Religion was never intended as a discussion topic. Sorry for the mis-understanding

read it??? :huh: I wrote it!!!! :devil2:
I was not knocking gay folks, it was just what I knew would make him the maddest! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wow this topic is took off hey?

sure relations should be allowed between humans and animals, but to suggest marriage? I'm going to disagree there. Marriage is a human concept. Animals place no meaning on it. Sure I think if someone wants to have an exclusive relationship with their dog (or other animal), they should have every right, but I wouldn't call it marriage.

i think marriage isn't for an animal, because it's a spiritual bonding for humans, animals no matther how they love a person, don't understands it.

I feel the same way as missywolf here, the word marriage and the legal document and partnership entered into through it is purely human, it would only be for the humans happiness/comfort if it were done, but the animal would place no meaning or value into it. Many people have exclusive relationships with their animals(I once had one with a horse) and I'm all for that, but the word marriage and what comes with it would only apply to the human partner involved. The animal would just wonder why he/she got a diamond or gold studded colllar/halter/etc all of a sudden ^_^ :D

If you love your dog you should be able to marry them. Doing this tho, people would not understand the bond between zoo's and their pets. No matter how bad we want it, it will never be leagalized.

I don't disagree with that personally, as long as the human partner understands that it's only binding for themselves, the animal will have no idea something happened and that a contract of any kind has been entered into that 'applies' to them. They'd just love their partner like they did before, no more and no less. ^_^

Anti-bestiality laws aren't always created for moral reasons, and if they are, they are usually produced in response to public awareness and opposition. Even so, laws are ultimately designed to protect against damage to people and their property. If bestiality is considered a harmful threat to animals, it will be outlawed anyway. It doesn't matter if a handful of zoophiles have consensual sex with animals, there are far more cases of rape and zoosadism to warrant having these laws around.

Government recognition of true zoophiles won't eliminate anti-bestiality laws, only revise them to account for cases in which animal consent may have been truly possible. Once a law has been established, this is really the only goal we can aim for.

Just because physical signs of abuse aren't present doesn't necessarily mean the sex was consensual. Emotional damage isn't as easy to find, and because of this, there's no way to prove whether consent existed for any previous sexual encounter. This makes it especially difficult to argue our case, because there is little or no proof to help our defense.

We all have basic human rights not to be discriminated against, but that's it. Zoophiles don't have special rights beyond that. We can theoretically live our entire lives without a single person knowing about their animal attractions, and function normally in society. The ability to express ourselves and flaunt our differences serves no real purpose, and doesn't effect our private animal relationships in any way. It will just invite harassment from people who are still morally against us. Being protected by rights is no guarantee that people won't hate us.

This discussion has gone off topic, but I can't resist putting in my 2 cents. Already a person can have legal documents drafted which provide specific privilege or rights to be awarded their pet, ie... an inheritance or cartaker in the event of the owners death, and etc. These documents are generaly recognized as legitimate and enforcable under established legal guidelines. I hardly think that Marriage between man and beast will ever be recognized as legitimate, and societey will certainly reject any person demanding that the institution of marriage be altered in its conception so that it can include inter-species unions. Any such demands placed upon society will be identified as an attack upon their core values and no good will come of it, at least not at this time and probably not for a very long time.
Marriage, religion, government, law enforcement, family, politics: These issues are closely connected and almost any position taken inside these subjects will invite criticism or worse. Add zoophilia to these subjects and just watch the fireworks explode! My conclusion is to not be too critical of others and hope for the favor returned, be discrete about my zoo interests, and expect to be ostricized when I can't pretend to "fit in" with the group.
As for the original subject of this thread, I think that it is natural instinct for humans to reject ideas which don't fit into their value system. A persons values are established by around age 6 years old so their ideas (feelings) are pretty deeply ingrained. One natural instinct of the animal called Human is to socialize and form [SPAM] or packs. If you don't harmonize with the "group think", eventually you will be rejected (excommunicate, cull, tarred and featherd, railroaded, beaten, caddied, ostricize, taken for a ride, incarcerated, given a dirt nap)
I don't like humans, but I enjoy having the intellect that humans have. I will never conform to the nonsensical behavior of the pack. Dogs are pure at heart, and use all of their facilites to the best of their ability. In general, humans waste their greatest asset, intellect. Most of the animal kingdom outside the human pack is way smarter than the average person. Humans would hardly stand a chance pitted in a contest of witts.
Oh my, how I ramble on. I hope my insight finds fertile ground - or maybe I'm just full of sh*t? What do some of you think? :thinking:

I think that the influence that makes them anti-zoo is a disease. Look at everything that they do, like ban so-called normal porn where they can, and make it a felony to own dildoes. They have other bad habits that can't be politely mentioned here, but we know what those are. Yes, they are too nasty to be mentioned on this forum.

This post has been edited by ShortRod on Mar 17 2008, 11:16 PM

who is they? and I don't know the laws in every area, but where is it illegal to own a dildo? besides many household objects can be used as dildos. :angel:

Texas is one of the states that has been infamous for this.

"They" are the people who want to live our lives for us because they have no lives of their own.

oh I see.

my grammar sucks in that last post. oops, should pay more attention. :blush:

Nice....... :D