Posted on 04/29/2007 8:01:42 AM PDT by Mr. Brightside
Oh, and once again you insulted me. I’m getting more and more certain that is all you have.
I did explain why it’s irrelevant. I don’t know of any definition of civil union that includes animals. Thus, the irrelevance of your question. If the definition is confusing you, though, here ya go: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil%20union
I looked at all the definitions, they don’t mention animals.
If all one had to do is “love” another, then someone who falls in love with man’s best friend should NOT be denied their civil rights.
Since when is sexual perversion a civil right?
“I don’t see why men having anal sex with men should gain anyone’s approval. It doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or Darwin, it is a perversion of human nature.”
_____________________________
Agreed ~ Well stated!
The answer is that liberal homosexual activists came up with the defintion. It has no history beyond that. It never existed until the VT Supreme Court ordered the VT legislature to write it into law about ten years ago. It has no cultural basis, no religious basis and no legal basis beyond the last few years of liberal judiciary activisism.
As ridiculous as all that is if that is acceptable to the courts then it is perfectly reasonable to include animals, multiple partners or "civil union" with a patch of Spanish Moss.
My original post accurately reflects the absurdity of any kind of "civil union" being enshrined in law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.