The love that dares not neigh its name

Cox News Service ^ | July 13, 2004 | Jay Bookman

[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.

[Taliesan]

Again, doctors and scientists have no more "credentials" to declare a sex act "normal" than you or I do.

[tdadams]

Yeah, except this isn't one of those "emperor has no clothes" scenario.

[bvw]

That is a non-sequitor. But it logically continues your illogic.

[bvw]

That is a non-sequitor. But it logically continues your illogic.

[BMiles2112]

You're welcome :-)
I couldn't let the post go without a challenge.

[stands2reason]

What's even sadder is that both liberals and conservatives will read this and say they've already heard the other side and they don't want any part of it

Many of us over here do know the other (left) side. It's not that difficult to understand. We were infused with it in public school, by TV and the rest of the media. And many of us are former liberals.

I voted for Bill Clinton TWICE --- go ahead, tell me I don't know what the liberal side is about.

[Ichneumon]

What, 200+ replies and no mention yet of this?

[PreviouslyA-Lurker]

The little guy was a little bit tunnel visioned, ignoring facts.

I wish I remembered sources and the facts better.

[backinthefold]

( I really started a stink here :)

[tdadams]

You think it's logical to take a layman's word at face value when they say a doctor or scientist is wrong? If I said you needed a kidney transplant and your doctor said you're fine, would you take my word for it?

Inquiring into someone's credentials - what makes them qualified to state a doctor or scientist is wrong - is not only thoroughly logical, you would be illogical and remiss to not inquire. Only a fool would take the word of the layman at face value.

But to each his own.

[BMiles2112]

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.
Excellent. This argument, along with the polygamy (or group marriage or I want to marry my city) scenario, are the ones, in my opinion, which are the clearest and most logical arguments we can make to challenge the notion of "gay marriage".

[PreviouslyA-Lurker]

Another reason to believe that anal sex is not healthy:

A friend of mine worked as an editor for a doctors medical magazine. She edited an article that stated as fact that with extended abuse of the anus in anal sex the "victim" would eventually ruin the sphincter muscle thereby needing a bag to hold their feces.

Doesn't sound healthy to me...

[Let's Roll]

Whoa - excellent point.

And welcome back.

[bvw]

So you want only the qualified truth?

[backinthefold]

thanks :)

good to be back in the conservative fold

[BMiles2112]

I know what you mean. I try not to cite facts unless I've got a reliable source on hand. Otherwise somebody's gonna nail ya.

[trisham]

.....bisexuality is common in a majority of people...few people are either totally straight or totally gay,

**************

On what do you base this unlikely opinion?

[Jayhuck]

1) That's actually not the whole truth, and anal sex does not ruin the sphincter, although other practices can

2) Many gay couples don't practice anal sex, and some straight couples do. So what's the point here?

[Jayhuck]

Does this mean I can stop paying that portion of my taxes that promote straight marriage........or do we continue with the double standard?

[babaloo999]

Just remember this is an anonymous forum.
Name calling and humor at the expense of others is a small part of the price one pays to get on these internet forums.
There have been many "moderate" conservatives on here lately. They eventually degenerate into some "I voted Bush in 2000 but...." sideshow.
It's a big tent here. Go to a WOD thread, or a creation/evo thread. Then, there's this one, it's turned into "born homosexual or is it learned?"
Many differing opinions here, it's just that a lot of ideas from the left get struck down because they've already been discredited over and over.
There is lot of useful information here. You just have to dodge the trolls, drug warriors, and the libertarian church ladies to find the good stuff.
I would stay away from the trolls. Sometimes they just explode.