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 ...
I agree with alot of what you wrote, but I think alot of ideas from the LEFT, not entirely sure what you mean by that, get struck down because there isn't anyone on here to defend them. It would be like going to a liberal site and having one of them say that alot of conservative ideas are consistently struck down there. This site, like so many others isn't really about debate or searching for the truth, its getting together with people of like mind to discuss issues, and, more often than not, hear what you want to hear.
Ann Coulter's hypocrisy happened......I couldn't, in good conscience, live with it. :)
OK, I'm going to name call soon. You obviously don't understand anything about gay sex. Since you don't know anything, it might be a good idea to stop talking.
Be obtuse if it entertains you. The point is not difficult to understand.
You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the medical community. AND it is still not healthy to force feces BACK into the intestinal system regardless of how the sphincter muscle is affected.
2) Many gay couples don't practice anal sex, and some straight couples do. So what's the point here?
It is not a healthy practice. What is your point?
When I say ideas from the left, I mean things such as government spending. Not many here like the spending being done by our "conservative" president but I think we're all willing to give him a second chance.
There's no end to people coming here to "enlighten" the Luddites here, but it's really not necessary.
There are more than enough people here to debate with reasonably and civilly.
So what if they are set in their beliefs and not easily swayed?
I don't think you understand the difference between psychology and science.
But let's play anyway: here are the "diagnostic criteria" for pedophilia:
"This Paraphilia is characterized by sexual activity with a child, usually age 13 or younger, or in the case of an adolescent, a child 5 years younger than the pedophile.
Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia
(cautionary statement)
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.
Specify if:
Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Both
Specify if:
Limited to Incest
Specify type:
Exclusive Type (attracted only to children)
Nonexclusive Type
Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Copyright 2000 American Psychiatric Association"
You'll notice there is simply an assumption here, not demonstrated by the criteria but assumed prior to the criteria, that the activity is abnormal. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CLINICAL CRITERIA THAT "PROVES" THE ABNORMALITY. IT IS SIMPLY DEFINED AS ABNORMAL BY VIRTUE OF BEING ON THE LIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.
This assumption is a cultural value. It is not a scientific fact.
Historically virginity till marriage has been a heterosexual ideal (though that may no longer be true by large portion of our current society). This has never been the case in the homosexual community.
I understand that anal sex is not the only kind of sex practiced by male homosexuals. Non the less, it IS practiced by male homosexuals, and whatever else you do is not the only sex act practiced by homosexuals either. Anal sex may not be what YOU practice, but there are many homosexuals who do. Homosexuality is not known by it's lack of promiscuity but the opposite, why the higher numbers of AIDS in the homosexual community? Stats were done to figure the average age of death of homosexuals by the death notices in homosexual magazines, the average lifespan of a homosexual was in the 40's, why is that? I gave you the numbers from the European country, those who were not promiscuous are represented in the average also. Those who had promiscuous sex with less than 10 partners in 2 years pull the average down.
You want to call me names go ahead.
I can't hep it. I was born that way!
And its considered abnormal because it hurts others, mentally and physically. The same is not true of homosexuals, regardless of some of the posts on here to the contrary. Many gay men lead full and happy lives, sometimes with a partner, sometimes without. If gay people are unhappy, many of the times it has to do with living in a society that makes it so hard to be yourself.
Anal sex is also practiced by straight couples. And since you brought it up, many gay men who do have anal sex, first clean themselves out, so fecal matter ISN'T shoved back up. Sigh, and I know of no gay people who've been harmed by anal sex, and I know several..........young and old. If you can find me a serious scientific study that's been done that proves otherwise, I'll listen to ya, until then, I say you're wrong
Sigh, you are right babaloo. I'm not going to change anyone's mind, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong. I was interested in this site because I like to get my news from several different sources, but maybe I shouldn't be here!
Has it occured to you that those would not necessarily include homosexuals who were A) not an active part of the gay community, B) didn't die young, C) were not openly homosexual.
It only takes a modicum of reasoning to see the holes in that statistic.
FR isn't a news source, it's a news filter. There are experts in the field, allegedly, who give their views and insights on certain topics.
Others just chime in to throw in a cheap shot on, let's say, Catholic priests or lesbian film festivals.
I prefer the smartass route but I learn things here and find useful information. Other times I just shake my head.
Try as you might, most of us cannot be pulled down into your sewer.
And the establishment does not view John Kerry as an idiot either...
Neither of those items make the establishment correct.
Quite a circle you're running with.
Sorry, not true. It is most definitely abnormal...an abnormality not dimished one whit by inclusion on a list of diseases compiled by a politicized organization.
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.