To: MinnesotaLibertarian
This is an absurd comparison, though that doesn't stop it from being a favorite for many. We're discussing an agreement between two consenting adults; an animal doesn't have the ability to consent. Furthermore, we don't apply any other human statutes to animals; why would marriage laws be any different? How dare you try to interfere with someone's sex life? What business is it of government's if they do it behind closed doors? And besides, animal cruelty is outlawed by most religions, so it shouldn't be a government issue, but a religious one.
97 posted on
05/15/2008 12:30:49 PM PDT by
Mr. Silverback
(It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
To: Mr. Silverback
How dare you try to interfere with someone's sex life? What business is it of government's if they do it behind closed doors? And besides, animal cruelty is outlawed by most religions, so it shouldn't be a government issue, but a religious one.
We were talking about marriage, not sex. If somebody really wants to have sex with a sheep, and it's their sheep, then again, no matter how disturbing I find it, I don't see why it's anybody else's business. We don't currently recognize any legal rights for animals, so what's to stop this from happening right now? Furthermore, how is this at all related to the California Supreme Court decision?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson