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 ...
And if you don't think writing discrimination into the constitution ISN'T going to cause a problem for this country, then you're wrong.
And that pony (or doggie, or gerbil, or parakeet) should have all of the marriage perks, too -- including power of attorney and the living will/medical care directive. "Bark once if you want us to pull the plug on master, Rover."
Troll ping!
Interesting, I run across the same thing from the leftist throngs. I haven't read all your posts, but the first ones I read were nothing more than the usual whining I hear from the left when people don't agree with them.
You need to go back and read some of my other posts then. This whole SITE is about whining because of people that don't agree with its views. Most of the posts on here are whiney, so I don't see how I'm any different.
Confirming marriage to be what it has always been is not discrimination.
Changing the definition of marriage to suit a few involved in perversion is foolishness and will cause the fall of a society and culture. Look at ancient Greece.
I was only responding to someone's post. Another person on this list brought up the subject, I was just trying to answer it.
I love my dad, my brothers, and my male friends. But not in that way.
Homosexuality IMHO is a developmental disorder PERIOD.
Changing the constitution will not stop gay people form being in relationships, visible and public relationships that more and more are lasting longer than their straight counterparts. I would think it would be more important to look at the divorce rate in this country than to try and work what really is discrimination into the constitution, when it really won't change anything, but will have the potential to make so many more things in this country worse. If our constitution can ban a certain group from doing something, when it doesn't endanger anyone else, is a slippery slope on which I don't want to be.
Those same crap reports say that gay/les pop is 10%. Real numbers say 3%. The world used to be flat too.
People with developmental problems react to chemistry only. No conscience thought.
There are no REAL numbers, because its been too hard to get legitimate results. No one really knows how many gay people there are. Besides, does it really matter? We're still Americans, and we still pay taxes, and we pump more into the economy than most other demographics because we have more disposable income.
You are absolutely correct. Those characteristics aren't monopolies, just majority shareholdings.
Some scientist believe in evolution. Most don't
I don't react to chemistry only, so I'm assuming, by your defintion, I have no developmental problems :) Thanks
Humans lie, and to think that conservatives always tell the truth is naiive. However, to think that liberals tell the truth more often than conservatives is equally naiive.
Conservatives don't have a monopoly on being able to think "with your head, your heart, and your conscience".
Many 'conservatives' don't think at all. I know a number of conservatives that can't think with all three.
However, I know ZERO liberals that can.
As a person of fomerly very liberal viewpoints, I understand your anger. It's very easy to look at the 'Taliban conservatives' and dismiss all conservatives as neanderthals. I've known smart liberals, passionate liberals, and moral liberals. I've NEVER met one that is all three at once.
This is because to be a liberal, it requires a certain faith about how the world is, and that faith will dictate to you the value of things. Being liberal means being an idealist above anything else, and defining reality in the context of your beliefs.
No matter how much you would like to believe otheriwse, this is not the same as being a realist. A liberal approaches the world with a feeling in his heart of 'this is how things are, now I need to find evidence to prove it'.
I am open to having my mind changed, because I care more about knowing what is right than having been right. That's why many of my views changed, and why I stopped seeing myself as a liberal. I'm still the same compassionate, open, and questioning person I was before, but now I ensure that my opinions are based in fact, supported by history, and in tune with human nature.
Once you are able to honestly say the same, you'll be a better person for it. You may even realize you've been a conservative all along.
You need to get off this site and out into the real world. Most scientists DO believe in evolution......perhaps not the exact type of evolution espoused by DArwin, but evolution nonetheless.
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.