Nor is it the law of your land Ed.
I have yet to meet a Golden Retriever capable of giving informed consent in such a situation. However if you happen to know of a sub-type of the breed that can do so please let us know.
That is the current problem and the “sexual revolution” added to this by its ongoing promotion. Corruption disguised as “freedom.”
Specifically referring to the “dog marriage” argument, the difference is consent. A dog can’t consent.
I’ve found that this argument is a sure loser because the gay person or gay marriage supporter on the other side just assumes you don’t understand that the difference is consent and then disregards everything you say from then on.
So requiring that gay people must marry someone of the opposite sex is not an “exclusive right”,
But allowing anyone to marry someone regardless of their sex is somehow an “exclusive right”.
Perhaps one day a girl can marry her Yorkie if the pooch can shake on command.
Any way, is ‘consent’ the qualifier?
If a man wants to marry 12 consenting women, should he be able to?
It is a mark of a wrongful argument when an attempt is made at a popularity argument.
Not only is it a logical fallacy, most cannot support the claims they make.
I would like to see proof of this.
Your credibility is at stake.
Whereas propositions about Golden Retrievers getting married will no doubt go unchallenged.
Or, to put it another way:
“I don’t support same-sex marriage. People with same-sex attraction have the same right as people with opposite-sex attraction to marry a member of the opposite sex.”
But the same person might say,
“Allowing people with same-sex attraction to marry members of the same sex gives them an exclusive right (or a special right.)”
But by that person’s logic, it’s not a “special right” because all of us who have opposite-sex attraction now have the right to marry someone of the same sex!
What’s to say that the Court can’t change that the definition of marriage to remove ‘consent’?
Yeah, they’re really going to do that.
You need adult “consent” to sign a contract or write a will.
I can’t see why they wouldn’t uphold a consent requirement for something as important as marriage.
No one is required to get married at all.
It is a right that was made up exclusively for one specific set of people.
Modern pop culture tells us that “God is dead” and doesn’t matter anymore. Isolate yourself from these people and ignore them, but when you get the chance; prove how your faith has works.
This point always launches you guys off course. The point isn’t that the majority decides what sin is. The majority decides what advertisers do.
How do you know this?
If we are going to be questioning principles that man has kept for thousands of years, we may as well visit them all…prove to me a dog cannot provide consent.
I will worry about dog marriage once dogs start signing contracts and voting. Until then, its an idiotic thing to bring up.
As I recall, you have yet to support your claims.
I am still waiting for that proof that most Catholics support gay marriage.