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 ...
"Modern Psychology" has a lot of voices & they don't all agree with you. The "establishment" is not always correct - just usually "politically correct".
I'm just responding to my instincts.
Apparently you have been socialized to see yourself as the helpless victim of forces beyond your control.
There is little I can do to help you except to reaffirm the possibility of your exercising free will and self-control.
If you believe that you're helpless, then you are.
I would prefer to track the more scientific polls that have been undertaken on this issue. Even if you were to start a poll, those men who have perhaps had a fleeting attraction to another man are not going to admit to it on this site. You have fun anyway though.
Did I say I was helpless? Where did you get the idea I was socialized to see myself as a victim? Did you READ my post? I have no idea what you are talking about. I was talking about responding to my instincts to a man the same way you respond to the opposite sex.
Their views are political. But you knew that.
Is an attraction to children "abnormal"? If so, how did you conclude that?
What is it a problem to you to answer?
I bet the pony did not share the same attraction for "Mark of Missouri" as he did for Pixel the pony...
Great, I'm glad you know more about psychology than the majority of psychologists in this country. As long as they say what you want to hear than its not political, right? Whatever. I'm done.
Why can't I marry my brother? We're both male, so it's not as if birth defects would be a problem.
Are there any polls which disagree with you?
No, you didn't - that you are helpless was implied by your entire testimony.
Hiding behind 'instincts' is the coward's way of denying personal responsibility for actions - I recommend avoiding it.
You will hear all kinds of homosexuals say all kinds of things......just like you will finds different kinds of straight people. The gay people I know are professionals, lawyers, doctors, even some who do PR for the Republican party, and they aren't narcissistic, and they've been in relationships longer than most of the straight people I know.
When it comes to worshipping the creation over the creator, that's a problem with our American society in general......that's pop culture for you. I agree though, its a problem
Feelings are irrelevant. Behavior is chosen.
--Hiding behind 'instincts' is the coward's way of denying personal responsibility for actions - I recommend avoiding it.--
Bravo!!
You are kidding, right? You are just acting on YOUR instincts when you look at an attractive person of the opposite sex, aren't you. I don't understand how you can view what I wrote as me being helpless.
Bravo for what. He's not making any sense.
If you are saying I can choose to be in a relationship or not, then yes, that IS a choice I have. However, I do not choose how I feel about someone. I would very much like to fall in love and be in a relationship with someone of the same sex some day. Are you telling me I shouldn't?
If the psychologists say something scientifically demonstrable then they are experts. If they simply say "homosexuality is a normal variant" then they are expressing an opinion of no more value than mine or yours.
There is no body of knowledge that makes anybody any more expert on what is "normal" or "abnormal" than you and I can examine, right here on this thread.
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.