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 noticed that no one has been able to get the pony's opinion in all of this...
A person doesn't CHOOSE to be a schizophrenic, but that doesn't make it any less a disorder. Likewise, even if someone doesn't CHOOSE homosexual tendencies, it doesn't mean it is therefore healthy and normal.
Why do you ask about my age?
You're simply reflecting the experience of your provincial set of friends. In fact, most people never are attracted to those of their own gender.
I read a psychiatrist's account of a man who fell in love with a polar bear in a circus.. He would try to get close to it and was almost killed by the bear ...the psychiatrist worked with him till he finally got over his obsession with the bear, but he was never happy after that....(true story)
Bad analogy! If you're going to go the route of modern psychology, the establishment does not view homosexuality as a disorder.......so I guess I don't understand where you are going with this argument.
--.you clearly don't understand sexuality, and are eager to lap up only those answers that support the way you view things--
Please understand this, I have friends who are gay, and had a very close relative who is gay. this relative has told me, that he chooses who to be with, which was a woman (he has passed away) We all make choices everyday. I am all for a civil union, but as I stated in the email, the definition of marrage is between a man and a woman. Why must we change the definition of something because a small portion of people want it? One of my best gay friends, love to say, when he was drunk, he loved boobies, but when sober his choice was men.
I am not homophobic, please dont think that.
This has nothing to do with religion, but with what the word "marriage" is, a man and a woman. I chose the man I married 18 years ago, this was our choice.
This is what I mean by choice.
Actually, I think you are just reflecting the experience of your own set of friends. All studies that I have seen doen on sexuality point to the fact that most people have, at one time or another, been attracted to members of the same sex.
I don't get your point.
The pony wanted a church wedding
I agree about Michael Medved. He (and Bill Bennett) are the best conservatives on the airwaves today. Medved is so calm too. And I've noticed that his callers tend to be getting more antagonistic. He's drawing out the ideologically blind. He must go home exhausted after his afternoon service to his country.
The pedophile may have had an attraction to children from his earliest memory. It seems to him like he was born that way; it is NORMAL-FEELING to him.
But we don't care. We hold adults responsible for what they do with their phenotype.
Accepting that premise throws the issue back to society and its underlying order; the court still remains the means to resolution.
I have known several "straight" men who've been more than willing to experiment with other men when they are drunk too.....so I guess this goes both ways.
I actually don't think you are homophobic, and I appreciate your post. I don't, however, think you truly understand what being gay is like. I may CHOOSE my partner, but I don't choose what attracts me. When I'm walking down the street and I see a hot guy, I'm not thinking about making a choice to look at him instead of the big breasted woman beside him......I'm just responding to my instincts.
I'm a 47 year old man. I cannot remember EVER feeling the slightest attraction to another male.
You help me keep score now.
--10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3......--
hmmmmm was thinking that myself...
You used modern psychology in your argument as a meter stick for measuring what is normal and not normal....in your use of the disorder. I was just saying that modern psychology, the group that labels, assesses and tracks disorders, says that homosexuality is not a disorder. It is not abnormal.
Rosie proved that it's possilbe for a cow to get married.
You are correct. It could injure the legal institution of marriage.
Holy matrimony, however, will forever be under the purview of the historic Christian (orthodox) Church.
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.