There's no way that the state of California can deny a marriage license to four spouses now. Eight spouses, or I would say three human spouses and the canine they absolutely love because if love is the foundation of marriage, they can love their dog, too.
32 comments
Oh, you idiot. Marriage is between consenting adults. Last I checked, Fido cannot consent.
Go get Ablow job ;) you'll feel better. Promise.
"There's no way that the state of California can deny a marriage license to four spouses now."
In related news, there's no way pigs will not grow wings.
When a dog (or a toaster or a photon or whatever silly examples your flighty imagination conjures) signs a marriage license we can discuss this.
Half a century ago your grandfather might have said "The repeal of miscegenation laws means we'll soon have evil athians marrying. Marriage comes only from God so heathens need not apply."
Marriages with more partners than two will make things so complicated, law-wise, it is just not doable. Or we need to rewrite completely our laws (and even that may not work. I suspect polygamy only works because the wives do not have any right, which is quite simply unacceptable.).
According to you, there is also no way for the state of California to deny a marriage license between 64 humans, 6 rocks, 5 cars, 3 horses and a tree, right? I've seen evil people express their love for their cars in car commercials on TV, too! Sickening!
It amazes me that after so much time, so much public discussion of the issues involved, that someone has just dragged themselves by the knuckles out of their cave into daylight - only it's still night, for them.
Sometimes I think euthanasia is called for.
"Eight spouses, or I would say three human spouses and the canine they absolutely love because if love is the foundation of marriage, they can love their dog, too."
Use of 'Slippery Slope' fallacy. Your argument is invalid .
Divorce rates being one in two in the very religious Midwest & Bible Belt states. Multiple divorcee Newt Gingrich. Your call, Keith Ablowjob.
I'm asking this as a serious question: Do these people not understand informed consent? Do they genuinely not GET that a dog isn't capable of it while two men are?
Or is there something twisted in their philosophy that just skips past this idea?
You know what? I don't have a problem with polygamy. I say let someone have as many spouses as they want, however, make it very clear in the law that they will only get the tax breaks/credits/benefits for one, and only one spouse. If a man wants to have three wives, no problem, but he can only claim one as a tax exemption on his tax forms.
@Rob aka Mediancat:
"I'm asking this as a serious question: Do these people not understand informed consent? Do they genuinely not GET that a dog isn't capable of it while two men are?"
Your problem is that you're trying to think of it as an specific understanding failure. It's not. It's a generl understanding failure.
When fundies try to think about gays they come unhinged and all intelligent thought comes to a stop, replaced by image
@Rob aka Mediancat
I'm asking this as a serious question: Do these people not understand informed consent? Do they genuinely not GET that a dog isn't capable of it while two men are?
I think it's due to their tendency to lump everything they consider to be a sin together into a single group. As far as they're concerned, consenting sex between two same-sex individual and sex with an animal that isn't capable of giving informed consent are one and the same, i.e. a sin. To them, the concept of informed consent doesn't even factor into the equation. In other words, they understand the concept*, but they simply don't care - a sin is a sin.
* For the most part, anyway - there's a whole mess of pro-pedophilia and pro-bestiality quotes above this one that suggest otherwise and will likely leave me feeling nauseous for the rest of the day.
I was going to ask which part of the phrase 'informed consent' you don't get. On second thought, though, it seems pretty clear that you haven't really grasped the meaning of informed anything at all ...
But can the dog "love" them in this manner?
And nice try, but I'm not particularly against polyamory.
And, and...
If we let people marry dogs, dogs in turn will want to marry cats. Cats will want to marry fish, and fish... well you get the idea, AND IT WILL LEAD TO ALL MANNER OF DEGENERACIES! Oh calamity is upon us all!
@ Qazamir McSmarty Britches
Thank you for supplying me with my hearty laugh of the day! It makes me wish certain evolution-denier types would use that very slope while spouting off about crocoducks, somehow.
Someone really has to set up some fences around that slope. A lot of people have been slipping down it lately, and I'm scared someone's gonna get hurt.
And this is why we need separate words for different kinds of love, like in Greek. Loving a spouse is different from loving a dog, and both are different from loving a tuna sandwich. The word is incredibly versatile.
Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
