Here's a little hint to bigotted dumbasses.

[demiurgent]

When you make a statement like "if we allow homosexuals to marry -- what's to stop the broadening of marriage laws further? What's to prevent people from marrying their animals?" You're equating homosexuals to subhuman status.

You are saying that their happiness, their relationships and their lives are bestial.

You're not just being offensive when you do that. You're taking human beings and reducing them to chattel.

If there is a Heaven and there is a Hell? Doing that shit should be what sends you to Hell.

If you're right and you get to go to Heaven? I would rather go to Hell.

Comments

[roniliquidity.livejournal.com]

And our pets.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

"If I let you two marry, what's to stop me from marrying my pet next? Huh? Answer me! This is not a rhetorical question! I... I get so lonely...."

[archangelbeth]

If the pet is 18 or over and can be certified as mentally competent to consent to a legally binding arrangement like that? Dude. Marry the pet, then! I don't care. Doesn't bug me so long as there's no abuse going on.

[letiwolf.livejournal.com]

If the pet is mentally compentent to consent, then calling them or treating them as 'a pet' is legalizing slavery. You can't marry your pet, because if they're something worth marrying, they're not a pet*, or morally shouldn't be.

*except perhaps under the rules of Safe Sane and Consensual, but that's another issue entirely.

[archangelbeth]

That's a very good point. I should've thought of it. (I was mostly operating from the perspective of "I don't think that Lassie is going to be certified as mentally competent to enter into a legally binding agreement.")

[letiwolf.livejournal.com]

Moral theoretics, posing impossible ethical dilemmas just for fun. :)