Originally posted by soleran30
however that shouldn't define rules for a civil union. If thats the case burn all invalids or disabled people before they can create more devil spawn 😈
Well if you think about it..that's kind of the direction we're headed in..many people would choose to abort children found to have genetic defects..if they were able to detect the defect before birth. Homosexuality could easily be categorized as but another defect....
So what do we categorize it as..a "lifestyle choice" or "genetic defect"..which one do you all believe would be the more appropriate terminology in defining it?
And If the law recognizes it as a "lifestyle choice", should the legislatures then attempt to "legalize" other lifestyle choices.
What about polygamy or beastality..or necrophelia? Don't individuals who have multiple wives, or have sexual intercourse with beasts /corpses deserve just as much legal right to carry on their lifestyle..as any hetero or homo couple?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
So what do we categorize it as..a "lifestyle choice" or "genetic defect"..which one do you all believe would be the more appropriate terminology in defining it?And If the law recognizes it as a "lifestyle choice", should the legislatures then attempt to "legalize" other lifestyle choices.
What about polygamy or beastality..or necrophelia? Don't individuals who have multiple wives, or have sexual intercourse with beasts /corpses deserve just as much legal right to carry on their lifestyle..as any hetero or homo couple?
well there is why I said they need to clearly define what this union would mean.......its benefits etc etc otherwise its just a huge clusterf*** that isn't worth looking at.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
So what do we categorize it as..a "lifestyle choice" or "genetic defect"..which one do you all believe would be the more appropriate terminology in defining it?And If the law recognizes it as a "lifestyle choice", should the legislatures then attempt to "legalize" other lifestyle choices.
What about polygamy or beastality..or necrophelia? Don't individuals who have multiple wives, or have sexual intercourse with beasts /corpses deserve just as much legal right to carry on their lifestyle..as any hetero or homo couple?
And, no it will never be categorized as a "genetic defect"
Originally posted by Eis
For ****'s sakes, it's not a lifestyle CHOICE!
How ****ing hard is it to understand?And, no it will never be categorized as a "genetic defect"
Choosing to have sexual intercourse with whomever one wants is a "human right".. correct? Why shouldn't a man be able to get married to a horse or cow? One could make the argument that having sexual relations with these animals..is a much kinder then using them for food or travel. At least the animal is getting some sort of gratification from a sexual act..and it still gets to stay alive as well right?
And why shouldn't the law allow a man to have intercourse and get remarried to his dead wife? After all..he was married to the wife at one time.
If the law is about human equality when determining which lifestyle choices should be deemed as legal marriages..then it's only fair that it applies to all types of lifestyles..not just hetero or homo..
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Choosing to have sexual intercourse with whomever one wants is a "human right".. correct? Why shouldn't a man be able to get married to a horse or cow? One could make the argument that having sexual relations with these animals..is a much kinder then using them for food or travel. At least the animal is getting some sort of gratification from a sexual act..and it still gets to stay alive as well right?And why shouldn't the law allow a man to have intercourse and get remarried to his dead wife? After all..he was married to the wife at one time.
If the law is about human equality when determining which lifestyle choices should be deemed as legal marriages..then it's only fair that it applies to all types of lifestyles..not just hetero or homo..
I think a man should be able to marry a horse if the horse can clearly show that it wants to marry the man. Wait..that'S not possible? Well I guess that won't work then...
Originally posted by Eis
Because horses can't speak or comunicate in anyway with a human being.
Horses can communicate..just not on the same level as human beings. They have different types of mating rituals, territorial behavior..etc.
The woman is dead, gone. I find this argument quite silly.
Exactly if she's dead, then she has no more right to her body..correct? In most countries, her husband is the one who gets to claim her after she passes. So why should the law stop him from doing what he chooses with the her dead body? He's not hurting anyone..is he? What if he want's to still qualify for various marriage benefits on his tax return? Why shouldn't he be able to qualify for the same benefits as an individual who has a living spouse?
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think a man should be able to marry a horse if the horse can clearly show that it wants to marry the man. Wait..that'S not possible? Well I guess that won't work then...
Well what about if the man owns the horse? Doesn't right of possession..equate to being able to do what one wants with what they possess? Why should the government be able to tell the man what he can do with his possessions?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well what about if the man owns the horse? Doesn't right of possession..equate to being able to do what one wants with what they possess? Why should the government be able to tell the man what he can do with his possessions?
Of course not, since it is required that the person or horse agrees...possesion does not do that.
Exactly if she's dead, then she has no more right to her body..correct? In most countries, her husband is the one who gets to claim her after she passes. So why should the law stop him from doing what he chooses with the her dead body? He's not hurting anyone..is he? What if he want's to still qualify for various marriage benefits on his tax return? Why shouldn't he be able to qualify for the same benefits as an individual who has a living spouse?
And as for the horse, if horses could talk and think like us I wouldnt have anything against hore-man unions.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course not, since it is required that the person or horse agrees...possesion does not do that.
Thats why I said several pages ago that there must be clearly defined rules for this to work on any level and the amount of abuse that will be encountered will be enormous...................right or wrong it is what it is.
Yup, possession is irrelevant to consent.
But what's the point? Whom is just throwing out idiotic statements to wind people up. Every sensible person knows that the gender you prefer (if any) to partner with is a private matter up to the individual that is absolutely immoral to legislate against (just as it would be silly to legilsate against liking blondes), and trying to make that equivalent with beastiality is simply the act of a moron.
The Baltic States are only going to have to reverse their legislation if they want to stay as part of the European Block; the Human Rights Act makes sure of that. Discrimination against homosexuality is illegal.
Originally posted by soleran30
Thats why I said several pages ago that there must be clearly defined rules for this to work on any level and the amount of abuse that will be encountered will be enormous...................right or wrong it is what it is.
What. The rule's are easy, every human being has the right to marry another huan being given that they agree to do so.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yup, possession is irrelevant to consent.But what's the point? Whom is just throwing out idiotic statements to wind people up. Every sensible person knows that the gender you prefer (if any) to partner with is a private matter up to the individual that is absolutely immoral to legislate against (just as it would be silly to legilsate against liking blondes), and trying to make that equivalent with beastiality is simply the act of a moron.
absolutely or an act of brilliance in taking advantage of tax laws.................which is why at least in the USA for it to work we would need a serious revamp on ton of laws. Also realize my views are strictly based on a USA system not European.