Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: StarSlayer on February 28, 2011, 08:18:07 pm
-
So Axem links this article in irc about an animal shelter having a gay marriage for cats (http://www.petfinder.com/blog/2011/02/28/first-same-sex-cat-marriage-wedding-video/). Since my brain has the ability to take a ninety degree turn and then make a couple FTL jumps my thought process went from, are they sure they are really gay cats* and not just a bromance? to eventually considering should heterosexual life partners be covered by same sex marriage?
Now I really can't speculate whether or not there would be any real interest in such a union, I think Boston Legal touched on it but it occurred during a season when I had given up watching TV and was out running every night for many a mile. But I suppose two men or two women who are really good friends hypothetically might want to be legally bonded for stability and financial/medical security reasons. Certainly during history there are plenty of cases of marriage being driven by alterior motives as the primary impetus rather then romance. Does such a thing seem like it should be allowed or no? Would their actually be any real interest in it if it were allowed?
Anyway I thought it might be an interesting hypothetical subject, certainly not the worst posted on GD so :P
yes I know its probably screwy I would come up with this and if you want to discuss the cats as well go ahead
*Note I am cognizant that it has been scientifically proven animals can be same sex orientation, I was just curious if the shelter bothered to really make sure or not or if they just wanted publicity
-
20-people-polygamy ftw!
-
I suppose from the perspective of something like what was presented in Caprica where it's more of a communal arrangement rather then "I got me 19 wives some of em' old enough to be my grandchildren and we shoot any ATF agents that approach the compound" it might be worth discussing. However, I think the legal complexities of such a grouping would be prohibitive, for example how would you get a divorce if you only wanted to break up with a single one of your spouses?
-
my brother had 2 male black labs that routinely raped eachother. dont tell me animals cant be gay.
but seriously as much as one side of the argument thump religious dogma and the the other side thump civil rights and whatnot. the real issue about gay marriage is entirely a monetary one. any organization (government or private) who pays out money or benefits to straight couples and their families does not want to be legally obligated to pay the same to gay couples.
ive always made the claim that if the institution of marriage was to be religiously defined, then it has no place in government. any gay couple could be defined as married if they could find a religious organization to certify it (and there are those that will). this certification would not have any legal binding at all and only has meaning within the context of the church in which it was issued. essentially abolish the marriage license. in its place put up a union license. any group of 2 or more people could apply for one. the license would legally define the group as a family, taxes may be filed jointly and all members of the union would be eligible for both public and private benefits.
i think its rather ridiculous for people to get divorced because its financially more affordable, or get hitched just so they could live together and share benefits. then you got people who get open marriages so that they could share living expenses, but are free too peruse other relations (you know, swingers). i dont see why we try to enforce such strict restrictions on the definition of marriage if people are going to screw around with it anyway and twist it to their own needs. this grants religious organizations the right to define what marriage is, without encroaching on the rights of gays, lesbians, frat boys, sorority girls, creches, hippy communes, and **** clubs.
-
And here I though you would be talking about TVTropes. [/derail]
-
Marriage is a legal arrangement and I feel that the sex of the entrants into a marriage shouldn't matter, that's my take on it.
-
Wait, since when did cats get married.
I thought they just ****ed whoever and whenever they wanted...
And they don't give two ****s about legal arrangements either.
-
my brother had 2 male black labs that routinely raped eachother. dont tell me animals cant be gay.
In dogs at least, that's a dominance thing rather than a sex thing, same reason they try to hump your leg.
-
Sex is often used to establish dominance. . .
a.k.a.
Being a dominance thing does not make it a non-sexual thing.
-
so why were they taking turns?
-
gay cats...
cats have barbed penises...
I'm glad I am not a gay cat.
-
The WTF-ness of the original link aside, strangely enough, I find myself almost completely agreeing with Nuke. I'm not really sure why the government is still in the "marriage" business in the first place, when what concerns it isn't the particulars of the relationship, but instead the legal benefits conferred upon the couple. As a Catholic, I view marriage within the Church in a specific light, one that doesn't mesh even with a lot of currently-married couples out there, so I don't really see how legal definitions impact me either way (which seems to put me a bit at-odds with most religious activists on the topic). The whole system would make far more sense if the law could convey a legal union on two individuals, regardless of their relationship, that would convey all the benefits currently associated with the legal definition of "marriage"...whether it's a romantically-involved couple, or two elderly siblings that live together, it wouldn't matter. Those who want to mark their union beyond that can do so via a certain religious ceremony, or whatever else works for them.
-
gay cats...
cats have barbed penises...
I'm glad I am not a gay cat.
OGOD. Get this out of my head :shaking:
-
The WTF-ness of the original link aside, strangely enough, I find myself almost completely agreeing with Nuke. I'm not really sure why the government is still in the "marriage" business in the first place, when what concerns it isn't the particulars of the relationship, but instead the legal benefits conferred upon the couple. As a Catholic, I view marriage within the Church in a specific light, one that doesn't mesh even with a lot of currently-married couples out there, so I don't really see how legal definitions impact me either way (which seems to put me a bit at-odds with most religious activists on the topic). The whole system would make far more sense if the law could convey a legal union on two individuals, regardless of their relationship, that would convey all the benefits currently associated with the legal definition of "marriage"...whether it's a romantically-involved couple, or two elderly siblings that live together, it wouldn't matter. Those who want to mark their union beyond that can do so via a certain religious ceremony, or whatever else works for them.
agreed. marriage is a spiritual/religious union.
-
And why are cats getting married? The WTF-ness of this is that. I don't care that they're gay cats. Why are animals that don't even have a concept of marriage being married. Since it's humans marrying them, and cat's can't say yes or no, it indeed is that the cats are forced to marry. The forcement of marriage upon the felines and their consent to marry one another isn't the issue i mean to raise with this, but rather to show off human stupidity (of which i go back to the question i started out with).
The cats can't acknowledge that their married or tell other people that they are. This is what i call actual perversion of marriage. I think it's great gay people can get married (that's not a perversion of marriage). But animals getting married to other animals; IT'S STUPID.
It'll be great for anyone taking the marriage seriously; here's how it'll go down.
Cats go around and **** other cats (that's what they do). Unbeknownst gay kitty swingers will be recognized as gay kitty open marriage by idiot humans. Idiot religious humans will come along and take advantage of the situation and retitle gay kitty open marriage as gay kitty infidelity, say that gay people shouldn't be married, and that gay people are bad bad human beings (the lulz will ensue).
agreed. marriage is a spiritual/religious union.
Yes it is. Also great to mention you don't need a license to get married. When i get married to some lovely lady in 4 years, i'm not going to get a marriage license. Getting permission from the state for something you already could do without their permission is stupid. That and i don't want the state to have jurisdiction over my marriage and future kids.
-
The WTF-ness of the original link aside, strangely enough, I find myself almost completely agreeing with Nuke. I'm not really sure why the government is still in the "marriage" business in the first place, when what concerns it isn't the particulars of the relationship, but instead the legal benefits conferred upon the couple. As a Catholic, I view marriage within the Church in a specific light, one that doesn't mesh even with a lot of currently-married couples out there, so I don't really see how legal definitions impact me either way (which seems to put me a bit at-odds with most religious activists on the topic). The whole system would make far more sense if the law could convey a legal union on two individuals, regardless of their relationship, that would convey all the benefits currently associated with the legal definition of "marriage"...whether it's a romantically-involved couple, or two elderly siblings that live together, it wouldn't matter. Those who want to mark their union beyond that can do so via a certain religious ceremony, or whatever else works for them.
These are basically my feelings on the topic.
-
I seem to agree with the 'goose and the General.
I believe C.S Lewis proposed a separation of church marriage from it's legal definition 60+ years ago (course for him, it was the Anglican Church). The idea appeals to my libertarian leanings.
-
I seem to agree with the 'goose and the General.
I believe C.S Lewis proposed a separation of church marriage from it's legal definition 60+ years ago (course for him, it was the Anglican Church). The idea appeals to my libertarian leanings.
Libertarian Lewis fans UNITE!