ike wrote:
If we ever recognize a right to marry an animal — with whatever that entails — it won’t be because of some inescapably slippery slope. It will be because some future society, by its values and processes, makes that judgment. It does not seem at all inevitable that one leads to the other.
What does that even mean?
I hate that government is so now intertwined with religion, and a lot over this stupid word.
Marriage, should be a Religious event governed and controlled by the religious institution that is recognizing the marriage, in the eyes of their god.
We should then have a legal document for merging two peoples assets, and the legal view that these 2 are now an incorporated entity. Which should by default cause on ones death the assets of the other to stay with the other half, allow insurance policies from an employer to cover all those in the incorporated entity, (which would include kids as you had them).
If we did this, no one would give a shit about marriage anymore. I highly doubt that much fuss would be made about who someone chose to go into this legal agreement with.
If I had one shot at one thing, blink my eyes it happens, This would be high on my list of items, marriage is instantly removed from all government documents, replaced with (I need a catchy name) incorporated entities.
and on the stupid animal discussion, no its not a slippery slope that leads to that, until someone develops a way for an animal to give consent.
Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.