The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: According to a lot of animal rights people...

(See in situ)

According to a lot of animal rights people...

Animals can and indeed do consent to living with their owners, and there are always contracts in matters of ownership, though naturally an animal is not able to sign off on it per say.

Rationally speaking, you are correct that this is marriage in a legal sense, but people who believe that animals should be allowed to consent to a number of things are able to vote in elections, so it could very well become law at some juncture, regardless to how crazy it actually is.

Personally, I think any person should be allowed to contract with anyone else for rights of co-habitation, and I think that the only role any government should play in it is when the contracts have been breached in settling a dispute. However, that was not what was decided at the Supreme Court law, but rather a legal permission for a certain group to share residence in exchange for tax breaks.

Single people are not entitled to tax breaks, nor are polygamists, and both groups are just as capable of adopting children as homosexual couples. Just saying.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton