EnviroLink Forum

Hello everyone,

Let me start off by introducing myself seeing as I'm new here.

I'm a supporter of animal rights and I believe that it's important animals are treated with respect. I was brought up and have always lived around animals and I'm a real animal lover.

I also support gay rights, and one of the most common arguments against gay marriage is that "after we can all marry the same sex if we choose, next we'll all be able to marry animals".

I'd just like your views on this. Do you think that's just absurd or should we all, one day, get the chance to marry our pets? Why? / Why not?
__________________
Patrick

Email me: [url=mailto:patrick.freedomrequireswings@gmail.com]patrick.freedomrequireswings@gmail.com[/url]
Tweet me: @FRWPatrick

I believe all consenting adults should have the right to marry whomever they choose, but not pets or inanimate objects because they cannot ever be classified as consenting adults.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

All consenting adults? Are you positively sure about that?

_________________
TANG SOO!

Yes, if they have the ability to consent they have the ability to marry.

Well, maybe not Iowanic for obvious reasons.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

How about incestuous marriages?

If this were really about rights, we wouldn't be ignoring perfectly sane, consenting single people with regard to benefits they receive.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Hey, I grew up in the mountains where the motto is "one big happy family ... really"

I would not want to join one, but the only thing the lack of marriage would do is prevent some legal benefits if every one were consenting adults.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Exactly. Extend the benefits to all, not just the married, or eliminate them. Seems to me that, if this were really about rights, that's what we'd be doing rather than all this in-fighting.

Oops, I forgot to mention bigamy. That's consenting adults too. Do all my wives receive benefits or just the first one?

_________________
TANG SOO!

You cannot extend the benefits to all. There are those with no standing for many of the benefits accorded through marriage. Polygamy would have to have some specific requirements such as each following spouse would have a lesser say in medical treatments and receive a lower percentage of the estate should there not be a will, for example.

Each successive spouse would have to receive a lower percentage than the individual previous spouses unless there was a divorce involved.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Seems to me that civil unions are a better way to go for any and all parties, at least from the public side of things. Get the government out of the business of marriage. This solves the issue with homosexuals, incest, polygamy, and, if animals eventually get rights, that too. Churches, cults, whatever could still marry as they see fit. We wouldn't have to fundamentally redefine anything to conform to modern ideals.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Civil unions amd marriages are one and the same under the law and that is the only issue to consider. The churches cults and whatever have always been able to marry as they saw fit, just some were not legal. Some of those churches have tried to force their beliefs onto others by use of the laws to make the unacceptable "marriages" illegal. Some churches, cults, or whatever may decide that consenting adults are not required for a marriage, which brings the whole discussion back to square one. Thus remove the religion from the mix and state a legal marriage is such and that is that. The groups can still have their marriage but it will not be legal and they may be punished as such.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Which groups definition of "marriage" do we use if not the legal definition?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

So then, stop legally recognizing unions performed by non-government entities, and you've effectively removed religion from the matter. We wouldn't have to punish anyone anymore either.

_________________
TANG SOO!

And don't forget to equalize the rights for single people... I say that the law should treat everyone the same... as individuals no matter what they may call themselves under "relationship status" (and for this post, no matter what creature(s) or objects they are married to). Some activist trying to save an old building from destruction managed to convince a judge to legally marry her to this building.

That is almost the case now. Many places do not recognize any marriage not properly licensed by the government, but some still do. The common law marriage is one that would fit that definition and one most religions do not recognize either.

The option to have a legally recognized religious or civil leader perform whatever ceremony one chooses is available, but the key issue is the legal acceptance through the proper documentation.

For example, my younger son wanted one of his friends to officiate at his wedding, but there was some issue with that friend also just graduating from law school and wanting to pass the bar in this state before doing that. The solution was a legally binding civil ceremony and then a ceremony for the friends and family with the friend officiating but without the need to sign legal documents.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

No indeed. That's the main reason I scoff at all whole marital "rights" production. It discriminates against those who don't marry.



I have to cut it off right there. Religious leaders should not be endowed by the state to perform procedures with legal ramifications.

_________________
TANG SOO!