You don't even know me. Easier to demonize that way I suppose. Got it, you have your foundations in religion. Well naturally you would have no interest in anything I have to say, you've had your mind made up for you since BC. Nothing else to say then, i'm off to do my... devil's work or whatever it is you think I do in my pass time.
I know all about you that I need to know, and then some. Sure, in the same sense that Winston Smith's belief that 2+2=4 was considered heresy by O'brien; and of course the only real difference between the latter and you is that you haven't yet acquired that kind of power.
Odd that 1984 used the date 1984 when the Catholic Church managed O'Brien's accomplishments centuries before hand, when to declare that the earth was round and orbited the sun was heresy. Or to find that a free-spirited women that weighed more than a fowl was guilty of witchcraft. I doubt we'll ever have that kind of power. Our power will come from people seeing we're not all that bad.
Always with the kinky forced analogies! Dogs, unable to form consent and therefore unable to agree to the terms of the marriage, don't seem relevant to the the gay marriage issue. And if it's procreation and the nuclear family that is so important why aren't we screaming about preventing infertile people or seniors from marrying? We still encourage it. Because one of the benefits of having people who love each other marry is that they're happy. They live longer, they can possibly contribute more to society, etc. But I don't think a childless couple is any kind of abomination. Do you?
My mistake, I apologize. I thought I was responding to another post, one of many I'm sure you've noticed mention brothers marrying sisters and the like.
Although I now see, just a bit later, you wonder about someone marrying a dog. I guess my apology stands but couldn't you have waited just a little bit longer?
