Replies

Here you go from more than six years ago ---

SHOULD A MAN BE ALLOWED TO MARRY HIS GOAT?

Culture/Society Opinion Keywords: WHY NOT A GOAT?
Source: DFU opinion
Published: 3-1-00 Author: Doug from Upland
Posted on 03/01/2000 22:18:11 PST by doug from upland

Sorry, although the title suggests that this is a humorous piece, it is not. Someday, there will be a demand by someone that the state officially recognize a marriage between he and his livestock.

In California voters will decide on March 7 whether the institution of marriage has meaning in the traditional sense. They will be voting on an initiative which is Proposition 22 on the ballot. This initiative statute would provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriages performed in other states and countries would not be legal in California if they did not meet this criterion.

I suspect that as we grow older we tend to hold onto or honor those traditions that have had meaning in our lives. And we would hope that such traditions would have meaning and importance to others.

A man and woman marrying and raising their children has been proven for generation after generation after generation to be the best possible family structure for society. Twenty years ago, never could I have imagined that a proposition such as Proposition 22 would be necessary. It was just assumed that men would marry women, have children and carry on in the traditions that have proven best.

What is behind the proposition, of course, is more than just a question of whether homosexuals may marry and be officially recognized by the state. It is clearly an issue of states rights. Since California does not sanction marriage between other than a man and woman, should it be forced to do so if a couple marries in another state and comes to California?

Homosexuals may live with whom they wish. They may work where they wish although there certainly exists some discrimination in certain job areas. I personally would not want my son to be supervised by a gay scout leader. Homosexuals may own property together. Homosexuals may visit each other in the hospital. And homosexuals may will their property, real or personal, to their partner.

So what is it that they want? If homosexuals are officially recognized by the state as married couples, their union will be recognized as equal to that of heterosexual couples. The next step is clear. Homosexual couples would demand equality in the adoption of children. If their marriage was officially sanctioned and determined to be equal to any others' marriages, how could the argument be refuted?

Now back to my originial suggestion which at first looks preposterous. If two homosexuals can marry, why can't a brother and sister marry, particularly if one is sterile and no deformed children would result? Or, how about two men and a woman or two women and a man? How about a father and his daughter? Or, a father and his son? How about a man and his goat? If a man is in love with his goat, who is to say that such should not be sanctioned? It won't affect you and it won't affect me. If they are happy together, why not? It is not animal abuse. After all, you can kill a goat and eat it. Can someone stop you from having sex with it?

The attempted devaluation of marriage needs to stop now. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That does not need to be fixed. Gays may do what they like behind closed doors and spend their lives with their partners. If a man cannot legally marry another man, that is just too damned bad. If a man cannot marry his goat, that is just too damned bad.

If two homosexuals can marry, why can't a brother and sister marry, particularly if one is sterile and no deformed children would result?

See below for my response about a parent marrying his child. Siblings getting married may be a result of childhood abuse. As such, it is best to not allow that to prevent abuse.

Or, how about two men and a woman or two women and a man?

Not my thing, but I am not about to force my will on others.

How about a father and his daughter? Or, a father and his son?

This borders on sex with minors. A parent who marries his children may have abused them as children (i.e. raised the child to be his sex-slave). This hurts the child.

How about a man and his goat? If a man is in love with his goat, who is to say that such should not be sanctioned? It won't affect you and it won't affect me. If they are happy together, why not? It is not animal abuse. After all, you can kill a goat and eat it. Can someone stop you from having sex with it?

It is animal abuse. While it is legal to kill a goat, it is not legal to torture it. Since a goat can't provide consent to have sex, then a man marrying his goat is technically raping his goat every time he has sexual intercourse. Since sex is implied in marriage, then marriage between humans and animals should be illegal.