[jimt]

We started on an ignorant statment you made equating animals and inanimate objects with rational human adults which the law and rational thought says can consentually enter into contracts. You broadened the subject without acknowledging the ignorance of your original remark.

All right, let's go back to the beginning.

My remark was (#12) in reply to sartorius' comment "Unless something is done soon, we will see person's marrying their llamas.. "

I said 'It's certainly as legitimate as "gay marriage". The logic used to change the definition of marriage to "two persons" cannot come up with any reasonable justification to restrict it to "two" or to "persons".'

You then derided this by saying animals couldn't give consent, and I replied that as they were property, they didn't need to. (Property is a major subject of contract law - thousands of contracts are written regarding property daily.)

I have been on that point since the beginning. It is you who squirms, spins and tries to avoid the issue.

Could you try addressing what I actually said? Instead of suggestive comments about "your llama" ?

How does the logic used to suddenly legalize "gay marriage" differ from that which would open marriage to "two or more entities" ?

Hint: it doesn't.

[breakem]

asked and answered, but since you did such a great review, here's a summary homosexuals are human beings that have rational thought. Our government recognizes that adult human being can engage in contracts. Animals and yoiur couch cannot. I have said this 3 or 4 times, What part don't you understand or do you really believe that something you own and which cannot engage in rational thought can have leagl standing to consentually marry something? If so please say more since yours is such a unique position in anglo-american law.