• Strange question~! There is no connection. And marrying nonhuman animals is absurd.
  • WOW! Anyone who would use that comparison is WAY out there...and in my opinion, needs to stay there, as that's a bit scary (not to mention..creepy). In other has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
  • I've asked this of people before. And they can never answer. I think that the religious neocons try to use it as a dramatized false example of how allowing gay marriage will lead to a downward spiral of society. The key that they don't get is that pets can't give concent. However if you are in an airport bathroom it's OK.
  • It's just the anti-gay people using whatever they can to oppose gay marriage...they don't have any real reasons so they 'manufacture' them. It is sort of like saying....'well you know..if we give women the vote...then next thing you know the blacks will want it!'
  • There is no explanation for such idiocy.
  • Well I get told a lot that the Bible defines marriage as being between a "man and a woman" (as opposed to a man and anything else I assume)so from that starting point I guess the idea of a man marrying a man is as outside the definition as a man marrying a rabbit. However - we don't live in an exclusively Christian society, nor is it particularly common for people to feel the need to spend the rest of their lives and share all their earthly goods with their rabbit - whereas it is very common for a man to want to share his life with another man (I realise I'm being sexist here but it makes life easier in this case!)which is why there needs to be some form of provision for it (whether that be termed marriage, or the "civil partnerships" we have in the UK, which are essentially marriage in all but name - hey, it keeps people happy...) I was thinking about this earlier, and I decided I thought that it probably wasn't so much similar to accepting a man's right to marry his rabbit as accepting the right of people of other faiths to marry (who may have definitions of marriage which are other than that in the Bible - Hindu and Islamic marriage traditions and norms are for example very different from the Christian ones.) which is partly why I asked this: I was curious as to who would answer and what they'd say. Interestingly this does go both ways - I am aware of several gay people who don't want marriage to be extended to gay couples and who do not want to get married on the grounds that they consider it by nature an institution which excludes them, and the extending of marriage to cover same-sex unions as an effort to encorporate them into a straight society based on heterosexual norms. So it's not really as black and white as anyone wants to make it on either side.
    • Thinker
      The church uses a few verses to claim marriage is between one man and one woman, they cannot agree about why it is OK for Solomon to have over 700 wives and 300 concubines, or the fact that the Lord God said to King David if he wanted more wives all he had to do was ask. The Lord God never corrected anyone for having more than one wife. As for homosexuals and marriage, There is not one verse anywhere in the Bible from Genesis to Maps (maps are in the back of the Bible) that says adult consensual homosexuality is a sin. Those verses used by the church and society are talking about homosexuality associated with cultic/pagan worship and pederasty.
  • It's just slippery-slope fallacy: "if I allow strangers with dogs to walk on my lawn, next thing you know they'll be sleeping in my bed." The problem with these kinds of arguments is that they presume some sort of hard-and-fast boundary which, when breached, will result in disaster. A slippery-slope argument typically ignores a vast array of other influences on a situation, opting to concentrate all attention on the subject boundary which is preventing cataclysm. So the boundary between my lawn and the sidewalk is the only thing keeping people with their dogs out of my bed, and I must obsessively protect that boundary, so they don't "slide down the slippery slope" into the bedroom.
  • I don't see where marriage is exclusively about who or what you have sex with. Marriage is a partnership that incorporates many activities. Maybe the word sex (as in 'same sex') is what winds everyone up. So to prove a point, those in disagreement focus on the sex aspect and stretch it to the point where sex with animals will be the ultimate result(tongue in cheek I'm sure).
  • If that is true, everyone here is entitled to their own opinions. However, I don't agree with that point of view. Story closed.
  • Nothing at all. There is no explanation to that statement except that it has been a made by an ignorant fool. Where on earth did that come from AR :)
  • I've never heard such absurdity, and to those that give that argument or statement: "YOU ARE AN IDIOT"!!!!!
  • Homophobic zealot's idea of an argument. Disturbing thought process.
  • bigots base their hatred on lies, assumptions and lame stereotypes. they hate irrationally and grasp at straws for "reasons" why something they hate is wrong. the truth and reality don't support their hatred, so they'd rather believe in bullshit because their tiny brains aren't capable of logical thought. gay marriage is between consenting adults. animals cannot give consent.
  • I like to call it the Fundie/Republican effect. Really it is the "spin" that gets put on any "moral" issue by the fundies and thereby the republican party. They want to equate something thats 'good' (civil rights for gays) with something 'bad' (beastiality). Trying to skew the issue so that new voters will be taken onto "their side".
  • Very little. However, if one re-defines "marriage" to cover more territory, who is to say what it should and should not cover? I am happily enough in favor of same-sex commitments, just as I am in favor of opposite-sex commitments. Commitments to animals doesn't quite fit into the same category. However, I object to redefining words to suit interest groups, regardless of who the interest groups are and whether or not they include me. Eventually, redefining words renders them meaningless. The question of whether or not including "same-sex" marriage in the definition of "marriage" is redefining it is another question. I think it is, merely because one then starts saying "traditional marriage" and "same-sex marriage" as subsets of it. But it is debatable, I think, and depends on how you actually define marriage to begin with.
  • Oh, it's exactly the same. Because, you know, a dog has legal rights and it can sign a marriage contract. I wish my dog could pick up my children after school, but the school won't let anyone pick them up who doesn't have custody, and since we can't get married, I can't let my dog have custody. He'd be such a good parent too, because he knows how to sit and roll over, and sometimes he brings me a rabbit-- so he can help feed the children, too. Sorry, angry sarcasm. It's exactly the slippery slope argument that stableboy described. If you change this law one tiny bit, all sorts of hell will break loose- because we've never changed the law before. It's still illegal to get divorced, you know, and it's still illegal for a white person to marry a non-white. Ooops, angry sarcasm again.
  • Sounds like Rick Santorum's statements on homosexuality, comparing it to incest, bestiality, statutory rape, etc. The jackass...
  • It shows that the only people who oppose same-sex marriage are people with absolutely no grasp of logic or rational thought. There position is based on religious intolerance combined with irrational fear. As I just commented to another Answerbagger who will remain nameless: --- Learn what "Human Rights" means. The first word is "Human". Learn what legal contracts are. Marriage is a legal contract. Men can enter into legal contracts. Women can enter into legal contracts. The only point of contention is the combination of existing people who can enter into contracts. Furniture cannot enter into contracts. Pets cannot enter into contracts. Thinking that gay rights means everyone running amouck doing whatever they want is an irrational fear of homosexuality. The word for that is homophobia.
  • ya know i have no idea....but doesnt that just crack you up when someone goes to the love of animals right after the same sex marriage topic?..."whats next wanting to married your dog?"...."Yes bob...thats exactly whats going to happen next....i am going to want to marry my dog did you know?"
  • absolutly jack crap. It's a weapon wielded by biblethumpers, and homophobes to block gay rights.
  • 8-14-2017 For thousands of years, marriage has been a union of a man and a woman. Now suddenly, some people have forgotten that. They think it is nothing more than a close relationship between some body and somebody else. Well, a lot of people feel very close to their pet dogs. It's simple math: if two things are equal to the same thing, they are equal to each other. So when you trash the concept of "one man and one woman", then it doesn't matter whether the partner is human or even alive.
  • Absolutely nothing and humans cant marry animals. Where do you get your information?
  • Although many say that there is no correlation, there actually is. What it comes down to is people redefining the definition of marriage. Now, people want to change it to include same sex couples. Well, if you can have two men marry each other, why not three? Why can't four people all get married to each other? After all, polygamy is illegal in every state of the Union. Why is that? Why can't I have 2 wives? Why can't I marry a tree? Or an iguana?

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy