This country is so f'ed.

There have been two cases in the last week of people being arrested for having sex with their dogs. That's a closed minded society that would arrest someone for love. Remember it wasn't that long ago that gays would be arrested for having sex.

(06-26-2015 04:46 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  This country is so f'ed.

Fitbud would say "why do you hate dogs"

(06-26-2015 04:46 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  This country is so f'ed.

when you're this mad, it's a GREAT day for America.

(06-26-2015 05:03 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 04:46 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  This country is so f'ed.

when you're this mad, it's a GREAT day for America.

Still patting yourself on the back for doing absolutely nothing, I see.

(06-26-2015 05:10 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 05:03 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 04:46 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  This country is so f'ed.

when you're this mad, it's a GREAT day for America.

Still patting yourself on the back for doing absolutely nothing, I see.

laughing at conservative outrage does not require me to touch my own back...but keep letting that anger flow, I hear it's very cathartic.

(06-26-2015 05:13 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 05:10 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 05:03 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 04:46 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  This country is so f'ed.

when you're this mad, it's a GREAT day for America.

Still patting yourself on the back for doing absolutely nothing, I see.

laughing at conservative outrage does not require me to touch my own back...but keep letting that anger flow, I hear it's very cathartic.

What makes you think I'm angry? Other than the voices in your head telling you that, I mean?

(06-26-2015 05:14 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 05:13 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 05:10 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 05:03 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 04:46 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  This country is so f'ed.

when you're this mad, it's a GREAT day for America.

Still patting yourself on the back for doing absolutely nothing, I see.

laughing at conservative outrage does not require me to touch my own back...but keep letting that anger flow, I hear it's very cathartic.

What makes you think I'm angry? Other than the voices in your head telling you that, I mean?

the words you type make it obvious...

you don't debate, you just hurl insults to avoid intellectual discussion.

marriage to dogs won't happen. dogs can not give consent. using this argument is a complete dead end.

(06-26-2015 05:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 05:14 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 05:13 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 05:10 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 05:03 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  when you're this mad, it's a GREAT day for America.

Still patting yourself on the back for doing absolutely nothing, I see.

laughing at conservative outrage does not require me to touch my own back...but keep letting that anger flow, I hear it's very cathartic.

What makes you think I'm angry? Other than the voices in your head telling you that, I mean?

the words you type make it obvious...

you don't debate, you just hurl insults to avoid intellectual discussion.

Says the guy who posts memes instead of actually countering a valid post.

So you infer I'm angry because you WANT me to be angry? Not very intellectual if you ask me.

Not that any of the OP's post justifies a legitimate response in the first place, but pets are deemed to be property under the law. A pet cannot hold property under the law, which de facto makes it impossible for them to be married to a human from a legal perspective (as financial and property considerations are an integral part of marriage law). In estate planning (which is actually where a lot of pet-related legal issues come into play), you cannot leave any money or other property to a pet in a will or trust. Now, you can certainly leave money to a caregiver with the explicit requirement that the money be used for that pet. You can also set up a trust for the purpose of that pet's care/housing/comfort, but it still must ultimately be controlled by a human trustee. Anyway, that's your pet law lesson for the day.

(06-26-2015 05:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Not that any of the OP's post justifies a legitimate response in the first place, but pets are deemed to be property under the law. A pet cannot hold property under the law, which de facto makes it impossible for them to be married to a human from a legal perspective (as financial and property considerations are an integral part of marriage law). In estate planning (which is actually where a lot of pet-related legal issues come into play), you cannot leave any money or other property to a pet in a will or trust. Now, you can certainly leave money to a caregiver with the explicit requirement that the money be used for that pet. You can also set up a trust for the purpose of that pet's care/housing/comfort, but it still must ultimately be controlled by a human trustee. Anyway, that's your pet law lesson for the day.

Interesting question: Could a slave marry his/her master? Or maybe more interesting since the former quandry could be eliminated by granting freedom to the slave, can a slave marry a slave?

Stupid premise of a thread

(06-26-2015 05:13 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 05:10 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 05:03 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 04:46 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  This country is so f'ed.

when you're this mad, it's a GREAT day for America.

Still patting yourself on the back for doing absolutely nothing, I see.

laughing at conservative outrage does not require me to touch my own back...but keep letting that anger flow, I hear it's very cathartic.

heterosexual marriage > homosexual marriage

The Supreme Court can't change how our bodies are made.

Yup.

(06-26-2015 05:10 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 05:03 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 04:46 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  This country is so f'ed.

when you're this mad, it's a GREAT day for America.

Still patting yourself on the back for doing absolutely nothing, I see.

That's a leftist for you.

Quote:Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth—a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy—it is a social movement that challenges society’s traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.”

Kinda sounds like in the eyes of PETA animals and people are equals.

(06-26-2015 04:46 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  This country is so f'ed.

Does consent not matter to you as a distinction?

Because it is pretty much THE ONLY THING that matters in marriage for me.



Gay marriage is yet another example of how desperately lost and devoid of tact the values voter wing of the GOP is with the rest of the country. If they had even one iota of tact they'd have taken the Ron Paul stance of making marriage an institution divorced from the state. No more marriage licenses, etc. Make it a purely religious function. Allow people to assign spousal benefits they would get from insurance/government by having a standard form that has to be notorized at an official government building (say the nearest USPS that does passports). But no. The values voters wanted to go against principles and use the power of the state to force their views upon everybody else. And so they've been spending the last several years getting their *** handed to them.

Roberts made an interesting point on his this ruling could easily lead to polygamy.

Throughout human history, there have been many cultures that have encouraged or tolerated polygamy. Very few (if any) allowed gay marriage. So if the court now allows us to take the giant leap from heterosexual marriage to homosexual marriage, what is to prevent us from taking the shorter leap to polygamy?

(06-26-2015 06:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 04:46 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  This country is so f'ed.

Does consent not matter to you as a distinction?

Because it is pretty much THE ONLY THING that matters in marriage for me.



Gay marriage is yet another example of how desperately lost and devoid of tact the values voter wing of the GOP is with the rest of the country. If they had even one iota of tact they'd have taken the Ron Paul stance of making marriage an institution divorced from the state. No more marriage licenses, etc. Make it a purely religious function. Allow people to assign spousal benefits they would get from insurance/government by having a standard form that has to be notorized at an official government building (say the nearest USPS that does passports). But no. The values voters wanted to go against principles and use the power of the state to force their views upon everybody else. And so they've been spending the last several years getting their *** handed to them.

When was Ron Paul around when we were defining marriage originally? It's ALWAYS been with the states as far as I know, certainly longer than he's been around.

And good luck ever getting it out of their hands. That was a fantasy, Imho, even though in principle, I agree.