Aww. Still lost, are we? That is just the saddest thing in the world to me. Let me help. You see, this question was brought up in another thread involving same sex marriage. Somebody (not me) asked that if we're going to drop restrictions on marriage to accommodate marriages of the same sex, why stop there? Why not drop them altogether and allow marriages between people and animals? So there you have "the whole point of this." Somebody should have explained this to you in that other thread. Oh, wait a minute, I'm remembering something...something...Got it! This WAS explained to you in that other thread!
I didn't read the whole thread, and I wasn't in the gay marriage thread, but this is a common argument by the religious crowd when there is debate over gay marriage. I'm surprised the first couple posters didn't realize that obvious ploy. Here's my stance on it: Give gays marriage rights. Religion has their own definition of marriage, and they are perfectly fine if they wish to restrict that based on their own rules. The purpose of legal marriage, through the state, is an entirely different matter. The purpose of legal marriage is to simplify a lot of matters and to give benefits to two people who are starting a family: tax breaks, makes it easier to buy property and get loans, and a number of other social programs. People have made the argument that gay marriage should not qualify in this arena because they are not forming families, but in many cases, they are. With in-vitro fertilization, adoption, etc, gay couples are forming families, and they should have the rights and benefits that a government sanctioned marriage affords them, just like groupings of men and women do. We don't make couples have kids before they get the benefits of legal marriage, right? Hell, some couples never will. Under this argument, the only grouping besides a man and a woman that would be legal would be a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. People. And only 2 people. Just because your partner is the same sex on you, it should have no bearing on you willing to dedicate your life to that person, and you should be afforded the legal benefits we afford everyone else through legal marriage. The only issue here that I'm undecided on is whether this grouping should be called marriage still, or a civil union, or something similar. I can argue both sides there, but aside from that, WHO CARES.
Umm..Humans and animals are the same thing We are animals....or perhaps I should say...we are all creatures. Umm anyway the answer is "no" to your question LOL.