|Originally posted by BelovedBird
Eating the flesh off of a live animal is forbidden according to the seven noahide laws- not flesh of an animal, not blood. Seeing a sheep with a juicy, muscular leg, chomping clovers in the feild and going over to it and ripping that leg off to eat it- while the animal is breathing and alive. I think you agree this would be an exesively cruel practice, but one that in some groups may have been acceptable.
Actually, this would probably be LESS cruel than what a typical animal raised for meat endures in today's society!!!! At least in your example the sheep knew what clovers tasted like and what a it felt like to wander through a field, rather than being confined to a cage just larger than the size of its body, fed recycled animal feces, and kept from the light of day until taken from the farm factory for slaughter and then probably bleeding to death in the slaughterhouse while still alive.
Sorry, on my
I'm just always amazed at how people can think something's cruel only if it's done by them or where they can see it.
As for the OT, Gay marriage should be legal. Not because it's morally right or wrong, but because we have freedom of religion in this country, and you cannot force someone to follow what YOUR religion says is right or wrong. The only objections I know of against gay marriage are either that it's "gross" or that it is non-procreative or that it is morally incorrect.
To address each of these:
Too bad, get over it. As you could probably tell, I find it gross that people eat meat, but can't make a law that forbids it. I'm sure there are things that lots of people find gross but we simply cannot outlaw everything that someone might be disgusted by.
As was mentioned earlier, some couples cannot or do not want to have children; should they not be allowed to be married. What about second marriages later in life after the childbearing years when the couple is sterile? Should they not be allowed to be married? Besides, which is better, a husband who is able to impregnate his wife but is also abusive towards her and their children, or a loving gay couple who adopt a baby?
This only leaves "morally incorrect" as a possible objection to gay marriage, and since that is totally based upon ones own religious/philosophical beliefs, it should not be mandated by law in a country that *supposedly* espouses freedom of religion.
No other moral arguments (such as the children suffering, as if they don't suffer if one of their parents dies or if their parents divorce-as a child of divorce, I'd rather have had two happy gay parents than have gone through the hell I went through) hold any water except those based upon religion. I completely respect each individual's right to deem what they feel is morally correct or incorrect, all gays are asking for is the same respect.