Meanwhile, you can call me Joe Black, or Anonymous Coward, if you so wish. To answer your question - yup, I do blog. Will let you know, all in good time.

Bush hasn’t been shooting straight with the country from the beginning, and keeps insisting that if we only trust him a little more–with a little more money, a little more of our liberties, a little more credulity (the “aw-shucks-if-I-say-WMDs-are-there,-they’re-there-and-if-Dick-says-there-was-a-link-between-Osama-and Saddam,-there-was-a-link,-why-do-you-need-to-see-proof of-everything” stance), well then things will be just peachy. Meanwhile, we are growing poorer, more internally divided, internationally detested (rather than just mocked and secretly envied) and have managed to alienate bloody everybody. And he’s not making any of it better.

The point is, we feel as though they (Iraq and terrorism) are two separate (if tenuously connected) issues, but are being painted as the same, like we won’t notice. WTF?

But of course, being a liberal, you understand all this already…. Nice imagery, BTW, in that post. This, I’m sure I must point out, because it looks insincere nestled alongside the last comment, is not sarcasm. Really. And there’s no way to make it look better, so you’ll have to take my word on that. Which is also not sarcasm alluding to the previous comments on Bush. Oh hell, forget it.

2. Re: gay marriage. Sigh. But. I thought I said that–you know–I would actually be willing to make the pet-marriage for gay-marriage trade. I’m crazy like that, I guess. Anyway, I do see your point, as the conservative devil’s advocate.(And forgive me for thinking you personally held such opinions. I usually use those crazy quote squiggles to indicate an idea is not my own, so I figured you were making a personal argument.) Though I think the institution of marriage has historically had far more to do with property than procreation (and is thus a matter of society, not nature). Anyway, as it seems no one else has any interest whatsoever in this post (I’ve literally received more feedback on a picture of a teacozy) feel free to continue the conversation by emailing me at siddity_at_gmail_dot_com, if you haven’t already grown bored of it. Also, do you have a blog? And can I visit? purty please?

They merely have different prejudices than yours. Different, but no less important. And oh, the welfare thing is on the way.

Whatever I had mentioned had been legally proven by a bunch of UCLA law professors, who basically showed the legal gray-areas that would arise from making gay marriages legal.

Nonsensical? Why do you consider marrying an animal that I love nonsensical? Give me a logical reason why you think I cannot marry an animal that I’m in love with. That they are not the same species is not good enough, because then I can say that gays are not different gender. We just have differences in prejudice - nothing more.

Try telling childless parents who’ve adopted a dog and are close to the dog that it cannot be accorded the same status as human children - in many ways, they treat them as equals, if not better. My autistic cousin has a dog whom he really loves, the dog is more human to him than most people are.

If you cater to one particular group, you are still being prejudiced. Why should animal lovers be treated any differently? And consequently why _any_ group of people be treated any differently?

If you can call allowing gays to not marry special discrimination, I would say the same for not allowing me to marry Catherine Zeta Jones. You’re not letting me marry someone I deeply love, care and is human. Why?

If you can give me a good reason why you think marrying animals should not be allowed, please let me know. If not, if we allow humans to marry animals, they become citizens. You cannot kill them. If we accord that right to animals, why not plants? I’m a tree hugger. Where will you draw the line? You draw the line where nature has drawn the line. Union of two people originated for the purpose of procreation, and that is all that shall be recognized. It is not Bush who is deciding, but nature who has decided this.

While you may find my argument ridiculous, it is quite valid and has a very well proven legal basis. But — I’ll tell you _why_ humans need to be accorded that respect — if the consent needs to be mutual, the defendant is going to have a hard time proving that the animal provides for mutual consent. Possible, but quite hard.

Therefore, to get over one prejudice (man marrying man, or woman marrying woman), you use another (the need for mutual consent).

We still have a lot of prejudice to overcome, but the point remains that there are people who have their own preferences, likes and dislikes. Where would you draw the line?

Everyone has their own set of prejudices, and most people by their upraising hold true to theirs. Surprisingly, it even has a lot of validity although they may not be rationally aware of that validity.

My point was merely to highlight that while it is easy to dimiss one school of thought easily, it would be fatal to ignore the ramifications and consequences of a simple piece of legislation. If it is gay marriage today, one can only wonder what awaits us tomorrow.

Okay, listen, last I checked, animals weren’t considered whos, they were considered whats, so your “let me marry an animal if folks should be able to marry who they love” idea is just plain nonsensical. You’re talking about interspecies relationships all of a sudden. Apples and oranges, my friend, apples and oranges.(You sure you’re not a republican? That is a classic Republican tactic–”if…then” apparently black-and-white relationships between two wildly divergent issues. And don’t even get me started on how close this debate has just come to some seriously foul conversation about how, until very recently, interracial marriage was illegal in many places, because of rules written when whites believed the rest of us really were animals…)

Even if it wasn’t, though, I’d be willing to bet that the number of people who would do something like that is small enough that, if that were the tradeoff for legalized gay marriage, I’d say okay. I don’t know why you’d assume I wouldn’t. Did you think that would be irrational or extreme? Perhaps as extreme and irrational as having to fall back on “what if I want to marry my dog” examples to try to force someone to back off support of gay marriage? And why is giving two people in love the right to marry a “special favor?” A good 90% of the world (conservative estimate following the one-in-ten theory) already enjoys that right, so what we are talking about is not a matter of granting “special favors,” but of alleviating longstanding “special discrimination.”

I honestly don’t know why marriage between relatives is codified by law as wrong, but I suspect it has more to do with protecting innocent/impressionable children from lecherous relatives than any desire to thwart romance between close family members. Again, such a rare occurence, I can’t see that posing much of a threat on its own. Again, such a bizarre and desperate example, I cannot believe you even considered using it to defend an anti-gay marriage stance.

Well, you’ve got my answer on those issues. Thing is, I’m not the one drawing lines, dear. You are. Marry your damn dog. If the dog likes you back in that special way, and it will stop you from yapping about gays getting married, go for it. As long as you appoint someone to act on behalf of the (non-speaking, barely comprehending) dog at the reading of your will, then, okay, groovy. I see no problems there. Do you? Seriously, what are you in particular and we as a societly losing by offering people the the legitimacy and shelter of an institution conservatives claim front-back-and-sideways should be the cornerstone and salvation of our society, anyway?

I just don’t know what else to say to this. Seriously, this is the most ridiculous blogversation I’ve ever had. Just the fact that I’ve taken time out of my day to respond to this line of reasoning has me in disbelief.

It was kinda funny, though. ROFLMFAO @ wolf spouse eating gay neighbor=no death penalty in blue states. (Why did it have to be your gay neighbor? Harboring a little eensy weensy bias against gays, there?) In red states, you know the poor racoon would have been arrested and fried for the crime well before the dust had even settled, so wolfie wouldn’t even have to worry about it…

More than that, if my wolf eats my gay neighbor shouldn’t the wolf as a human spouse enjoy the same rights? As a human? And a US citizen?

Which means, in some of these blue states, no death penalty. Funny stuff, eh.

The reason for gays marrying is that people should be able to marry who they love - suppose I love my dog very much? (and many people do)

I want to marry a cow. From India. Which would make the cow a US citizen and accord it the rights and privileges. Which would be unfair to all other cows around the world. And accord them legal status as humans.

Why should only folk who love same-sex be given special favors?

Would you say, it should only be between humans? If so, why can’t I marry my Mom or my Sister?

No? Not within the family?

What about (the many more) who pine away in love? Why should they be discriminated against?

Why can’t I marry Catherine Zeta Jones? After all, marriage is just a ceremony. I mean, let her be happy with Michael Douglas, but let me marry her.

No? You’d say it should be mutual.

Hmm, so you’ve already proven yourself to be prejudiced - only humans, not within family and should be mutual.

We’re just adding one more — only between a man and a woman.

Where will you draw the line?