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 ...
anyone else sense a change in the ozone? a troll lurking??
Do you really think that the APA just decided one day to say that homosexuality wasn't abnormal without any scientific evidence to back it up. If they can't measure normality, than the disorders they have diagonsed and labeled aren't worth anything.
"The love that dare not speak its name" now doesn't know when to shut the f*** up!
Yes. I would certainly not try to legally prevent you from forming that relationship, but I am also unwilling to have my tax dollars used to endorse such a relationship as "marriage."
You better not ever lecture me about my mind being in the gutter (c8
So you've actually discussed this with "lots" of homosexuals? Consider that for them to admit that they chose their 'lifestyle', well, that would make them feel guilt. It would make them responsible for their own actions. They can't handle that. And it just wouldn't agree with the leftist propaganda thats been spread in the last few decades.
Thanks sloth....this is an opinion I can actually agree with to some extent, although I think, along with Dick Cheney and his wife, that the states should be able to make up their own minds on this issue. The government doesn't need to step in. Why is it that most Republicans are against big government, except when something some of them consider important is threatened.
yes subterfuge, we CHOSE to be gay. We choose to be ridiculed and mocked in school, we choose to be threatened verbally and physically, we choose not to be able to marry the person we love.......Why wouldn't anyone choose to be gay with all these benefits??????? Whatever!
NO! One may have 'instinctive' responses, but any ACTIONS you take(apart from blinking!) are your free choice.
You are not a lab rat!
There is ample evidence that is precisely what they did. The APA, like the AMA and the ABA, are political organizations.
But you could clear it all up real quick: what was the new "scientific evidence" by which a condition was declared to be no longer "abnormal", but "normal"?
You are confusing distinct disciplines. Do you not understand that this is a value judgement, and not a scientific conclusion? You can describe the chemical and anatomical attributes of a condition, but the decision of whether or not it is "normal" or "abnormal" is a value judgement. Some such value judgements are obvious (cerebral palsy is abnormal), some are not. But we didn't NEED any science to tell us that cerebral palsy is abnormal.
She's gay.
Homosexuals awaken to their same-sex attraction just like you awakened to your sexual identity at puberty. To them, it seems genetic.
There is also a good argument to be made, that they, the APA, were able to use the evidence they had collected over the many years when they had viewed homsexuality as a disorder, to conclude that in fact, it is not, and does not meet the definition. Again, its usually only a political organization when it says something someone doesn't like.
I hate to sound trite, but there's plenty of fish in the sea.
There is no evidence that genetics don't play a part in the formation of a person's sexuality. Actually, more and more, there seems to be an understanding that both genetics AND the environment play a part in shaping sexuality, among many other things. Genes vary rarely act in isolation.
Yes, this I agree with!!!!!
I agree.
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.