People marrying animals

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2011
63,945
9,979
2,040
As always, if its between consenting (human) adults and harms no one, I don't believe its the business of any other person.THIS thread is not about that.

12 Unbelievable People Who Married Animals - Most Popular Ever

We all love our pets. But how many of us would actually marry an animal? In fact, you would not be the first or only person to do it. From horses to frogs, check out this list of animals that married humans


7.jpg
 
Can anyone prove that animals are hurt by getting married ? I would think they would enjoy the warm fuzzies like any living creature.
Zoophobia should be stomped out.
 
Got as far as page 2 before I realized the girl on the right was making it impossible to concentrate on the article :)
 
If it makes them happy, what business is it of ours?

On the face of it, I would agree. However, animals cannot give consent and I'm dead set against bestiality.

Thinking of that thread about the new rape definitions requiring clear verbal consent...:)

I've always figured it an animal didn't wanna have sex with a human most animals are more than capable of expressing their displeasure in violent fashion. And unlike human animals, other animals aren't as squeamish and immature about sex as we are. They go at it in public, expel waste in public, walk around naked all the time, etc. :)
 
Were any of these marriages more than symbollic? Wasn't under the impression anywhere in the world permitted interspecies marriages. :)
 
"The 7-Year-Old Tribal Indian Girls Who Married Two Frogs"

Freakin' India man wtf!
 
Last edited:
If it makes them happy, what business is it of ours?

On the face of it, I would agree. However, animals cannot give consent and I'm dead set against bestiality.

Thinking of that thread about the new rape definitions requiring clear verbal consent...:)

I've always figured it an animal didn't wanna have sex with a human most animals are more than capable of expressing their displeasure in violent fashion. And unlike human animals, other animals aren't as squeamish and immature about sex as we are. They go at it in public, expel waste in public, walk around naked all the time, etc. :)
shart_attack koshergrl

CREEP ALERT
 
If it makes them happy, what business is it of ours?

On the face of it, I would agree. However, animals cannot give consent and I'm dead set against bestiality.

Thinking of that thread about the new rape definitions requiring clear verbal consent...:)

I've always figured it an animal didn't wanna have sex with a human most animals are more than capable of expressing their displeasure in violent fashion. And unlike human animals, other animals aren't as squeamish and immature about sex as we are. They go at it in public, expel waste in public, walk around naked all the time, etc. :)
shart_attack koshergrl

CREEP ALERT

He's a Peter Singer acolyte. I flagged him as such some time ago.

"While that may be true, animal liberation is not the only subject of Singer's work. He also believes that parents should be given the choice to have their disabled babies killed after they are born. His argument is not about the right to terminate pregnancy based on the presence of a disabled foetus, although he does believe this as well, but the active killing of babies born with particular disabilities."

The case against Peter Singer ndash Blog ndash ABC Ramp Up Australian Broadcasting Corporation

"
In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers' Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities.[29] The position was countered by fellow philosopher Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children. Regan writes that Singer's position is a consequence of his adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to animal rights, rather than a strictly rights-based one, and argues that the rights-based position distances itself from non-consensual sex.[30] The Humane Society of the United States takes the position that all sexual molestation of animals by humans is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.[31]

Commenting on Singer's article "Heavy Petting,"[32] in which he argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed, Ingrid Newkirk, president of the animal rights group PETA, argued that, "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong." A few years later, Newkirk clarified in a letter to the Canada Free Press that she was strongly opposed to any exploitation of, and all sexual activity with, animals.[33]

Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[34] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, "we are great apes".

Peter Singer - Metapedia

The cool thing is that Singer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton. Doesn't that just make you feel warm and fuzzy.
 
Last edited:
If it makes them happy, what business is it of ours?

On the face of it, I would agree. However, animals cannot give consent and I'm dead set against bestiality.

Thinking of that thread about the new rape definitions requiring clear verbal consent...:)

I've always figured it an animal didn't wanna have sex with a human most animals are more than capable of expressing their displeasure in violent fashion. And unlike human animals, other animals aren't as squeamish and immature about sex as we are. They go at it in public, expel waste in public, walk around naked all the time, etc. :)
shart_attack koshergrl

CREEP ALERT

He's a Peter Singer acolyte. I flagged him as such some time ago.

"While that may be true, animal liberation is not the only subject of Singer's work. He also believes that parents should be given the choice to have their disabled babies killed after they are born. His argument is not about the right to terminate pregnancy based on the presence of a disabled foetus, although he does believe this as well, but the active killing of babies born with particular disabilities."

The case against Peter Singer ndash Blog ndash ABC Ramp Up Australian Broadcasting Corporation

"
In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers' Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities.[29] The position was countered by fellow philosopher Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children. Regan writes that Singer's position is a consequence of his adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to animal rights, rather than a strictly rights-based one, and argues that the rights-based position distances itself from non-consensual sex.[30] The Humane Society of the United States takes the position that all sexual molestation of animals by humans is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.[31]

Commenting on Singer's article "Heavy Petting,"[32] in which he argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed, Ingrid Newkirk, president of the animal rights group PETA, argued that, "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong." A few years later, Newkirk clarified in a letter to the Canada Free Press that she was strongly opposed to any exploitation of, and all sexual activity with, animals.[33]

Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[34] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, "we are great apes".

Peter Singer - Metapedia

The cool thing is that Singer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton. Doesn't that just make you feel warm and fuzzy.

Kudos for citing Metapedia, KG.
 
Oh, and marrying an animal is fucking weird. I mean, Luddly & Co. know that, but they just using it as an excuse to thumb their noses at all that is wholesome and traditional, like a man and a woman getting married, which is normal, unlike the freak shows linked in the OP. I mean, we all know they'd be horrified if their son or daughter announced their genuine and legally binding engagement to a gold fish or stray cat.
 
Last edited:
Kill children, screw your dog and hey, while you're at it, pedophilia is just the love teachers have for their students. Nothing dirty about it!

A truly classy bunch. We should listen to what they have to say about important stuff!
 
I knew they held him in contempt, the article makes it clear. Then I read something about metapedia (which I've never heard of before) and wasn't sure where they were coming from. Momentary confusion on my part, read nothing into it.
 
I have thought about marrying my dog, a Golden Retriever. It is nothing sexual, of course; no jar of peanut butter in my future - Delta, you know what I am talking about.

I have been married to a human woman. My dog is more loyal, she is always looking at me lovingly, she sleeps with me every night (quit touching yourself, Delta. She sleeps at my feet), she does not PMS, she is always happy to see me, she does not bitch about how I spend my money or where I have been. Obviously, there are some short falls: no sex, and she cannot take care of me if I am sick.

I think we will just continue to live together, though. Marriage really is only good for the legitimation of children.
 

Forum List

Back
Top