if I can't marry a cactus, what's the point?
Mofuji posted...
if I can't marry a cactus, what's the point?
Why do that?
They're all pricks.
I don't approve of any forms of marriage
Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.
Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.
Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.
lol acting as if animals have given consent on anything we have done to them.
Eat us, kill us, enslave us, castrate us, but for Godsake please dont marry us!
Because apparently between the ages of 17 and 18 a youth is magically endowed with the knowledge of Solomon? >_>
Given that marriage has always been between at least one man and at least one woman, anything that doesn't fit that definition is automatically ruled out.
adjl posted...
Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.
Exactly this for me
green dragon posted...
adjl posted...
Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.
Exactly this for me
Zeus posted...
Given that marriage has always been between at least one man and at least one woman, anything that doesn't fit that definition is automatically ruled out.
You heard it here folks: If it's not the way it's always been done, it's bad. Guess we'd better stop treating diseases and go back to living in caves.
moronic analogy
And, if you want to dismissing things because humanity has been doing them forever, you might try not eating.
Zeus posted...
moronic analogy
Zeus posted...
And, if you want to dismissing things because humanity has been doing them forever, you might try not eating.
Come on, man. Come on.
Among the other problems with that moronic analogy is the fact that marriage didn't exist as a formal ceremony until *after* medicines were already in use in virtually every society.
And, if you want to dismissing things because humanity has been doing them forever, you might try not eating.
Given that marriage has always been between at least one man and at least one woman, anything that doesn't fit that definition is automatically ruled out.
Given that marriage has always been between at least one man and at least one woman, anything that doesn't fit that definition is automatically ruled out. Other than that, just consenting adults with added restrictions barring things like bride-grooming or husband-grooming. (And, of course, married couples with close genetic ties -- immediate family -- shouldn't be allowed to have kids. I'm looking at you, Game of Thrones!Prince Joffreyshowed us the dangers there.)
adjl posted...
Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.
Because apparently between the ages of 17 and 18 a youth is magically endowed with the knowledge of Solomon? >_>
adjl posted...
Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.
Exactly this for me
I find it funny that, ignoring the multiple option, people are less opposed to marrying their twin sisters in a polygamous marriage than they are marrying someone who is 17. Of course with the 'multiple' option I'm sure that number is different.
Unbridled9 posted...
I find it funny that, ignoring the multiple option, people are less opposed to marrying their twin sisters in a polygamous marriage than they are marrying someone who is 17. Of course with the 'multiple' option I'm sure that number is different.
As I said, consent is the only important thing. Confirming consent can get hazy in cases of incest, because grooming is a thing, but provided all involved parties are consenting adults, they can do whatever they want.
adjl posted...
Unbridled9 posted...
I find it funny that, ignoring the multiple option, people are less opposed to marrying their twin sisters in a polygamous marriage than they are marrying someone who is 17. Of course with the 'multiple' option I'm sure that number is different.
As I said, consent is the only important thing. Confirming consent can get hazy in cases of incest, because grooming is a thing, but provided all involved parties are consenting adults, they can do whatever they want.
But then, say, couldn't a woman consent to having sex with her dog and the dog 'consent' by engaging in the act?
Mofuji posted...
if I can't marry a cactus, what's the point?
Why do that?
They're all pricks.
power imbalances in sexual relationships are no bueno
adjl posted...
power imbalances in sexual relationships are no bueno
I disagree.
Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.
I still find it hilarious that adjl wants animals to give consent on sex but yet they are incapable of consenting to being fixed, turned into mincemeat, forced into captivity, enslaved, etc.
Its like peoples reasons for disapproving of bestiality are illegitimate, considering all the other things we do to animals without their consent. Just face it, animals dont have rights.
Veedrock- posted...
adjl posted...
power imbalances in sexual relationships are no bueno
I disagree.
Same.
Its just some peoples fetish to be dominated jeez
I mostly see it as setting a standard for human behaviour, rather than a standard for how animals are treated.
Though, that said, I'd say those other things you mentioned are more justifiable than having sex with animals is. They at least serve some sort of practical purpose. Slaughtering an animal may be unsavory, but sustenance is a much more legitimate justification than having a pre-warmed fleshlight.
By that logic we're setting a standard that allows us to kill humans for their meat.
The problem with this is that you're only measuring justifiability by how exactly it benefits humans
incestuous - nope. birth defects and what not. I'm playing the nature card now. Nature truly does not intend to create inbreeds.
Because apparently between the ages of 17 and 18 a youth is magically endowed with the knowledge of Solomon? >_>