The U.S. Supreme Court rules all states must allow same sex-marriages

Non-hobby related, moved to Sandbox

Goats or any other non-human animals have nothing to do with same-sex marriages. Originally Posted by Lena Duvall

If same sex marriages are claiming to be done in the name of "love" it can very well be connected. I mean "why does it matter" if it is done amongst humans if neither were specifically evolved for sexual intercourse with one another and "love" is envolved? We can't cherry pick this thing. Either we are going to follow evolution and let it be our moral guide or we are going to denounce it. The same goes for love. If we are going to celebrate same sex love, we need to accept love between genus' and or classes because hey love has no form right? Its your turn to allow them to love who or what they want just as the USA has given you the right to marry who you want.

#itsalwaysaslipperyslope

If same sex marriages are claiming to be done in the name of "love" it can very well be connected. I mean "why does it matter" if it is done amongst humans if neither were specifically evolved for sexual intercourse with one another and "love" is envolved? We can't cherry pick this thing. Either we are going to follow evolution and let it be our moral guide or we are going to denounce it. The same goes for love. If we are going to celebrate same sex love, we need to accept love between genus' and or classes because hey love has no form right? Its your turn to allow them to love who or what they want just as the USA has given you the right to marry who you want.

#itsalwaysaslipperyslope Originally Posted by Mgm84

Screw love. No matter what the speeches or essays say to tug on everyone's heart strings gay marriage is about the equality of humans under the law.

I am happy gay people have the right to marry, they should enjoy all the benefits of straight couples, that includes divorce. I a firm believer that u don't have to marry to be with someone

If same sex marriages are claiming to be done in the name of "love" it can very well be connected. I mean "why does it matter" if it is done amongst humans if neither were specifically evolved for sexual intercourse with one another and "love" is envolved? We can't cherry pick this thing. Either we are going to follow evolution and let it be our moral guide or we are going to denounce it. The same goes for love. If we are going to celebrate same sex love, we need to accept love between genus' and or classes because hey love has no form right? Its your turn to allow them to love who or what they want just as the USA has given you the right to marry who you want.

#itsalwaysaslipperyslope Originally Posted by Mgm84

Your argument is stupid and based on a false assumption. Gay marriage is and should be legal because grown human adults can give consent. Marriage to an animal cannot be legal because consent cannot be given by said animal.

Same reason you can't marry a person who is unconscious or dead. Consent cannot be given.

Stop parroting stupid, falatious arguments you see on FOX News and think for yourself.


To address another person, this is also one of the reasons polygamy was outlawed. Most wives who were married off in polygamous cultures had very little choice in the matter, if any. Consent was an issue. Also, it makes things very complicated legally. Say there are 4 people in a marriage. Person C fell in love with persons A and D but not B. Does person C have to also marry person B to marry persons A and D? Can person C divorce person B if they cannot reconcile their differences, without divorcing persons A and D? If person D wants to leave the whole married group, how do you divide assets and custody of any children? There's also the legal issue of marriage protecting husbands/wives from being compelled to testify against each other. Suppose a crime ring all got together and married each other. Now no one can be compelled to testify against one another.

The subject of polygamy is interesting to me, as personally I think it should be perfectly legal as long as all parties are consenting adults. This was very difficult to establish with polygamous cults. People will always try to find a way to game a complicated system. I don't necessarily agree with the decision to outlaw it, but I can understand why doing so would be attractive to lawmakers.

The evolving concept of marriage and what it means has interested me for a while now. it began as a property exchange. Women were traded goods. It has somehow evolved into a religious ceremony and a declaration of love. The government recognizes this evolution and allows for the legal declaration of love and partnership to one other human being. Now, they have realized that the sexes of both parties does not matter from a legal standpoint (consent). The religious aspect of it being "between one man and one woman" is not the concern of the court, as well it shouldn't be.

Bigots can hate it all they want. But the courts got it right in this case.

If same sex marriages are claiming to be done in the name of "love" it can very well be connected. I mean "why does it matter" if it is done amongst humans if neither were specifically evolved for sexual intercourse with one another and "love" is envolved? We can't cherry pick this thing. Either we are going to follow evolution and let it be our moral guide or we are going to denounce it. The same goes for love. If we are going to celebrate same sex love, we need to accept love between genus' and or classes because hey love has no form right? Its your turn to allow them to love who or what they want just as the USA has given you the right to marry who you want.

#itsalwaysaslipperyslope Originally Posted by Mgm84

Conflating two women or two men having a romantic/sexual relationship and maybe getting married with a human and a non-human animal being "in love" and getting married really does not make any sense. Humans and non-human animals don't have the same agency. It's an intellectually lazy argument. And the flip side of that argument is rooted in thinly-veiled homophobia: i.e. since it's so absurd to imagine a human and a goat getting married, then why should two men or two women fall in love, have sex, and/or get married.

Congratulations to everyone who strives for equality, no matter how you perceive it. Unfortunately there are those who may feel their freedoms have been compromised while others have been given greater leeway. In a country that was founded on the principle that everyone is created equal, we are still experiencing the growing pains to the meaning of those words that comes after WE THE PEOPLE.
'IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION' is never going to be easy.
I say let's celebrate by having a GAY OL' TIME.

Your argument is stupid and based on a false assumption. Gay marriage is and should be legal because grown human adults can give consent. Marriage to an animal cannot be legal because consent cannot be given by said animal.

Same reason you can't marry a person who is unconscious or dead. Consent cannot be given.

Stop parroting stupid, falatious arguments you see on FOX News and think for yourself.


To address another person, this is also one of the reasons polygamy was outlawed. Most wives who were married off in polygamous cultures had very little choice in the matter, if any. Consent was an issue. Also, it makes things very complicated legally. Say there are 4 people in a marriage. Person C fell in love with persons A and D but not B. Does person C have to also marry person B to marry persons A and D? Can person C divorce person B if they cannot reconcile their differences, without divorcing persons A and D? If person D wants to leave the whole married group, how do you divide assets and custody of any children? There's also the legal issue of marriage protecting husbands/wives from being compelled to testify against each other. Suppose a crime ring all got together and married each other. Now no one can be compelled to testify against one another.

The subject of polygamy is interesting to me, as personally I think it should be perfectly legal as long as all parties are consenting adults. This was very difficult to establish with polygamous cults. People will always try to find a way to game a complicated system. I don't necessarily agree with the decision to outlaw it, but I can understand why doing so would be attractive to lawmakers.

The evolving concept of marriage and what it means has interested me for a while now. it began as a property exchange. Women were traded goods. It has somehow evolved into a religious ceremony and a declaration of love. The government recognizes this evolution and allows for the legal declaration of love and partnership to one other human being. Now, they have realized that the sexes of both parties does not matter from a legal standpoint (consent). The religious aspect of it being "between one man and one woman" is not the concern of the court, as well it shouldn't be.

Bigots can hate it all they want. But the courts got it right in this case. Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

Lol. Ok lets test your "stupid theory". It is stupid to constitute consent as an act of verbalizing or speaking authorization when consent is simply defined as permission. Furthermore, according to your childish logic, animals cannot give permission or notification for anything from hunger to having to piss as they are not able to communicate in the same manner as humans. Who gave ANYONE consent to document them as property? Neuter them? Oh let me guess.....Thats different? SMH. My fucking god why would I have to break this down to an adult? If you knew who you were talking to you would know that I never speak from a knee jerk position. That said, it is NOT uncommon for a pet or an animal to build sexual feelings for their owners.

And did you know that other species even have a method for resisting ANY sexual or unwanted acts that are not mutual? OMG that must be appalling isn't it? (Sarcasm)
Look miss smart ass, I am not conservative or libertarian. And most certainly not a Fox news student. You would have to be a nieve beta to buy into the whole party game because a person who "thinks for themselves" would disagree with priorities from both spectrums.

I am way too versed to base a view upon one angle. How about the inability to marry family? Your possessions? Underaged people who are fully matured? SMH. People are so stuck in celebrating this little trinket they have obtained until they are too occupied to see the potential harm or malicious intent of the gift that was given.

Lol. Ok lets test your "stupid theory". It is stupid to constitute consent as an act of verbalizing or speaking authorization when consent is simply defined as permission. Furthermore, according to your childish logic, animals cannot give permission or notification for anything from hunger to having to piss as they are not able to communicate in the same manner as humans. My fucking god why would I have to break this down to an adult? If you knew who you were talking to you would know that I never speak from a knee jerk position. That said, it is NOT uncommon for a pet or an animal to build sexual feelings for their owners.

And did you know that other species even have a method for resisting ANY sexual or unwanted acts that are not mutual? OMG that must be appalling isn't it? (Sarcasm)
Look miss smart ass, I am not conservative or libertarian. And most certainly not a Fox news student. You would have to be a nieve beta to buy into the whole party game because a person who "thinks for themselves" would disagree with priorities from both spectrums.

I way to versed to base a view upon one angle. How about the inability to marry family? Your possessions? Underaged people who are fully matured? Originally Posted by Mgm84

One, no one was discussing sex. We were discussing marriage. Try not to confuse the two.

Two, a big portion of your post I can't comment on, because A) it's still stupid and B) would break one of the cardinal rules of the board.

Three... I really hope this offends you.

Conflating two women or two men having a romantic/sexual relationship and maybe getting married with a human and a non-human animal being "in love" and getting married really does not make any sense. Humans and non-human animals don't have the same agency. It's an intellectually lazy argument. And the flip side of that argument is rooted in thinly-veiled homophobia: i.e. since it's so absurd to imagine a human and a goat getting married, then why should two men or two women fall in love, have sex, and/or get married. Originally Posted by Lena Duvall

No lady, its more of a broken window/ slippery slope argument. If the same sex can marry in the name of love, then why not family? Why no inter-species relationship? Why not polygamy? Possession?

Side note:Whether anyone likes it or not, from an evolutionary perspective, homosexuality would me a NEGATIVE trait CORRECTION: tendency as it brings absolutely no benefits to the gene pool or bettermen of the human species.

"Its still stupid" would not hold in an academic debate. Secondly, if you can gain ownership of an animal how in the hell would marriage be farfetched? Ownership in which that pet gave no verbal "consent" towards. Smh and rotfl. You are not the first to bail out via ad hom when your views are shown yo be flawed. Btw you can't offend me by posting gayness.

No lady, its more of a broken window/ slippery slope argument. If the same sex can marry in the name of love, then why not family? Why no inter-species relationship? Why not polygamy? Possession?

Side note:Whether anyone likes it or not, from an evolutionary perspective, homosexuality would me a NEGATIVE trait as it brings absolutely no benefits to the gene pool or bettermen of the human species. Originally Posted by Mgm84

I'll try to use small words for you.

No can marry family. Cause bad health issues in offspring. Society say no want. (Interestingly, in most states this only applies to immediate family. In somewhere over 30 states you can marry your first cousin.)

No can marry animal. Animal no can give consent. Animal no can sign legal contract.

I've already addressed polygamy. Good job spelling hard word.

No can marry possession. Possession cannot sign legal contract.

No care about evolution in marriage. Marriage not about evolution. If so, why old people can marry? Why infertile people can marry?

Hope easier for you.



Considering it was also once illegal, what are your thoughts on interracial marriage? Because the very same arguments were made when interracial marriage was made legal and neener neener, I can still marry a black guy.

"Its still stupid" would not hold in an academic debate. Secondly, if you can gain ownership of an animal how in the hell would marriage be farfetched? Ownership in which that pet gave no verbal "consent" towards. Smh and rotfl. You are not the first to bail out via ad hom when your views are shown yo be flawed. Btw you can't offend me by posting gayness. Originally Posted by Mgm84

With as many spelling and grammar mistakes as you make, I'd stfu about academic debate. Learn to spell and articulate clearly, then return. The taxpayers paid for your rudimentary education. Try to make it worth our while.

And I already successfully answered all of your questions, moron. Only consenting human adults can enter into a marriage contract. I fail to see any slippery slope about that stupilation. Human, or no marriage. Where's the problem?

I'm off to bed. Someone else babysit the chimp.

Your argument is stupid and based on a false assumption. Gay marriage is and should be legal because grown human adults can give consent. Marriage to an animal cannot be legal because consent cannot be given by said animal.

Same reason you can't marry a person who is unconscious or dead. Consent cannot be given.

Stop parroting stupid, falatious arguments you see on FOX News and think for yourself.


To address another person, this is also one of the reasons polygamy was outlawed. Most wives who were married off in polygamous cultures had very little choice in the matter, if any. Consent was an issue. Also, it makes things very complicated legally. Say there are 4 people in a marriage. Person C fell in love with persons A and D but not B. Does person C have to also marry person B to marry persons A and D? Can person C divorce person B if they cannot reconcile their differences, without divorcing persons A and D? If person D wants to leave the whole married group, how do you divide assets and custody of any children? There's also the legal issue of marriage protecting husbands/wives from being compelled to testify against each other. Suppose a crime ring all got together and married each other. Now no one can be compelled to testify against one another.

The subject of polygamy is interesting to me, as personally I think it should be perfectly legal as long as all parties are consenting adults. This was very difficult to establish with polygamous cults. People will always try to find a way to game a complicated system. I don't necessarily agree with the decision to outlaw it, but I can understand why doing so would be attractive to lawmakers.

The evolving concept of marriage and what it means has interested me for a while now. it began as a property exchange. Women were traded goods. It has somehow evolved into a religious ceremony and a declaration of love. The government recognizes this evolution and allows for the legal declaration of love and partnership to one other human being. Now, they have realized that the sexes of both parties does not matter from a legal standpoint (consent). The religious aspect of it being "between one man and one woman" is not the concern of the court, as well it shouldn't be.

Bigots can hate it all they want. But the courts got it right in this case. Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

One, no one was discussing sex. We were discussing marriage. Try not to confuse the two.

Two, a big portion of your post I can't comment on, because A) it's still stupid and B) would break one of the cardinal rules of the board.

Three... I really hope this offends you.

Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

I'll try to use small words for you.

No can marry family. Cause bad health issues in offspring. Society say no want. (Interestingly, in most states this only applies to immediate family. In somewhere over 30 states you can marry your first cousin.)

No can marry animal. Animal no can give consent. Animal no can sign legal contract.

I've already addressed polygamy. Good job spelling hard word.

No can marry possession. Possession cannot sign legal contract.

No care about evolution in marriage. Marriage not about evolution. If so, why old people can marry? Why infertile people can marry?

Hope easier for you.



Considering it was also once illegal, what are your thoughts on interracial marriage? Because the very same arguments were made when interracial marriage was made legal and neener neener, I can still marry a black guy. Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

With as many spelling and grammar mistakes as you make, I'd stfu about academic debate. Learn to spell and articulate clearly, then return. The taxpayers paid for your rudimentary education. Try to make it worth our while.

And I already successfully answered all of your questions, moron. Only consenting human adults can enter into a marriage contract. I fail to see any slippery slope about that stupilation. Human, or no marriage. Where's the problem?

I'm off to bed. Someone else babysit the chimp. Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

Caroline my hat is off to you, well stated, from a very beautiful and I can tell educated woman.
Your first thread was spot on and in my opinion a thread winner.

kudos at properly putting the person in their place, your answers were well thought out.

plus the pic you posted had me laughing my butt off, brought back a few memories from my time in LA and my friend that I worked with that was gay.

Seems people always welcome the governments involvement in their lives
when it suits their agenda.
We have become a society of spoiled children.

But hey! Children are much more easily controlled.
Orwell's nightmare vision of a totalitarian secular society on schedule.....Check
Give or take a couple decades.

States rights, the vote, concepts as foreign as a star in some distant
galaxy.