Posted on 07/13/2004 6:50:48 AM PDT by Area Freeper
"What's next?" Braves pitcher John Smoltz said, when asked his opinion about gay marriage. "Marrying an animal?"
It's fascinating how often that happens. Time and time again, when opponents of gay marriage and gay unions are asked to explain their position, their real underlying concern turns out to be a rather odd fear of bestiality.
That same obsession seems to have afflicted Timothy Dailey, a stern opponent of gay marriage and a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, a national conservative group. In an FRC brochure titled "The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex Marriage," Dailey brings up an obscure case that came to light five years ago about a deluded soul in Missouri named Mark. It seems that Mark fell in love with his pony, named Pixel, and in 1993 actually "married" her in a private ceremony.
"She's gorgeous. She's sweet. She's loving," Mark was quoted as saying in unbridled affection. "I'm very proud of her ... . Deep down, way down, I'd love to have children with her."
For Dailey, this was a call to arms. Like Smoltz, he worries that if gay marriage or gay unions are allowed, there would also be nothing in the law to stop couples such as Mark and Pixel from also getting hitched.
"Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman," Dailey warned, "it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex -- even nonhuman 'partners.' "
Imagine, if you will, the possible implications of such a thing. For example, it could mean that animals who enter this country illegally might be able to marry U.S. citizens and then demand the right to vote, for goodness' sake.
To avert such calamities, Dailey and others are pushing for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus removing any possibility that individual states could decide for themselves to sanction bestiality or gay unions. The proposed amendment is scheduled to be debated and voted on this week in the U.S. Senate, and it's expected to be a bitter and divisive fight.
So I have a proposal: If the real, underlying issue in this debate is the fear that human beings will someday be allowed to marry animals -- if Smoltz, Dailey and others are honestly and truly worried by that prospect -- then let's address that issue head on. Let's pass a Federal Animals, Relationships and Marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution that outlaws all interspecies marriages, period.
The FARM act would have two other important advantages over the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. First, this is a deeply divided nation, and the last thing we need is something to get us even angrier at one another.
What we need instead is something that will unite us, a cause that all of us can rally behind. And surely all Americans -- with the notable exception of one very lonely guy out in Missouri -- can get behind the FARM act and thus protect human-to-human marriage from this dire threat.
By championing the FARM act, President Bush could finally make good on his promise to be a uniter, not a divider. And John Kerry could use the amendment to demonstrate yet again that there are some issues too important to compromise on. As far as I know, he is now and has always been opposed to human-animal sex, even during the '60s.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
One week old today!
She meant your children.
Psychology studies have also shown that when a child is molested physically or emotionally by a same sex authority figure that that sexuality becomes "programed" into the child as normal, or that the child is trained to think that it is normal, thereby becoming physically attracted to the same sex.
Some homosexuals were molested as children as were some straight people. That doesn't mean anything. There are no studies that suggest a majority of gay people were molested as children.
It was a flaw in the young man's logic to think that because he was homosexual, or chooses to have sex with men, that he was not attracted to me and that what he did was not rude.
that Jay Bookman and John Smoltz don't bat for the same team..
Is Jay a switch hitter????
AND, there are straight people who were molested by people of the same sex who grew up to be straight anyway......An unfortunate incident like this does not dictate sexuality. Most psychologists think that sexuality is formed by the age of 2 anyway.
Moveon.org is a communist/fascist site. FreeRepublic is more balanced, but still an openly and avowed conservative website.
I am scared at where political discourse in this country is going.....people ONLY want media that espouses their own beliefs, media that doesn't challenge their beliefs.
People are tired of being lied to, and have been scared at where the media discourse had been going for decades. People on FR challenge each others beliefs every day, but from a pro-American, conservative viewpoint. Thinking with your head, your heart, and your conscience will tend to narrow the field of discourse a bit, but that's the price you pay for being a responsible adult.
As for gays who claim to make a choice.......you clearly don't understand sexuality, and are eager to lap up only those answers that support the way you view things. Many so-called gay and lesbian people are really bisexual.....
Now, into the meat. What purpose do you have in stating this in reference to an article about gay marriage? You can break out your DSMV-IV and recite all day how homosexuality is normal in humans, but what does that have to do with the societal concept of marriage?
I ask because marrige is a concept that revolves around children, and homosexuality is one that revolves around pleasure. The similarities are superficial, at best.
I agree with you! That young man's actions were rude. Don't judge all gay people though, because of the actions of one or a few. You will find gay people whose attitudes, political and religious beliefs, etc, are as different as straight people.
Do you support gay marrige?
The government needs to step in because of an amendment that says that the states must honor things such as marriage from other states. A same sex couple could get "married" in a state where it is legal, then go to a state where it is not legalized and sue. This approach will cause a lot of problems in the legal system.
If you don't think people are lied to by conservatives then you may be the one with your head in the sand. Conservatives don't have a monopoly on being able to think "with your head, your heart, and your conscience".
I truly do understand why people have been worried about the state of political discourse, especially when it comes to a liberal viewpoint being conveyed in popular media for so long, but rather than realize things are changing in the mainstream media, all of America is becoming more polarized, and would rather listen to those people that espouse their own beliefs. This is bad. How can you really challenge each other if you are coming from such a similar viewpoint?????? Being pro-american, does not mean being so far to the right you can't see the rest of the people anymore. Liberals vote, pay taxes and are as much a part of this country as anyone else........their viewpoint should be heard rather than filtered through so many conservative commentators like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.
I admire your spirit, but Freerepublic is more a place for conservatives to debate the finer points of conservative philosophy. You can post from the left if you'd like, but don't expect to get many converts.
Parroting the talking points of the left tends to show one's mental age. It's usually in single digits.
Again, states can have power and government can be small when it suites the will of some conservatives.........got it!
As Winston Churchill said, "That is something up with which I will not put."
I'm surpised you have the gall to talk about mental age and then post something like this.....posts like this only serve to illustrate my point that political discussion in this country is disintigrating into name calling. I've met several conservatives who just tote the party line, without thinking about what they are saying, or without understanding why they have these beliefs. The LEFT doesn't have a monopoly on ignorance and idiocy anymore than the RIGHT has a monopoly on patriotism or love of country.
This is an issue that will cause problems for ALL states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.