DO YOU TAKE THIS GOAT TO BE YOUR LAWFULLY WEDDED ......

dfu | 11-2003 | dfu

[doug from upland]

Those in the radical homosexual movement are outraged when we ask --- If a man can marry another man, why can't he marry a goat?

Is the suggestion of marrying a goat outrageous? Perhaps. But who brought us to this discussion?

For most of modern human history, it has been recognized that marriage is between one man and one woman. They have children, and they carry on the species. A mom and dad raising children is generally the best nurturing environment for them.

Homosexuals want to be accepted as equals, not just in human kindness, but in all aspects of life. They want us to believe that same-sex relationships are just as beautiful as sex between a man and a woman. They are not. A man and woman are built differently for a reason. The parts fit as they do for a reason.

Most people, even those who almost become physically ill with the mental picture of sexual activity between two men or two women, are nevertheless somewhat tolerant. If gays stay out of their faces and don't have public lewd parades in front of their children, they believe in live and let live. Do what you want, but do it so we don't have to see it or hear about it.

Now that homesexual behavior is tolerated by most people, the next step is to create an equivalency. They want the government to recognize same-sex marriage as being just as normal and healthy as a marriage between one man and one woman. The next step is, of course, the equal right to adopt children. Our society is doomed when two men who want to adopt a child are treated as equivalent to a man and woman.

If such status is given, we can legitimately ask --- What next? Can a man marry two women or three women or four women? If not, why not? Can a man marry his goat or cow or donkey? If not, why not?

It is not we who have traditional values who have changed the definition of marriage. The radical homosexual activists have done that. Oh, you can't have marriage with a different species. Why not? The definition of marriage has already been redefined. We are on that slippery slope.

If homosexual marriage gains recognition as equivalent to a normal marriage, why do they have the right to then limit the definition? If the man-goat lobby becomes active and funded, why should their rights be denied?

A man who loves his goat will certainly want his goat to be able to visit him in the hospital. He will want his goat to have health benefits by his company's insurance plan. And why can't his goat go into Von's with him to choose tempting dinner entrees? Why can't the goat join her spouse at Claim Jumper and get a shot at the salad bar?

Oh, I know what is next. The goat can't give consent. Right? Who gets to decide that such consent matters? Remember, the definition of marriage has already been changed. Why can't it be further modified?

Homosexuals, just lead your life. You have the right to purchase property together. You can leave real and personal property in your will to your partner. I believe you can also direct your doctor to allow visitors in the hospital that you have identified.

But I guess that isn't good enough. Radical homosexuals want more than decent treatment. They want us to acknowledge that their love is equivalent to that of love between a man and a woman. Sorry, but it is not. I accept that most homosexuals, particularly males, are born the way they are. It is not their fault or their choice. Something has gone wrong which prevents them from being able to be attracted to the opposite sex. At times, it must be incredibly difficult for them. Who would choose that path in life?

If the definition really does change and homosexual marriages are performed and recognized by the state, it will be time for a lawsuit filed on behalf of those who want to marry multiple partners and those who want to marry their barnyard friends. Those who object will be given a warning -- don't be a goataphobe.

[vetvetdoug]

Hillary is living proof that someone had sex with a buffalo.

[martin_fierro]

Joe told me to relate that he loves ewe.

<|:)~

[OldFashionedAmerican]

Could not have said it better myself. Be prepared to be bombarded (Attacked) by those that say that your arguments are ridiculous. If they succeed in silencing, or marginalizing your argument, then after the dust clears, and Homosexual marrige is offically accepted, then I guarantee you that the fringe element will push, just as you describe, for the very type of perverted unions stated in your post.

[little jeremiah]

The author is okay until he gets to the part about most homosexuals being born that way and they didn't choose to be how they were. We all make choices. Maybe some have a hard time with attractions - but what married man or woman hasn't had an attraction to someone other than their spouse? And how many fought that attraction, or ignored it, and didn't ruin their marriage with adultery?

Most experts who are not shills for the gay lobby say that early childhood difficulty of one kind or another - bad or absent parent(s), early sex abuse - cause same sex attraction disorder. And many have left the homosexual "lifestyle" - either living in celibacy or even becoming attracted to the opposite sex.

[mtg]

Maybe AlGore will be able to marry a tree.

[little jeremiah]

Oh - just checked - YOU'RE the author!!

Why limit marriage to men and goats? What about sheep, they're people too!

(One woman, one dog - two women, one dog - two men, one dog and a horse - three men, two women, and a roto-rooter, etc)

[doug from upland]

We can respectfully disagree on whether gays are born that way. I do think, however, that the evidence really backs up my position.

[USF]

Not sure what Ayatollah Khomeini would make of this. See, it would be a dilemma because even though this reveared scholar of Islam was not fond of homosexuality, he apparently thought sex with animals was fine.

[temijin]

this thread was a long time coming. If homosexuality, which was considered an abborition a mere decade ago, is just an altwernitive sexual lifestyle today. WELL USE YOUR IMAGINATION pedifelia beastiality probably things I don't know about are just over the horizon. The left never stops they always have to push the "envelope" of acceptability. Now that it is ok to be gay, better hide your sons and daughters, cause thats where the "envelope" goes next.

[jocon307]

"Maybe AlGore will be able to marry a tree."

I don't think Tipper will approve.

But hey? In this age of no-fault divorce, who cares what Tipper thinks?

[doug from upland]

Does someone have to say it? Algore. Tree. He'll have a woodie.

[Squantos]

To hell with marrying my goat ! The real question is can I adopt my rottweillers and claim em as tax deductions ?

[CARepubGal]

LOLOL! The food bills for the Rotts alone would make the tax breaks after adoption vital. Now Cat adoptions are another story (Cats = the other Rott Food group: Sampson the Rott) ;-)

[HiTech RedNeck]

At MOST, at the very MOST, one can show that the vulnerability has a biological component. That doesn't make it WRONG to oppose temptations to that vulnerability, or doom such opposition to zero effect, any more than in the case of inherited alcoholic tendencies and dealing with "the bottle." To buy into the "born that way" mantra as an excuse for letting it go, is to cheer for the demons.

[temijin]

Are you actually defending the position that gays are born that way. I don't think, at this point the debate can be won on facts. There's a lot of opinions out there but very few "facts".

[temijin]

Well said, we all face temptation, it's how we deal with it that is a part of who we are. Some temptations I give in to and others I fight on a daily basis. This is everymans war, how you fight it, or choose not to is one of the few free choices you have left, but make no mistake about it is a choice.

[TheCrusader]

All this insanity is really just an attack on religion, particularly Christianity. The State is flexing its moral-less muscles over religion, in a thinly veiled expression of superiority.

When you boil Communism down to its core, it is nothing more or less than institutionalized atheism; a government system that abolishes or subjugates religion to secular authority. Then the strong rule, and those who are not strong are subjugated to the few. This is where we are heading if people continue to do nothing about these relentless attacks on Christianity. It is becoming a juggernaut and one day will be unstoppable if Christians remain complacent.

[WackyKat]

I feel that I was born heterosexual and certainly never made a conscious choice to become heterosexual- that is just what I always have been.
I don't see why it should be any different for most homosexuals.
Furthermore, I've always thought the "born or choice" debate to be a pointless one

[HiTech RedNeck]

Quite possible that most just "went with the flow" of their feelings. That doesn't render it to be a wrong thing to oppose when the feelings flow hellward.