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 ...
It depends on your perspective. Merely disagreeing with someone and stating objective analysis is not whining.
Bellowing about how intolerant people are on the forum you just joined could be considered whining.
Like it, or not, this is a conservative news forum/filter. People give their comments on the news, wherever it comes from. Since you are obviously young and out to change the world, you see intolerance and hypocricy everywhere.
You have a long journey ahead of you, try reading more on this forum and posting less.
Yes, sometimes I do follow my own advice.
You make the assumption that all homosexuals are promiscuous, which is wrong. My straight friends are much more promiscuous than I am.
Or, maybe they're in a situation where they would know better than you, and possibly you're wrong.
Objective analysis is all fine and good, but the majority of the posts I've seen on this site involve name calling, humor at the expense of liberals, but very little objective analysis. I am 36 years old, and not so young anymore. I used to be conservative, but now consider myself a moderate, because I couldn't tolerate people like Ann Coulter saying, like you said, that liberals were all about name calling and whining, then turning around and doing the very same thing. I haven't used the word INTOLERANT once, but i have tried to challenge people's views with more reasoning.
If you can tell me what the questions are again, I would be happy to try and answer them.
Darwin proved adaptation not evolution. No one can prove it. Evolution is a bigger leap of faith than creation is.
Random unguided building of things does not occur. If it does please give examples.
I tolerate gays and lesbians but I cannot support their lifestyle as normal. If they want to have relationships they can do that out of my face and call it what they like but it is not marriage.
I can agree with this. I've seen marriages that are far less loving and caring then some of the same-sex relationships I've seen......so maybe its not such a bad thing to not call it marriage. I'm glad you tolerate us, we tolerate people like you too.
We can't prove quarks exist either, but all evidence suggests that they are there. Have you heard of something called Theistic evolution......it actually involves God. I ran onto this a couple of years ago because I had so many problems with my faith and my background in science. It seems to work, for me anyway.......sorry, I know that's kind of postmodern of me.
Well of course they don't! They sold out to the homosexual pressure years ago and now the APA supports perversion as normal.
SSAD
The animal argument is a bogus one, as animals cannot legally consent and thus can't enter into a contract, which marriage is (beyond the social and religious aspects).
IMHO the genuine argument against gay marriage isn't the kids/dogs/horses argument but the "groups of adults" polygamy argument. In that case legal consent can be obtained because all of the parties are adult and can legally enter into a contract.
LQ
Yes, I know, they are a political organization and they "sold out" because they said something that you didn't like. We've already been down this road.
I would agree. We are becoming a more fragmented society, and this trend is exacerbated by the media. The term 'Balkanization' is one that may soon apply in this case. To an extent it already does, in that the country is dividing into 'blue' and 'red' zones.
This is a dangerous and unhealthy trend in any culture, because it means that the fabric that holds the culture together is tearing.
In most cases, however, the damage is unavoidable because it runs across something that neither side is willing or able to compromise on. When a nation is composed of people who are fundamentally different, be they Albanians and Serbs, Hutus and Tutsis, or Confederates and Unionists, conflict is inevitable.
I would agree that this is a very serious problem, but am less sanguine in the idea that we need more understanding of the other side. The problem may be that we understand each other all too well. Americans have had to fight before to settle differences over what kind of country this would be, and we'll likely have to do it again.
How can you really challenge each other if you are coming from such a similar viewpoint??????
There's a world of difference between opinions here, and I've got the flak wounds to prove it. There are a number of liberal ideas that are not discussed because they are simply too frivolous, but step into a war on drugs thread, for instance, and you'll find that FReepers are deeply divided on both the ends and the means.
Being pro-american, does not mean being so far to the right you can't see the rest of the people anymore.
The only people I honestly can't have an intelligent converstation with any more is the Michael Moore left. They are impervious to fact, and will not be either fair or courteous.
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.
When people are open about how they feel, as opposed to slanting it behind a facade of impartiality, I consider that a virtue. Dan Rather will never come out and say that he presents the news in a liberal slant, but he does. If Rush or Ann does admit it, does that make them more credible, or less?
I don't mind you suggesting that doctors and scientists are incorrect, but if you do, would you please post your credentials?
Lizard Queen, this is the best and most rational argument I've heard since I started posting. Thanks for your well thought out argument......its refreshing, even if I don't agree with it completely :)
Jay is himself (or herself) doing that -- parroting talking points. Life is that way when one moves from one excuse to another.
I actually agree with almost all of what you said. However I think its dangerous to say that we may understand each other all too well. I think that's a bit arrogant and downright scary. Just from being in this discussion today I've met several people who obviously don't understand the other side of the argument......probably because they've been reading only those things that support their viewpoint. This is bad if you're liberal or conservative. Some of us may understand the other side, but I'll bet there are many liberals and conservatives who don't.....and their number is just going to grow
My tolerance is limited to respectable public behavior by people of any orientation. The in your face gay/lesbian crowd is their own biggest enemy. I have gay and lesbian friends but they are not in your face types.
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.