The right is perturbed because men are getting married on Los Lunnis. Their objections are historical rather than theological–no one’s suggesting we respect Genesis 24:3 and 38:6 and allow fathers to select girlies for their sons–and their problem is that the world has moved on. I’d regard myself as a natural PP voter (although that feeling might not be reciprocated), but virtually the only positive proposal I’ve heard from the PP camp since the elections was one made in jest: namely, that if men were to be allowed to marry men, why not allow grandmas to marry their cats? Since marriage now seems to be socially defined as a contractually committed partnership, this seems to me a perfectly reasonable proposition, so long as an animal psychologist can be found to establish that Puss really wants the inheritance. In time, I don’t see why this principle should not be extended to permanently inanimate objects. I can’t see the bicycle saying no, and the hell with Daisy.
Similar posts
- I $hit on your progenitor
I have not the slightest problem with gay marriage (I’d go further and subsume marriage contracts etc under general contractual law - Facebook: if you form a civil partnership you must be gay
Chez Lexicool, via MM, Katia, who, using Facebook in English, described herself as being in a civil union with Juan, only - Ladino lovers in a hole
Just in case you thought Sephardic morality tales were all doom and gloom and putrid canines, here’s one in which true - So why shouldn’t I wet my appetite?
I know it’s banned in English, but it seems perfectly natural to me, just as natural as wetting one’s whistle: if - Time, a commodity
I always thought that a commodity was an article that could be traded, and that time (99-year lease, delivery in October,
Read the spanish constitution. Article 32.2. The different marriages here depends on the law. If we want we can admit any kind of marriage, including grandmas and their cats.
Excuse for my poor english. Good luck
Ciudadano
Here it is:
Claims that widening marriage’s scope is unconstitutional are based on 32.1:
I don’t see that as an obstacle, but with Spanish judges you never know.