Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Future of mankind at stake over gay marriage


Big Bad Voodoo

Recommended Posts

L, you are pretty far out here. Marriage between two human beings is not promoting human-animal or human-kitchen table marriage. That is a pretty weak argument against gay marriage, and quite silly at least.

But still, if somebody wants to marry his dog, why not? If the can be a legal heir, why not a partner? But will they answer with "yes, I do"? I am not so sure.

Edited by FLOMBIE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saying dont you see that it would open doors for many wierd, uncommon, bizzare loves? You can say what you want but being in love with dog is bizzare and pervert.

Last thing what I want to see is Zoo parade. But I can see it comes. There is room left for it, imo. One could ask for rights.

If they want to try and get that, that's their buisness. But (and I'll bold this) that is an entirely seperate issue and should not be used as an excuse to prevent gay rights. When will people learn that simple fact?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saying dont you see that it would open doors for many wierd, uncommon, bizzare loves? You can say what you want but being in love with dog is bizzare and pervert.

Last thing what I want to see is Zoo parade. But I can see it comes. There is room left for it, imo. One could ask for rights.

oh, try not to be silly.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dog can't give consent because they don't speak human language, neither can dolphins. Nor can they sign a contract. The excuse someone might want to marry their dog is a sad lame excuse for discrimination. It is like saying gay and lesbians are subhuman. There was a time when interracial marriage was illegal, because blacks were considered subhuman by many people.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dog can't give consent because they don't speak human language, neither can dolphins. Nor can they sign a contract. The excuse someone might want to marry their dog is a sad lame excuse for discrimination. It is like saying gay and lesbians are subhuman. There was a time when interracial marriage was illegal, because blacks were considered subhuman by many people.

I think what it really goes back to is thinking of the sole purpose of women as being in order to breed. A lot of the kind of people who get strongly worked up about this subject see any kind of sex at all as sinful, and only reluctantly condone it in order to breed. They're the kind of people who, as someone once said, are perpetually haunted by the thought that there may be someone, somewhere, having a good time. :-X

Edited by 747400
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I will repeat my question again from post 52.

Simply,

Could gay marriage open doors for other kinds of love marriages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting ridiculous already. Let gay people get marries so they can be as miserable as the rest of us!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I will repeat my question again from post 52.

Simply,

Could gay marriage open doors for other kinds of love marriages?

No. You're using a false equivalency.

Gay marriage opens the door for other kinds of marriage just as much as regular marriage does. The idea that allowing gay people to get married would lead to various other human-dog, human-lamp marriages is, to be honest, and incredibly offensive remark.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dog can't give consent because they don't speak human language, neither can dolphins. Nor can they sign a contract. The excuse someone might want to marry their dog is a sad lame excuse for discrimination. It is like saying gay and lesbians are subhuman. There was a time when interracial marriage was illegal, because blacks were considered subhuman by many people.

Some people think that animals are shouldnt be discriminated. That they are not sub. That they are not below on hierarchy.

That there isnt hierarchy between spicies. Life of worm is worth as life of elephant. Or as human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. You're using a false equivalency.

Gay marriage opens the door for other kinds of marriage just as much as regular marriage does. The idea that allowing gay people to get married would lead to various other human-dog, human-lamp marriages is, to be honest, and incredibly offensive remark.

Its called futurism. What if this happened could that possibly lead to this. And so on. No offence to anyone.

Edited by the L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its called futurusim. What if this happened could that possibly lead to this. And so on. No offence to anyone.

It's still a false equivalency. It's like saying that since a cat has four legs and a raccoon has four legs, I'm going to call them all cats. It's not a logical argument.

Allowing gay people to marry would never lead to animal marriages. Why would it? Why hasn't regular marriage? There's no difference.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imanginarynumber

No it isnt. It is false equivalency to one who dont know to use imagination, dont know history of humanity and to person affraid to think so they would not get brain tumor from thinking.

Why regular marriage didnt lead to animal marriages? Because humanity wasnt ready for it. Humans must be prepared for some idea. Why didnt someone wrote Origins if idea was floating around from Ancient Greeks to Islam scientists to Lammarck?

Why heliocentrism waited till Copernicus even idea was floating around from time BC?

We humans must be prepared for idea. For example Im sure some idea people proposed here on UM which are now seen as alternative views would become hard core science in future.

Time is reason.

Edited by the L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa....lets reign this one back in.

This topic is about the pope believing that gay marriage threatens the future of mankind.

My position is this; mankind will not and cannot ever be threatened because marriage is not a requirement of procreation. Period.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also its not how history works. I would say that USA is main contributor to same sex marriages. Its legal there and in many contries which are under western influence.

Remember that was legal to kill jew in Nazi Germany. History needs time distance from event to put final word on it. Legacy of it. We dont even started gay marriages around the globe. We dont know will that day ever happened. When it does we need time distance to put final word on it. We know only saying foresights, imo.

Also I would on purpose choose whale because its very much different from us. Its big. Bigger then any dinosaur. No natural enemy except humans.

They sing. They play. They are social beings. They communicate by echolocation. This works by the sound waves produced by the killer whale bounce off of objects that are in the water. They return to the whale in the form of an echo. This helps them to determine the size, shape, speed, distance, direction and the internal structure of the object in the water.

Who can say that they dont have consciousness?

Whoa....lets reign this one back in.

This topic is about the pope believing that gay marriage threatens the future of mankind.

My position is this; mankind will not and cannot ever be threatened because marriage is not a requirement of procreation. Period.

Okay I agree. We went offtopic. I apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa....lets reign this one back in.

This topic is about the pope believing that gay marriage threatens the future of mankind.

My position is this; mankind will not and cannot ever be threatened because marriage is not a requirement of procreation. Period.

Thats just more likely prediction. Not a final word. Thats my view.

Edited by the L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imanginarynumber

No it isnt. It is false equivalency to one who dont know to use imagination, dont know history of humanity and to person affraid to think so they would not get brain tumor from thinking.

A logical fallacy has nothing to do with imagination. I'll never understand why they don't teach Logic in high school. To say you can't have same sex marriage because it might lead to bestiality is the Logical Fallacy explained below.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/equivocation/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A logical fallacy has nothing to do with imagination. I'll never understand why they don't teach Logic in high school. To say you can't have same sex marriage because it might lead to bestiality is the Logical Fallacy explained below.

http://www.logicalfa...y/equivocation/

No I proposed question. second if you know history of human kind you would know that is VERY much logical question. Because when one see that one requirment for marriage is down could organize themselves and gain courage to ask for rights and shut down other requirments. Give people a chance and they will try to use it in own benefits.

So by knowing that there is people who are in love with animals I ask logical question.

Its not logical to people who are affraid of answer. And it has very much with imagination.

Logical Fallacy-As Hasina said. I dont buy this.

Fear of answer- :yes:

Dont ask those kind of question. It is not logic.

Suppression? Fear?

Edited by the L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I proposed question. second if you know history of human kind you would know that is VERY much logical question. Because when one see that one requirment for marriage is down could organize themselves and gain courage to ask for rights and shut down other requirments. Give people a chance and they will try to use it in own benefits.

So by knowing that there is people who are in love with animals I ask logical question.

Its not logical to people who are affraid of answer. And it has very much with imagination.

Logical Fallacy-As Hasina said. I dont buy this.

Fear of answer- :yes:

Dont ask those kind of question. It is not logic.

Suppression? Fear?

I don't really see this. Women fought for their right to vote. Who is fighting for the animal's right to vote?

Your example was about Lamarck and Darwin, scientists, whose work is always (mostly) based on someone else's, and does not fit to this topic at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suddenly people who fight against suppression start with suppression. Something like Rome and Church. Is that false equivalency? I think not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, after this post I will stop talking about Jesuits. Promise.

They leader is called General. (Interesting story why)

They were known as Schoolmasters of Europe. In less then 100 years they established over 500 schools in Europe. And become influental from South America to China.

Some of interesting figures were educated in those school. Such as Rene Decartes.

Personally I respect that order VERY much.

Many native South Americans and lots of people in medieval Spain would tend to disagree with you about the 'greatness' of the Jesuits.

.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see this. Women fought for their right to vote. Who is fighting for the animal's right to vote?

Your example was about Lamarck and Darwin, scientists, whose work is always (mostly) based on someone else's, and does not fit to this topic at all.

Yes but idea needs to floating around and will never skip on 10 if didnt go trough stages. 1..2..3...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.