I'm more referring to comments made by PETA presidents that "Dogs are just people with fur". And since PETA HQd in Cali and the 9th Circuit is also, don't be surprised if this kind of stuff happens.
Originally posted by: Fausto
....and there was much rejoicing amongst the kittens and gerbils.Originally posted by: CPA
I liked it, but I disagree with the assumption that in 2005 the court would not allow the goat marriage. With the rate that we are instituting animal laws and elevating animals to the stature of humans, I can easily forsee in the near future that animals will have all the rights we are endowed with. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see an Animal Constitution before I die.
and yes, I'm serious.
In all seriousness, you gotta draw a line somewhere. Just because a dog isn't a human doesn't mean some asshole can set it on fire without fear of reprecussions (I'm indirectly referencing the case that sparked the development of the GA felony animal crueltly laws).
Fortunately PETA's version of "animal rights" and a normal person's version of "animal rights" are fairly divergent. Having been in bio labs all my career, I'm personally glad that laws have grown more stringent as one used to be able to get away with some truly cruel "experiments" back in the day. Animal research is hard to be around, but does a lot of good that "using a petrie dish cell culture as a viable alternative" cannot hope to achieve.Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Fausto
....and there was much rejoicing amongst the kittens and gerbils.Originally posted by: CPA
I liked it, but I disagree with the assumption that in 2005 the court would not allow the goat marriage. With the rate that we are instituting animal laws and elevating animals to the stature of humans, I can easily forsee in the near future that animals will have all the rights we are endowed with. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see an Animal Constitution before I die.
and yes, I'm serious.
In all seriousness, you gotta draw a line somewhere. Just because a dog isn't a human doesn't mean some asshole can set it on fire without fear of reprecussions (I'm indirectly referencing the case that sparked the development of the GA felony animal crueltly laws).
I'm more referring to comments made by PETA presidents that "Dogs are just people with fur". And since PETA HQd in Cali and the 9th Circuit is also, don't be surprised if this kind of stuff happens.
Originally posted by: rahvin
Complication of the tax code isn't really a compelling reason to prevent polygammy. There has to be a compeling social reason to prevent it, not a set of artificial tax laws. The opposition to polygammy is almost entirely morally based. Without proof of harm they will have a hard time coming up with a reason not to allow it. Maybe not the current justices but the precedent has been set, as time goes the court will become more liberal just as it always has (what's liberal today will be conservative tommorow). Polygammy being outlawed will become past history just as drug prohibition will eventually.
Originally posted by: TommyVercetti
What's the joke about the goat's consent? No one asks the cow's consent when we are cutting it up for steak.
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Fausto
....and there was much rejoicing amongst the kittens and gerbils.Originally posted by: CPA
I liked it, but I disagree with the assumption that in 2005 the court would not allow the goat marriage. With the rate that we are instituting animal laws and elevating animals to the stature of humans, I can easily forsee in the near future that animals will have all the rights we are endowed with. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see an Animal Constitution before I die.
and yes, I'm serious.
In all seriousness, you gotta draw a line somewhere. Just because a dog isn't a human doesn't mean some asshole can set it on fire without fear of reprecussions (I'm indirectly referencing the case that sparked the development of the GA felony animal crueltly laws).
I'm more referring to comments made by PETA presidents that "Dogs are just people with fur". And since PETA HQd in Cali and the 9th Circuit is also, don't be surprised if this kind of stuff happens.
Originally posted by: OS
Originally posted by: rahvin
Complication of the tax code isn't really a compelling reason to prevent polygammy. There has to be a compeling social reason to prevent it, not a set of artificial tax laws. The opposition to polygammy is almost entirely morally based. Without proof of harm they will have a hard time coming up with a reason not to allow it. Maybe not the current justices but the precedent has been set, as time goes the court will become more liberal just as it always has (what's liberal today will be conservative tommorow). Polygammy being outlawed will become past history just as drug prohibition will eventually.
yay, how pimp would it be to have a couple wives in case you get bored of one and decide to throw her away.
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: OS
Originally posted by: rahvin
Complication of the tax code isn't really a compelling reason to prevent polygammy. There has to be a compeling social reason to prevent it, not a set of artificial tax laws. The opposition to polygammy is almost entirely morally based. Without proof of harm they will have a hard time coming up with a reason not to allow it. Maybe not the current justices but the precedent has been set, as time goes the court will become more liberal just as it always has (what's liberal today will be conservative tommorow). Polygammy being outlawed will become past history just as drug prohibition will eventually.
yay, how pimp would it be to have a couple wives in case you get bored of one and decide to throw her away.
You have obviously never been married. Polygammy is punishment in and of itself. Only a masochist would ever want more than one spouse.