Skip to comments.
DO YOU TAKE THIS GOAT TO BE YOUR LAWFULLY WEDDED ......
dfu
| 11-2003
| dfu
Posted on 11/29/2003 8:23:34 PM PST by 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.
TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: baaaaaaa; bowwow; hehaw; homosexualagenda; homosexualvice; marriage; meow; moooooooo; oink; perversion; perverts; quack; samesex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
To: doug from upland
I think you said some of the things that Scalia thought, but dared not say so bluntly. If you could find an e-mail address, I think he might appreciate this. Who knows, maybe he has seen it lurking. ;-)
(I have no idea if he does.)
21
posted on
11/29/2003 9:30:34 PM PST
by
StriperSniper
(The "mainstream" media is a left bank oxbow lake.)
To: 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?
Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would be annoyed with that. First, it's not a serious question, or at any rate, not one a serious person would ask.
But the answer is: animals are incapable of forming intent and giving consent to enter a contractual type of relationship such as marriage. It does matter. In order to have rights (such as the right to contract), you must be able to make and keep agreements. Goats and other animals are incapable of so doing.
Your hysterical blither notwithstanding, the definition of "humanity" would have to be broadened considerably before "goat" would be included in the category. To bring this crap up only muddies the waters in an already-FUBAR situation.
If you want to fight gay marriage, here's a thought: try thinking of, you know, intelligent reasons it shouldn't be legal. There are at least a few. Otherwise, you're just one more set of gums flapping in the wind.
Snidely
To: temijin
years ago it was criminal and punished jail time
then it was reduced to an infraction and fine.
then it was decriminalized with no punishment for private acts
now they seek public endorsement under color of law
How long before they demand it become mandatory?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
..(/s)
To: Snidely Whiplash
polygamists are excited at the prospects.
There are also those in the homosexual circles who want the age of consent legalized.
It would make all sorts of horror stories legal.
To: USF
how about the founder of islam marrying a five year old?
To: doug from upland
Doug, I do think the barnyard animal bit goes a bit too far to be considered in serious conversation. I think the point you're making can be better illustrated by citing marriage between father and daughter, mother and son, sister and brother, first cousins and etc.
Like marriage between a man and a woman, these taboos have been handed down over the course of human history. While these may be mentioned in the bible, I think the wisdom behind these simple rules predate the bible. Common sense and learned acceptable human behavior in choosing a mate had to exist and be practiced by the same unknown people who first domesticated dogs, sheep, and cows. Ancient societies understood inter-breeding and didn't make up silly rules that each and every society followed in turn because they made no sense.
I agree that the current push towards gay marriage and acceptance is being forced upon a society that is almost willing to go along just to end a debate they'd rather not think about.
I can see a place for state recognition of a legal union for gays, but I can't see it being called marriage.
To: longtermmemmory
The legalization of polygamy wouldn't bother me- I've never heard a really convincing argument against it.
27
posted on
11/29/2003 9:41:33 PM PST
by
WackyKat
To: WhoisAlanGreenspan?
Well say what you want, laugh all you want, but we used to live next door to a man who kept his goat for sex in his basement in California. This tale is not as far fetched as the writer intended it to be, and I am not laughing. Homosexuals are bringing us all down low. We have let them go too far.
28
posted on
11/29/2003 9:47:40 PM PST
by
tessalu
To: Snidely Whiplash
well one good reason off the top of my head would be orginizations like nambla. When we accecpt an alternative sexual lifestyle it's only a matter of time before we must accecpt the next alternative lifestyle, pedifelia, beastiality, I'm niave I don't know about anything worse, but please leave me ignorant.
29
posted on
11/29/2003 9:48:35 PM PST
by
temijin
To: vetvetdoug
Hillary is living proof that someone had sex with a buffalo. I was going to tell you that I thought you meant a Jackass but then I looked at your profile and I knew that you were right. LOL! Buffalo it is! :)
30
posted on
11/29/2003 9:51:19 PM PST
by
NRA2BFree
(Criminals Liars Insolent Nemesis Traitors Opportunists Neurotic Seditious = Clintons)
To: doug from upland
When A Man Loves A Chicken
by Bob Rivers
When a man loves a chicken
He can't keep his mind on nothin' else,
He stay in the barn for the good thing he's found.
If he is henpecked he can't see it; she can't do no wrong.
Road Island Red is his best friend, he can't put her down.
When a man wants a chicken, spends his very last dime
Buying her fresh corn down at the grain and feed.
He'll build a nest for her comfort, and sleep out in the coop
If she said that's the way it's got to be.
Well, this man loves his chicken,
She lays him all the eggs she has.
Tell the farmer there's nothin' going on.
Believe me, she's cluckin' just 'cause she's mine.
When a man loves a chicken, people think that it is wrong.
He shouldn't stick his beak in where it don't belong.
Yes, when a man loves a chicken I know exactly how he feels.
Hey baby, baby, baby I'm your cock-a-doodle-doo.
When a man loves a chicken
I know exactly how he feels.
He'll shack up in the hen house with the good thing he's found.
When a man loves a chicken
People think that he's insane.
But all he can do is wing it for the one he loves.
Yes, this man loves a chicken.
Oh, I know it can't do me no harm.
Just for you, Doug..............FRegards
31
posted on
11/29/2003 9:55:10 PM PST
by
gonzo
(A mind is a terrible thing,,, and it must be stopped,,,in my lifetime,,, before I kill somebody...)
To: TheCrusader
Although I didn't ask them, I met a "couple" just last night who've been together for something like 20 years. These two gents have whatever kind of glue holding their relationship together that you or I might have with our own spouse. I don't apologize or make up with my wife because of a legal "marrage" or because I'm a christian. We stay together because we love each other and work at it. After 20 years together, you've got to realize they must do the same.
I don't think these two are attacking religion or christianity in any way. I think like Doug's picking on fondness for goats, saying it's a deliberate attack on christianity muddles the debate and weakens our side's argument.
Comment #33 Removed by Moderator
To: Snidely Whiplash
Your hysterical blither notwithstanding, the definition of "humanity" would have to be broadened considerably before "goat" would be included in the category. To bring this crap up only muddies the waters in an already-FUBAR situation. While the waters are muddy enough, what about the PETA types? They practically exhalt animals over humans now.
IMHO, this is about tying down survivor's benefits and tapping into healthcare plans more than emotional bonding. Call it "marriage" and they can "adopt" other gays and increase the drain on employers' healthcare plans while heterosexuals pick up the tab.
It is still legally OK in many states for these corporate/government employee health insurance plans to discriminate against smokers, heavy drinkers, hang glider pilots, motorcyclists, and skydivers, but not Gays, despite the medical problems inherent in their 'lifestyle'.
To: WackyKat
Two mothers in law would convince a lot of folks.
To: WhoisAlanGreenspan?
I didn't say it is a deliberate attack on Christianity. My point, even to the gum-flapper flame thrower, is that once we have changed the definition to what some group wants, the next group will come along and demand something else. The definition will continue to be changed.
36
posted on
11/29/2003 10:11:52 PM PST
by
doug from upland
(Hillary didn't hire Pelicano.......my butt)
To: longtermmemmory
37
posted on
11/29/2003 10:14:22 PM PST
by
USF
To: doug from upland
well! < /false offended tone >
I remember that mentioning a need for "BAD days" to those darling people who pushed "GLAD days" down our throats at coll. was not pleasing to those same darling people... at all.
38
posted on
11/29/2003 10:23:43 PM PST
by
King Prout
(...he took a face from the ancient gallery, then he... walked on down the hall....)
To: USF
MIDI - BOBBY'S GIRL I know that he wants me bad
I know that he wants me bad
I'm only 8 years old
he's still got it, I'm told
In just one year I'm gonna be his
Although I still am flat...he'll call me pussy cat
That I'm too young is nobody's biz
I will be Mohammed's girl
I will be Mohammed's girl
That is what I really want to be
When I am Mohammed's girl
I am Mohammed's girl
I know he will take good care of me
All of his wives are hags
they've turned into old bags
I am so fresh and very nubile
On me he's had his eye
he is my kind of guy
I'll be the next one he will defile
I will be Mohammed's girl
I will be Mohammed's girl
That is what I really want to be
When I am Mohammed's girl
I am Mohammed's girl
I know he will take good care of me
I will be Mohammed's girl
I will be Mohammed's girl
That is what I really want to be
When I am Mohammed's girl
I am Mohammed's girl
I know he will take good care of me
I will be Mohammed's girl
I will be Mohammed's girl
(fade out)
39
posted on
11/29/2003 10:24:57 PM PST
by
doug from upland
(Hillary didn't hire Pelicano.......my butt)
To: doug from upland
ROTFLMFAO!!!! Good one ;o)
40
posted on
11/29/2003 10:27:08 PM PST
by
USF
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson