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 ...
" Or, maybe they're in a situation where they would know better than you, and possibly you're wrong."
Oooh, thats telling me. Gosh, what would I do if I didn't have tdadams to tell me I'm "possibly" wrong. I had thought I was always right. (smirk) Why don't you and Penn/Teller and Bortz go fire up a fatty.
It may be. Allow me to rephrase. The issue between left and right is a fundamental break in trust. When I say 'we understand each other all too well', I mean that we see what is visibly said, but we don't trust the subtext. If a conservative says 'I'm for states rights', liberals assume he's a racist trying to push the Confederate line. If a liberal says 'I believe in equality', conservatives assume he's a racist trying to push the affirmative action line.
Both sides honestly believe what they're thinking, and they honestly believe that the other is full of it. That doesn't prove that one side is right, or wrong, but it does mean that discourse is pretty much impossible.
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.
To be fair, in 150+ posts you've yet to reply to your position on gay marriage. (of course, as I type this you may have already responded) This may complicate their understanding of your point of view.
Also, bear in mind that understanding does not equal agreement.
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
I agree it is bad. Sun Tzu was clear on the importance of knowing your enemy. The problem is that we have diverted to the point where we consider each other enemies.
What to do about that? I don't know. I know what will happen if we don't, and it won't be pretty. In the absence of trust and common ground, I don't see what compromise is possible. Trust and common ground have grown very, very scarce between the left and right.
Again, I brought this up ONLY because someone challenged the normalcy of being gay and used this as an argument against gay marriage.
What does the "normalcy" of being gay have to do with law? See above.
Homosexuals would be discriminated against, because you are denying them the same life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that straight people enjoy.
Homosexuals have every right to marry someone of the opposite sex. The same as I do. There is no discrimination.
but why prevent healthy, normal adults who want to be in a monogomous relationship from getting married.
So, if one partner were unhealthy, (AIDS), or wanted a polygamous relationship, you don't think they should be able to get married?
I'm talking about setting a precendent
Me, too. See LizardQueen's comments above.
You are so naive Jay. Here is an anecdote that explains how Homosexuals really are and this is not an isolated case.
My uncle who is in his mid-sixties is homosexual. He has lived with Thad for the last 30 years and is committed to the relationship, just like you say. Well, on his last trip down from Canada, where my uncle was the Dean of a large University, he informed the family that he and Thad still loved each other, but that each of them had a new young "friend" that lived with them.
Yes, the were so committed to each other that they agreed to each of them getting there very own, living sex-toys. They imported their young male-concubines from Asian countries and support them in every way. Just the four of them living in a wonderfully normal and supportive group grope.
And here is the kicker. They each have custom made t-shirts with their address printed on them so as to invite any and all who are interested in male homosexual relations. Come one, come all! It makes me sick and I'm ashamed a member of my family does this. And do note that I didn't call anyone a name or use ad hominem attacks as it so offends you for someone to judge another. Kind of like you judging FReepers, you know?
1. Many people who can't have children don't know that until they try.
2. Many people who say 'Oh, we'll never have kids' have kids.
In both instances, marriage still makes sense. Marriage is an institution that covers people who could potentially have children, i.e. a man and a woman, for the protection of those children.
Same sexes cannot procreate. There is no potential for them to do so. They can't change their minds and decide to have kids.
Even with adoption, this is murky waters. There is no end of research that points to the male / female family unit as being the only one that can reliably produce healthy, stable adults. Tinkering with the raising of children for the benefit of adults is not responsible behaviour.
Of course there is. But if someone is going to state that doctors and scientists are incorrect, it does beg the question to ask what their own credentials are, doesn't it?
Actually, Penn Jillette proudly boasts he's never used a drug in his life, the same as I.
Thanks for devolving the thread to name calling.
No. It is actually logically ridiculous.
I guess we have to review on FR every few hours the definition of a logical circle.
What you mean is that they had no greater incidence of other known (or admitted) disorders. You can't possibly STUDY a condition to decide if it is "normal" until you have created criteria for normalcy, which would necessarily have been developed OUTSIDE YOUR DISCIPLINE.
This has no bearing, logically, on whether or not the condition is itself a disorder, unless you have previously demonstrated that they come in clusters.
The "clinical criteria" of a mental disorder necessarily contain their own conclusions, since a mental disorder is not a physical lesion. It is a set of behaviors. The acceptability of these behaviors is determined by religious, cultural, and political discourse.
Live. Be free. Pursue happiness.
But you should not do is try and link individual desires to the yoke of the taxpayer, or play with the building blocks of human society.
Society does not need gay marriage in order to survive, but it does need to protect heterosexual marriage. Civilization is built off of millions of families producing children the same way your body produces cells. Without a stable process for doing so, your body would not be viable.
Conversely, there is no (to borrow a phrase) Queer Nation. They have no need to procreate, nor do they need the institutions that protect procreation. People that are gay will appear as always, and seek each other out. Convenient, yes, but it leaves the heavy lifting to others.
So what happened along the way Jayhuck? Did Ann Coulter call somebody a poo-poo head? But seriously, what actually happened?
You apparently have a reading comprehension issue. Please quote any name calling that I engaged in.
Thank you.
Then you're probably the most credulous person I know. I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas. Are you interested?
Generally speaking, you are right. An informed opinion would be the logical one to go with.
In some cases, however, a boy can shout 'The Emperor has no clothes!' without any tailoring credentials whatsoever, and anyone with sense to see it can tell if he's right.
I notice you don't like studies which demonstrate that gays are a small part of the population. They are inaccurate. Yet, the ones which show that most people are bisexual you like. Those are the accurate studies.
True, but have you looked at the clinical criteria of mental disorders? It's not that murky, illogical, or subjective. Yours is a phantom conundrum.
Oh, you're right. Telling someone to "go fire up a fatty" isn't name calling... technically.
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.