Woman Marries Her Dog

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Love the first comment made at the bottom:
"big deal....i was married to a bitch for 10 years"

hahaha.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
I can't wait. I love this liberal crap. i really do. :clap:
Click to expand...
It's a brave new world! You can marry anyone or anything, including your dog, your cat, your lizard, your turtle . . .

All that matters is LOVE!!
 
Nothing wrong with marrying anyone as long as it is consensual between two adults who aren't siblings/parents/off-spring.
 
The Sebastian Express said:
Nothing wrong with marrying anyone as long as it is consensual between two adults who aren't siblings/parents/off-spring.
Click to expand...
What the heck?!! You're discriminating against siblings, you bastard, you. What gives you the right?
 
blazerboy30 said:
Why not siblings/parents/off-spring?
Click to expand...

Because inbreeding greatly increases the risk of handicaps, defects or congenital illnesses. So it isn't harmless.

I suppose marriage without reproduction could be legal, but it might be difficult to enforce the non-reproduction part.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/07/08...m/2009/07/08/woman-marries-her-dog-seriously/

This should come as no surprise. It'll start happening here soon enough and then we'll see a new spin to the health care debate, animal rights...

I can't wait. I love this liberal crap. i really do. :clap:
Click to expand...

Actually I would like for you to justify the government being involved with any sort of marriage, whatsoever. If the government wasn't involved in all this shit in the first place, it wouldnt' be a problem!
 
Shooter said:
What the heck?!! You're discriminating against siblings, you bastard, you. What gives you the right?
Click to expand...

I know you want to try to compare homosexual marriage to being akin to allowing incestuous marriages (more on that in a moment) and bestiality (and probably pedophilia) but it is a very unrefined argument. Marriage between two consensual adults (minus the siblings/parents/child issue) should be perfectly fine as what happens in the privacy of ones bedroom (again between consensual adults) is really none of mine or your business. As long as no one gets killed or severely maimed I'm pretty okay wherever you want to place your genitals or do with them as long as your partner is a-okay with it.

The problem with siblings/parents/children (besides the cultural taboo that is unlikely to ever, ever change in this regard) is the chances of birth defects. In an unrelated coupling between a man and a woman that results in a child the chances of a birth defect happening is 3-4 percent. However, in a sibling/parent/child coupling the chances of birth defects rises to 14-17 percent IIRC.

Humorously incest is already allowed in 25 states in the form of first cousin marriages. Out of those 25 only 6 require that you be above a certain age or unable to bear children; additionally only one (Maine) requires that if you are able to bear children that you undergo genetic counseling to ensure that you will not increase the risk of a birth defect. First cousin couplings that result in children have a 5-8% chance of birth defects (up from 3-4% in unrelated couplings but down from the 14-17% of siblings/parents/children etc).

So while the argument that not allowing siblings, etc to get married is a 'nice' counterargument to those who wish to allow gays to marry, it is very unrefined at best. There is a genetic reason it is not allowed (again besides the cultural taboo), and as I stated first cousin marriage is already legal in half of the United States itself (and who knows about the rest of the world).
 
blazerboy30 said:
Why not siblings/parents/off-spring?

Honest question.
Click to expand...

I was busy responding to Shooter and did not see this message posted. But Minstrel answered it, and I gave my response to this in what I wrote to Shooter.

The chances of birth defects in sibling/parents/off-spring relations is significantly higher than first-cousin marriages (a good ten percent higher). Besides the cultural taboo that I imagine society will never get over I also doubt they would ever get over allowing the legal conception of children under such high statistics for birth defects. It's basically the two issues clashing against eachother to form a gigantic issue.
 
Minstrel said:
Because inbreeding greatly increases the risk of handicaps, defects or congenital illnesses. So it isn't harmless.

I suppose marriage without reproduction could be legal, but it might be difficult to enforce the non-reproduction part.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that marriage has something to do with offspring and reproduction. It doesn't.
 
The Sebastian Express said:
I was busy responding to Shooter and did not see this message posted. But Minstrel answered it, and I gave my response to this in what I wrote to Shooter.

The chances of birth defects in sibling/parents/off-spring relations is significantly higher than first-cousin marriages (a good ten percent higher). Besides the cultural taboo that I imagine society will never get over I also doubt they would ever get over allowing the legal conception of children under such high statistics for birth defects. It's basically the two issues clashing against eachother to form a gigantic issue.
Click to expand...

Again, who says that marriage has anything to do with having offspring?
 
blazerboy30 said:
You are assuming that marriage has something to do with offspring and reproduction. It doesn't.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't, that kind of suggests that gays should be allowed to get married then.
 
blazerboy30 said:
Again, who says that marriage has anything to do with having offspring?
Click to expand...

I think most proponents of marriage would say that the purpose is to create a family and that having children is a part of that.

Like Minstrel said marriage without reproduction could possibly be legal in this case, but there would be a hard time enforcing it. This is why currently first cousin marriage in six states (25 total) is only legal after a certain age (I assume child-bearing age) or if you are physically incapable of having children.

Perhaps in the future (I imagine with our society it is not possible in our lifetime) sibling/parent/child marriages could possibly be legal under the same guidelines of those six restricted states.
 
blazerboy30 said:
I read it, but it doesn't answer the question.

There isn't any law against two unmarried people reproducing.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's true. In a cultural vacuum, where marriage and reproduction are perceptually unlinked, I'd have no problems with marriage between any two adults who can legally consent.

In practice, marriage between a man and woman probably does encourage reproduction (even if one doesn't precisely map to the other in every case) and certainly the public isn't going to separate marriage between relatives and incest, conceptually. Which presents problems in comparing it to gay marriage in a public debate (though I realize you didn't do that).
 
blazerboy30 said:
What is the argument against siblings/offspring/animals, etc.?
Click to expand...

Why did you throw animals in? Animals can't legally consent, so aren't relevant in contractual relationships like marriage (or business deals, or whatever).
 
blazerboy30 said:
So you are against gay marriage?

You're so-called "logic" is contradictory.
Click to expand...

I'm not against gay-marriage, no. I said most proponents of marriage (as in those of in favor of strictly heterosexual marriage, I should have made myself clearer) would state that starting a family was the reason for marriage.
 
Minstrel said:
Yes, that's true. In a cultural vacuum, where marriage and reproduction are perceptually unlinked, I'd have no problems with marriage between any two adults who can legally consent.

In practice, marriage between a man and woman probably does encourage reproduction (even if one doesn't precisely map to the other in every case) and certainly the public isn't going to separate marriage between relatives and incest, conceptually. Which presents problems in comparing it to gay marriage in a public debate (though I realize you didn't do that).
Click to expand...

The problem with this reasoning is that now you fall back to a "in practice" argument instead of being logical. Usually the argument in favor of gay marriage is that it is black-and-white. Equal rights for all, no questions asked.... unless, of course, you happen to be different (incest, etc). :crazy:
 
blazerboy30 said:
Sure. I don't care.

What is the argument against siblings/offspring/animals, etc.?
Click to expand...

well, animals is pretty much a given. They are unable to given consent, or have a voice in the matter. Also, there's a cross species thing that has no point in trying to discuss.

As for siblings and off-spring, I'm not going to go deep into this argument. Why stop at siblings? Why not extrapolate this into saying that a black person shouldn't marry a white person.
 
The Sebastian Express said:
I'm not against gay-marriage, no. I said most proponents of marriage (as in those of in favor of strictly heterosexual marriage, I should have made myself clearer) would state that starting a family was the reason for marriage.
Click to expand...

So you are not against gay-marriage, yet you use the reasoning of creating offspring to justify your position on sibling/offspring marriage.

Pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.
 
julius said:
well, animals is pretty much a given. They are unable to given consent, or have a voice in the matter. Also, there's a cross species thing that has no point in trying to discuss.
Click to expand...

Sure, agreed.


julius said:
As for siblings and off-spring, I'm not going to go deep into this argument. Why stop at siblings? Why not extrapolate this into saying that a black person shouldn't marry a white person.
Click to expand...

Huh? I thought we were extrapolating the other way. I am arguing that siblings SHOULD have the right.
 
blazerboy30 said:
The problem with this reasoning is that now you fall back to a "in practice" argument instead of being logical.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you're understanding me. In terms of the logic, I do think any two adults capable of legal consent should be allowed to marry. Including relatives. And including polygamists.

My point about perception is simply that when marriage between relatives is thrown into public debate, generally by opponents to gay marriage, the intent is to muddy the water because they know such marriage will be conflated with incest by listeners. In other words, the conflation you are arguing against existing (correctly, from a logical point of view) will irrationally cloud the issue. Thus, it's a problematic point of comparison due to that rhetorical trick. But from a purely conceptual perspective, see the above...no problem with relatives marrying.
 
blazerboy30 said:
Sure, agreed.

Huh? I thought we were extrapolating the other way. I am arguing that siblings SHOULD have the right.
Click to expand...

I see that (and agree, if siblings want to be married who the hell am I to care? It's not something I'd ever do (and not just because I only have brothers)). I'm just saying that arguments like this can be extrapolated into the one I presented, so I wasn't going to dig deeper into it. It's a circular argument (even if you weren't the one presenting it or arguing it), and a style I dislike greatly.


On a side note, I think we've exasperated the word extrapolated there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top