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 ...
Thanks. I'm no fan of gay marriage but I think that often more harm than good is done by people plying the animal argument. IMHO, it weakens, rather than strengthens, the argument.
The "slippery slope" of gay marriage leads right down to polygamy and all sorts of oddball groups of adults marrying each other for the monetary benefits and health insurance, not to Joe Weirdo marrying his dog.
If it happens, beyond the moral arguments watch it be the most fiscally expensive thing that ever happened to business and gov't that this country has ever seen. And the courts will be clogged for years trying to untangle divorce decrees between multiple partners.
LQ
You obviously don't know what happened, because if you did, you would understand they had had years of collecting evidence, when they did consider homosexuality a disorder, to finally determine that it wasn't.
#1 What purpose do you have in stating this in reference to an article about gay marriage? The statement being some nonsense about a majority of people being bisexual. Untrue and irrelevant to the discussion.
#2 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?
#3 If a Federal Marriage amendment is passed, who is discriminated against, and how are they discriminated against? Again, I'd like to know how discrimination is necessarily a bad thing. (Possibly a different discussion.)
I tire of that as well.
LOL!
Acivism more than science chaged their minds. IMHO
Another great example of rational and objective analysis on this site.
Activism more than science changed their minds. IMHO
And the sccial deconstructionists, the frankists, the fabians, the marxists, the secular humanists discovered that in the few generations or so ago.
And have become very crafty and sly as to brandishing TRUTH as only that which is officially credentialated.
And therefore and thereinafter by the powers vested in me, I certify by this certifacte that TRUTH needs no certificate nor credential.
And so would Galileo Galilee agree.
I was getting to that, I was just trying to take the slow road!
I have heard of it but haven't put much study into it. In the 70's I became interested in the Uranthia Foundation, History of the Universe. But after careful analysis I returned to my more traditional thinking.
Actually, again most people have been attracted to the same sex at one point or another......not completely irrelevant to the discussion.
#2) Again, I brought this up ONLY because someone challenged the normalcy of being gay and used this as an argument against gay marriage.
#3)Homosexuals would be discriminated against, because you are denying them the same life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that straight people enjoy. If this were a group of people that somehow endangered others, or if homosexuality were a disease, than I can see why we would want to prevent it, but why prevent healthy, normal adults who want to be in a monogomous relationship from getting married. If you can prevent such a group from doing this, whose to say other groups couldn't be affected in the future. I'm talking about setting a precendent
Easy. Dr. Evelyn Hooker published a groundbreaking study that concluded homosexuals are no more mentally disturbed than heterosexuals. This caused the medical community to revisit the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder to see if it met the clinical criteria. They concluded it did not, and homosexuality was removed from classification as a mental disorder in the following edition of the DSM.
So let them be in visible, public relationships. Let them be more loving and lasting than hetero relationships.
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.
Yes, dealing with the divorce rate is a far more important task, in the grand scheme of things, than trying to invent injustices out of the Constitution. The issue, which you have yet to address, is what this has to do with gay marriage?
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.
We've already logged a good many miles on the good old slippery slope. That's largely why we're in this mess. Here's the deal, I'll ask again, and see what you come up with.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a social contract between two adults, and was created for the benefit of their children. It is an elevated status, to signify it's importance. It exists in all societies as a mechanism of survival.
Now, what need does society have in issuing the same status to a group of people who are unable to procreate, and whos' status is irrelevant to the survival of society? Why do they warrent a special protective contract from society when they have nothing to protect but their own individual desires?
Everybody. I have to stop posting for awhile.......I'm sure some of you will have a hard time containing your glee. I truly do appreciate most of the posts though. Its invigorating for me, and I think good on the whole, to have a healthy discussion about any and all political topics. I've actually learned quite a bit today, that there are those who have given this issue (gay marriage)much thought and have come up with conclusions that I can respect, if not agree with. There are also those who seem content to read only those things that support their views and who tote the conservative line......not very different from some liberals in this regard. I do want to apologize for posting so much, it just seemed like there were so many people saying so many things that I felt I had to respond to as many as I could.
I do hope that, at the very least, even if we can't agree with each other, we CAN learn to tolerate (not accept) and live with each other. Thanks! If anyone would like to continue this discussion, feel free to email me at: Covenantt@aol.com
What about those people who get married who can't or don't want to have children? Should they be banned from marriage, espcecially if they knew children weren't ever going to enter the picture???
You were never a conservative my friend. Isn't it about time for your Opus?
Actually, if this is someone who knows me, you should know that for several years I was very anti-liberal and headed in the direction of being a conservative. I'm not sure I ever labeled myself as such, but I was definitely more conservative than several of the conservatives I knew. OK, gotto go now
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.