TX Judge Breaks Up Lesbian Home

[fskimospy]

As I have said consent does not make sense with regard to animals. And in any case the owner of said animal would be required to give consent (just like the owners of a corporation give consent for contracts involving the corporation).

If an animal cannot consent, it cannot enter into a contract. Animals are not corporations. Your argument is basically that an orange is an apple because apples are apples.

Can you repeat back to me that you understand that animals are incapable of giving consent, therefore are incapable of entering into a contract?

And living together with someone constitutes implied consent to marriage? Please . If conservative Republicans were to propose such a law liberals would be throwing a fit about them trying to force their religion on others. "OMG Republicans don't want people to live in sin OMG OMG."

EDIT: What happened to the government staying out of people's bedrooms?

This has nothing to do with the rightness or the wrongness of that policy, it has to do with teaching you what implied consent is. Can you repeat back to me that you understand what the concept of implied consent is?

That sounds exactly like the "marriage(including US civil marriage) has always been between a man and a woman" argument advanced by opponents of opposite-sex marriage. Thanks for continuing to make my point. Supporters of SSM are massive hypocrites who do not believe in their own arguments.

It's not an argument from tradition like you try so stupidly to use, it's an argument that changing the US legal system to allow non-sentient beings to enter into contracts would be a complete shit storm. Allowing gay couples to marry has zero negative effects on the rest of society. Rewriting contract law does not have zero negative effects.

 

[Howard]

I'm glad at least that nehalem256 doesn't blow up like Phokus.

 

[nehalem256]

If an animal cannot consent, it cannot enter into a contract. Animals are not corporations. Your argument is basically that an orange is an apple because apples are apples.

Can you repeat back to me that you understand that animals are incapable of giving consent, therefore are incapable of entering into a contract?

Its not that they cannot consent. Its that the concept of an animal consenting doesn't make sense and is not required for any action involving the animal.

This has nothing to do with the rightness or the wrongness of that policy, it has to do with teaching you what implied consent is. Can you repeat back to me that you understand what the concept of implied consent is?

Well we can just pass a law that by virtue of an animal not raising an objection, in English, to being married they are giving implied consent.

It makes as much sense as saying that because you live with a person you are giving implied consent to marriage.

Awesome, it seems like we have solved your objection to human-dog marriage. Equality for all!

It's not an argument from tradition like you try so stupidly to use, it's an argument that changing the US legal system to allow non-sentient beings to enter into contracts would be a complete shit storm. Allowing gay couples to marry has zero negative effects on the rest of society. Rewriting contract law does not have zero negative effects.

There is zero negative effects of allowing humans to marry animals. Who said anything about other contracts?

Marriage is a societal construct. Society can change it to mean whatever they want. And in fact MUST change it to not discriminate against minority sexual orientations.

Saying "marriage is a contract and animals can't consent to contracts" is no different than saying "marriage is about procreation and a gay couple cannot procreate".

Well except for the fact that historically women could not enter into contracts, but were still allowed to get married :hmm:

 

[marvdmartian]

So.....dumb chick doesn't read her divorce papers before she signs them, then whines that she has to abide by them?

Waaah, frikkin' waah!!

 

[werepossum]

It only seems backwards if you're conflating the reason marriage is a legal concept with the way marriage is thought of culturally. Two different things. Fact is, there is no real reason for the state to recognize marriage except because it may have to apply some rules for division of assets on divorce. Let me know if you can think of another reason.

Otherwise, marriage can be handled by religious, secular traditions, whatever. If it's just about conceiving of a relationship in a certain way, the state need not recognize it.

Marriage conveys certain rights, such as the right to make decisions for the spouse if incapacitated, mutual child-rearing rights not accorded to live-ins or dates, and depending on the number of earners and the state's political bent either an income tax benefit or penalty. Society recognizes the value in stability that marriage bonds bring. Private entities may also recognize this value, though not so uniformly. Your insurance may be cheaper and your loans at a better rate, but it could just as easily go the other way as well.

 

[SolMiester]

There is no "lifestyle" involved. It is something they are born with. Dumb fuck.

Oh yeah, thats why she married and had children, THEN decided she was born gay!...Yeah right!