can possess & feel for one another

Also, you conclude that love is merely a chemical interaction  between humans.  While romantic love and sexual desire are fueled by hormones, you neglect the entire psychological bond.  In fact, what you describe sounds much more like *lust* than *love*.  I have little doubt that anyone, hetereosexual or homosexual or otherwise, who has had a significant other in his respective category would deny the necessitative quality of a healthy psychological relationship.

But, I suppose I don't fault you for this oversight.  Today in American culture (and I suspect quite a few others, but naturally can speak only of my own) it seems to be the trend to equate love to sex.  Why?  Well, love has such a wonderful connotation.  Phrases like "let's make love" sound much more harmless than "let's go f*ck in the other room."   In reality, sexual interaction without the psychological correspondence is lust, not love.  However, Americans would (gasp) feel so dirty to realize how much they've lusted for others.

I myself don't suggest that we should wed animals, but I think altehase has a point.  At what point do we say that one has deviated too far from social norms so that we may not acknowledge him?  It's not an argument for or against homosexuals, homosexuality, or homosexual marriage.  The point is that we need to consider the floodgate effect that such a monumental change could incur.

While I'm not aware of any major group of people advocating human-animal sexuality, there have been groups advocating other deviant forms of marriage.  For instance, the Mormon Church (although they have since changed their stance on the issue) used to allow polygamy.  Now if a group of people wholeheartedly believe that polygamy is right and all members of the union are legal, consenting adults, how is this offensive or wrong?   If you object to this, it's because of your own views and those imposed by your respective society.

It all comes down to where do we draw the line?  Currently as it stands, we do not recognize under law deviant forms of marriage.  If you are proponent of homosexual marriage, yet you are willing to castigate deviant forms of marriage such as polygamy and polyandry then you, my friend, are no more "open minded" than Christians who do likewise to homosexual marriage.  In fact, if you are a proponent of one and not the other, one might even find the word "hypocrite" more applicable.

The only completely "open minded" way to define marriage would be "a legal union between two or more human entities insomuch that the state recognizes the mutual dependence among the cooperating parties and the state recognizes the right of the resulting marital unit to be endowed with all rights granted to marital units under the presiding legislative scheme."   Phew, now that's a mouthful.  And quite a leap it is from the current statutes.

And, bear with me here, even *that* could be construed as not "open minded" because it carries the constraint that all parties must be human (which I'm sure you're sitting there right now rolling your eyes at me, but look at the thread you're reading.)

Anyway, I am disappointed by the number of people who failed to see (despite the fact that altehase basically said as much in the initial post) that the point of this thread IS NOT TO PROMOTE MARRIAGE BETWEEN HUMANS AND ANIMALS..

The point (well my point, at least) is that "openmindedness" means not judging *anyone* else by your values.  If you're a propenent of homosexual marriage but you lambaste the "closed minders" who disagree with you, then by your own definition you are "closed minded" because you are judging these people on their views which happen not to coincide with yours..  No matter how "open" your mind is, someone will find a more "open" way to look at things.

So next time you have the urge to think of someone as "closed minded" think about you're implying.

And what the heck, I might add that although TonyAdrianGwenTom does not believe animals possess any form of conscious thought, some scientists are beginning to think otherwise.  Chew on this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/11/1107_TVsheep.html

Anyway, that's all and have a nice day!


-------
"Knowledge is power." -- Sir Francis Bacon
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 06:49 AM on January 6, 2005 | IP
Jaxian-

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wrathchild, I do agree with your opening statements that homosexuality being around since the beginning of time not  being a reason to allow same-sex marriage.  I also agree science cannot prove that homosexuality is predetermined at birth any more than it can prove that it is not (though I would not make the mistake of implying that this has anything to do with whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry).

I will disagree with many of the other things you wrote.  First let me explain that you misinterpreted something TonyAdrianGwenTom wrote He said:

> Love all depends on natural chemicals in our brains that only human beings can possess & feel for one another

You interpreted this statement to mean that Tony thinks love and sexual attraction are the same thing.  That interpretation of this statement is a big stretch at best.  To interpret it in that manner, you would have to believe that when Tony says "love", he is referring actually to "lust" or sexual desire.  Although you may get the impression that he is referring to lust instead of love by reading what he said about chemicals, it seems very unlikely that he would be claiming animals are incapable of experiencing lust.  It far more likely that when he said love, he meant love, and that he considers love to be the result of a chemical occurance in the brain.  There is sparse evidence to suggest otherwise.  In this light, I consider your criticism of Tony and society's use of "love" to be misplaced on this issue.

You also wrote that animals are not the same as objects, and I absolutely agree with that.  But under the law, animals are absolutely not the same thing as humans.  The idea of giving animals the same rights as humans is very much unrelated to the idea of same sex marriage.  If you can say that my belief that any set of humans should be allowed to marry each other implies that animals should be granted those same rights, I can just as easily say that your belief that everyone should be allowed to vote implies that animals should also be allowed to vote.  Your belief that animals should not be allowed to kill and eat humans implies that humans should not be allowed to kill and eat animals.  Your belief that humans should be allowed to enter into a contract implies that animals and humans should be allowed to enter into a contract (provided the animal "doesn't seem to mind" as altehase put it).

The truth is that animals are treated very differently under the law than humans are, and I can't claim that you believe animals should be allowed to vote simply because you believe all humans should be allowed to vote.  By the same note, it does not make sense for you to claim that I believe animals should be allowed to enter into marriage simply because I believe humans should be allowed to.  That's a completely different debate, but I think you'll find few people who are of the mindset that animals deserve all the same rights that humans have.

You move on to classify homosexual relationships as "deviant" because they differ from that which society calls the norm.  You later imply that deviant sexual behavior does not warrant the same rights under the law.  I will argue against both of those statements.

First, if "deviant" is defined as that which the society calls the norm, then whether homosexual behavior is deviant depends on what we call "society."  I can think of many cities in which homosexual behavior is acceptable by almost all of the inhabitants.  So on the city level, homosexual behavior could be said to be deviant in some places but not in others.  What if we make society bigger?  What if we put it on the state level or country level?  Is it deviant then?  I still argue that it is not.  Even on the state level, I would imagine that in some states there are more people who think homosexuality is accpetable than than unacceptable.  But this begs the question how much of a society needs to believe that a behavior is not normal before it becomes deviant?  50.1%?  It seems somewhat inaccurate to sum of the opinions of an extremely divided society by representing the beliefs of whichever side has a majority as the beliefs of the society as a whole.  Considering these points, I do not see enough reason to accept your declaration that homosexual behavior is deviant from what society considers normal or behavior.

I will also argue that even if you still consider homosexual behavior "deviant", this is not a morally acceptable reason to restrict the rights of those deviants.  Should society deem it deviant for one of its members to chose a religion different than their own, are they justified in restricting that person's rights?  Should society deem it deviant to speak out against a war they dislike, are they justified in taking away the rights of any individual who does so?  Should society deem it deviant to eat beans or play baseball or perform some other activity that brings no harm, are they morally justified in restricting the rights of people who take part in those activities?  Of course they are not.  Allowing people who engage in harmless deviant behavior while still providing them the same rights that every other individual has is precisely the thing that makes a nation free.  Let the people choose their lifestyle, their religion, and who they love, and don't take away their rights because of it.

On this note, I will move to your comment about a floodgate effect because if the debate over marriage ends up on a ban of same-sex marriage, we are opening a far larger floodgate.  If the government is allowed to take away the rights of people not because they are harming anyone but because of a moral opinion or religious belief, we are putting ourselves on a track for the destruction of freedom everywhere.  If the government can take away the rights of same-sex couples, they can certainly take away the rights of flag burners.  They can continue by taking away the rights of atheists, and maybe Muslims too.  They might move on to take away the rights of people who speak an extreme viewpoint, or maybe just a viewpoint that the government considers extreme.  They might move on to take away the rights of those who speak out against a politian or against a war.  Maybe they'll take away the rights of people to eat certain foods they consider bad, and we'll all probably have to raise our children the way the government deems proper.  The banning of same-sex marriage is the banning of freedom, and it will give the government a clear sign that they are free to crush freedom any time a slight majority doesn't like it.  If the majority agrees with a war, you'd better not speak out against it.  If a majority disagrees with a war, you'd better not speak out in favor of it.

Is it unrealistic to assume that banning same-sex marriage will lead to the destruction of some other freedoms?  Maybe.  But it is far less realistic to assume that allowing any two humans to marry each other will open the doors for animals to be a part of marriage.  There are already people fighting in favor of taking away freedoms; there is virtually no one who believes humans should be allowed to marry animals.

It may also be worthy to consider that the harm brought about by a restriction on freedom is far greater than the harm brought about by allowing humans to marry animals.  Restrictions on freedom strip people of happiness and equality and punish people even though they have harmed no one.  This sort of restriction can be extremely harmful.  But is there harm in allowing a human and animal to marry?  There might be a little, but is that harm really a big deal?  Very few people would even be affected by that sort of legalization, as far as I can tell.  

I should also point out here that you have mentioned no reason that a human marrying an animal should not be allowed.  I pointed out that humans and animals are not and should be given the same rights, above, but before you read that, did you actually have any reason to believe that this should not be allowed?  Or was your only reason that such a relationship is disgusting in your mind?  Think on that, for it is up to those who wish to restrict freedom to explain the reasons why it must be restricted.

Regarding your comments about drawing a line, I can sort of understand what you are saying, but I feel that I should point something out:  If we only allowed couples of the same-sex to marry instead of only allowing couples of the opposite-sex to marry, we would be no closer to allowing humans to marry animals than we are today.  The only way in which allowing same-sex couples to marry could be considered to bring us closer to humans marrying animals is that it would be expanding the number of people who are allowed to marry.  Keeping this in mind, I certainly advocate moving that line forward, but I only advocate moving it forward as far as it makes sense to do so.  I can list all of the reasons that it makes sense to move the line to include all pairs of human beings.  I can list out the ways that moving the line to this point is a different argument and why accepting one has nothing to do with accepting the other.  If the argument did come up about whether or not we should allow humans to marry animals, I could tell you why I do not think we should allow it, but I will not do so here because it is not related to this issue and I am not as well versed on that subject as I am on the topic of same-sex marriage; it should suffice to say that the differences between same-sex marriage and animal marriage which I explained above make it needless, unrealistic, and inappropriate to allow such a marriage to take place.

Well, my point is that the possibility of humans-animal marriage being brought up as an issue after same-sex marriage passes is not a legitimate reason to disagree with same-sex marriage.  First, it would implies that you do not see anything wrong with same-sex marriage, but you seek to ban it because you see something wrong with a rather unrelated issue.  But you should not hurt people by taking away their rights if you can avoid it.  If you have a problem with humans marrying animals, fight that issue if it ever shows its face; don't fight same-sex marriage instead.  I do think it extremely unlikely that anyone will bring up the argument that people should be allowed to marry animals if same-sex marriage is allowed, but that is only a side-note to the heart of my reasoning that disliking the idea of humans marrying animals should play no part in your decision about whether one human should be allowed to marry another.

I think your comments about having an open mind should be addressed as well.  The way you speak of having an open mind, it sounds like having an open mind means accepting everything and anything.  This is not at all what it means.  Having an open mind suggests that you are willing to judge opinions different than your own carefully and fairly.  Having a closed mind means that you are not willing to give the opinions of others any sort of consideration; you immediately assume that they are wrong.  It is possible to have an open mind and accept homosexuality, and it is possible to have an open mind and reject it.  I also want to mention that no one here has said that you are not open-minded, it is only you and altehase who seem to be claiming that you were called close-minded.

Regarding Polygamy, although this is a case where the marriage is between humans, not animals, it is again a different issue than same-sex marriage.  Same-sex marriage begs the question: "Should we be restricting marriage based on the gender of the people involved?"  Polygamy begs the question: "Should we be restricting marriage based on the number of people involved?"  These are two separate questions, and I can certainly think of reasons that the answer to the first question is a "No" while the answer to the second question is a "Yes."  First, I will hold that the marriage helps those involved.  The members of marriage are helped not only by over 1,000 benefits granted by marriage but even by the fact that the government does not have laws which suggest that same-sex couples deserve different treatment than opposite-sex couples.  I also claim that there is no harm caused by allowing people of the the same sex to marry.  Though you may disagree with this, that is the topic of another thread, I think.  On the other hand, I can think of plenty of reasons why polygamy might be a bad idea.  First, it will prove unrealistic to extend the benefits of marriage to large groups of people based on the status of only one of the members.  Health care, for example, would have to be provided for maybe ten people because a single person qualifies for that health care.  Certainly we could say that only one member of the marriage gets those health care benefits, but if we start restricting all of the benefits of marriage to only one other person, aren't we essentially creating a marriage of only two members?  Under our current laws, it is probably the case that most members of a polygamous relationship can get the benefits of marriage fairly by simply marrying one other person in that relationship, and they will still have the prestigious title of "marriage."  Based on this reasoning, the semantics problems of polygamy can be avoided by disallowing it, without causing much harm.  If you don't agree with the reasons I would disallow polygamous marriage, that is fine, but I haven't heard any reasons from your side of the table regarding why it should be disallowed.  If you cannot provide those reasons, then you are not justified in claiming that it should not be allowed.  In all, it is absolutely possible that I can agree with same-sex marriage while disagreeing with polygamous marriage because they are two different issues.  Regarding your floodgate effect, take a look at what I wrote above about floodgates, as it pretty much applies for polygamy in the same ways it does human-animal marriage.

Well, I think the most important things I wrote in this post are that that other forms of marriage that you are afraid of are issues unrelated to same-sex marriage.  Also, if you are afraid of a floodgate effect, these other forms of marriage are unlikely and have solid reasons to be disallowed, and they aren't a big deal.  The floodgate I might be opening would only be letting in a stream.  The floodgate you'd be opening could actually drown people.

Hopefully that was an enjoyable read for someone...


-------
-Jaxian
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 1:12 PM on January 6, 2005 | IP
brantheman

|        |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Marriage should be a privledge between two consenting adults who are mature enough and intelligent enough to handle the benefits and issues that come with a marriage.


-------
-Brandon
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 5:30 PM on January 31, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.