Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
all i'll say in response is to suggest that you look through this thread--or any number of others like it--and notice the gap that seperates the content of the (often venomous) posts directed at gay folk from the goal you (and others) assign them above. it does not take a rocket scientist to note the assymetry. but i do notice that conservatives tend to adopt a kind of crackhead legalism when it comes to reflecting on the matter.
|
And that 'crackpot legalism' is exactly what makes me think that your assertion in response to matthew is widely inaccurate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daswig
So where would the line recognizing marriages be drawn? Polygamy? Necrophelia? Pedophelia? Bestiality? Sock and hand puppets? Fark had a thread not too long ago about a woman who came home to find her husband having sex with the family canine. It was reported that what upset her the most was that her husband said he loved the dog more than he loved her. Should he be free to marry the dog?
|
Ability to consent. Dogs don't have it, corpses don't have it, inanimate objects don't have it, and it's generally agreed that children don't have sufficient maturity to take in fully what they'd be consenting to.