Rudey, my point was: slaughtering an animal is not the same as that animal being able to enter into a legal contract. Hence, there is no requirement for consent to slaughter an animal. There IS currently a requirement that all parties entering into a contract such as the marriage compact be able to consent and in current case law, only a PERSON is capable of consent. Is that clearer?

It might be true that, where you live, the majority of the people with whom you discuss this issue agree with you. But, that doesn't mean that you can claim this to be the opinion for the majority of the country.

This kind of statement is simply uncalled for. What's the sense in trying to have an intelligent conversation/discussion if you're just going to resort to insults and name-calling? If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then don't. (It would become a grossly one-sided discussion at this point, however, should you back out of it.) If you DO want to participate, then attack the arguments, not the people making the arguments, with which you disagree.

There is nothing in this world more permanent and contractual outside of dying. That is the end all, be all.

And there are legal contracts giving you control, ownership, and possession of animals.

Consent is not an issue. It is your inability to accept that some people may like to marry an animal, have sex with an animal, just as it is the inability of many people to not be comfortable or accept gay sex or gay marriage.

-Rudey

You're right, it probably was uncalled for. It was in response to other uncalled for comments, but I wouldnt expect you to pay attention to those. KDDani, I do apologize for calling you an asshole. This of course does not change my personal feelings, but it was wrong to subject you to them in a public arena.

In regards to the other things, I'd rather not go into detail. It can happen to straight couples as well...I don't know exactly what the risks are, but from what I've heard they are various infections and what not. I prefer not to think about it, so if we could leave it at that, that'd be great.

I’d like to see that too. Some lady was on a radio show the other day arguing that homosexuality is a mental illness, and that they are disturbed individuals, therefore they are not capable of making adult decisions. :eek: What an idiot.

Technically, women could survive for a long long time without men, if only all the current men left behind loads of sperm viles. LOL. Men couldn't survive without women, though, unless they come up with an alternative womb that is capable of carrying a human child to term.

I'm sure this will make people angry...what about people who molest/are attracted to children. This is viewed as unnatural and somewhat of a mental disorder, and many people view homosexuality as the same. This is not my personal view, but I am curious as to how people would refute it.

That's pretty crazy.:eek:

PS...I'm glad you love your husband, seeing as though you married him and all.

play nice

The thing is, children cannot consent. Therefore we consider this to be a mental disorder. Especially because it harms children and pedophiles act like this doesn't matter.

What do you mean refute it? Yes, it is a fact that people commit crimes against children.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're wanting here.

An interesting question.

Children don't have the capacity to consent, by virtue of brain development, maturity, etc. Homosexuals do.
Children have much less of an ability to protect themselves, are more easily influences, and don't even have the mental capacity to know what's going on. Child molesters prey upon this.

In general, I would guess people that consider child molesters to be unnatural/mentally disturbed because they are preying upon individuals that can't defend themselves and that don't understand what's going on.

Homosexuals have the capacity to consent and understand what they are doing. They are not hurting anyone or preying on any victims.

Yeah, I can see that as part of the equation. However, is it solely the the fact that the children can't consent, or is it also simply the fact that they are children....As in, is the only reason child molestation is bad is because the kids aren't old enough to fight back or make rational decisions? If so, then that changes statuatory rape (although I think that can be overboard at times). So if we decide that it is something more than just the consent problem, that the desire for children is in itself wrong, wouldnt that open the door to people saying that just as they're unnaturally attracted to children, gay people are unnaturally attracted to people of the same sex? Once again,not claiming this to be the case, but I hear this argument sometimes, and it is usually shot down as outlandish (which it may turn out to be), before any discussion is given to it.

Consent is a requirement of marriage, so, legally, it is an issue. (There is no legal contract to own or posess an animal that the animal also enters into.)

I do understand that some people may want to marry or have sex with animals or children, as has been discussed in this thread. There are plenty of moral and ethical arguments against this, as well as some of the religious arguments that have been used here against homosexuals. I'm not presenting any of those. I'm just saying that as the law currently stands, animals and children are not able to give consent to sexual acts or enter into a contract of marriage. If you want to make the argument that people should have the right to marry animals, you are getting into bigger legal waters.

Also, shinerbock, things you may have heard about and don't want to discuss isn't a strong basis for argument. Plenty of things creep me out, but I can't argue that they should be illegal.

Well we're not really talking about statutory rape, we're talking about child molestation, which is different in the broad context that we're discussing.

What more is needed for reasons that child molestation is "bad" because it preys upon individuals who don't have the capacity to understand what's going on and who can't defend themselves?

I don't really follow how you're relating child molestation to gay people. The obvious, main difference that there's really no argument against is that with homosexuals, no one is getting hurt. There are no "victims". No one is suffering any injury because of it. No one is having anything forced upon them against their will.

I really fail to see how the two relate... it's apples and oranges.

Well some people out there don’t love their spouse... besides, we’ve only been married a little over 1 year, so it’s still kind of a new thing for me to brag about him. :)