Torillian said:
While animals are eaten for food and controlled as pets animal cruelty with the sole purpose of human enjoyment is still not allowed. It's why dog fighting is illegal even if you can put the dog to sleep, because forcing them to fight and die for your amusement is inhumane. Having sex with an animal is similarly inhumane and is therefore different. The rest is all about consent. Consenting adults should be allowed to marry in any combination they like. Marrying a minor or an animal forces an innocent into a situation they cannot consent to by definition. Yes the choice of 18 is somewhat arbitrary, and if reasonable research comes out suggesting that children are mature before that the issue can be revisited, but you still need to choose an age as a society when you think children become adults and that's what we've chosen as of yet. Basically there's no reason that someone fighting for marriage equality has to support all the things you mentioned because they are fighting for marriage equality between consenting adults. The fact that some wants to marry a non-consenting party doesn't affect that in the same way that gay marriage proponents don't have to fight for forced marriages to fight for full marriage equality, because equality swings both ways. That animal has a right not to get fucked by you or mistreated for your amusement in any other way, but you should have the right to marry any consenting party you so desire. |
thank you for trying to debate the beasyilaty point. i respect that. and as i said beastiality was the least of my argument. i respect your opinion on the matter.
i dont know if you support polygammy and or incest marriage, but i just wish for proponents of consenting homosexual couple marriage would be consistant and support other forms of consenting adult marriage.
and like i have said i wish for the government to get out of the marriage business
