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 ...
I can't believe you think moveon.org is a communist/fascist site, and yet Freerepublic is somehow balanced.
At your unbalanced service,
jp
Do your lies never end?
Could be the anal sex and manlove...
Oooh. Another lie.
Not so. That's a big stinking lie. Nothing in the law prevents you from getting married just because you are gay.
Free Republic does not claim to be "balanced" or faire:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
Buh bye, troll.
Sweet Lord! Is that true?
See ya. I knew you would get banned (see post 169).
You might have been a worthwhile contributer had you avoided continuing on with the pro-gay posts. But I doubt it. You seem to be focused on your homosexuality as the sole definition for your life. Too bad.
LOL.
I love you man. And I mean that in a healthy, brotherly sort of way.
No eros, just delphos....got it. Back atcha. ;O)
The premise of your argument is that the criterion for "abnormal" is "hurts others". (Please note there is no science or medicine or "modern psychology" in your premise. A mesolithic nomad could have articulated it -- and probably did.)
Therefore, masochism is "normal".
Or is there another criterion you want to add to your first?
It's up to a healthy society where the line is drawn. We will not be told where to draw it by activist judiciary, or any government agency. We will demand that the Congress and Senate pass laws protecting the right of society to define marriage according to the general moral dictates, or what is considered the norm.
The return of JAY-SON.
Moveon.org IS communist.
What?
Don't ike hearing that?
OOooh, bet that stings a little to hear the truth.
Go home troll.
Oopsies, you did that already.
"Sweet Lord! Is that true?"
It is absolutely true. On his last trip down he had pictures of himself and his "companions" traveling the world. He felt compelled to explain who was who and showed no reservations about doing so. Just so everyone knows, I still love the guy. He is the only living person on my Dad's side of the family that I know of. He has never been out of academics his entire life, which speaks volumes.
[shudder]
See, hear's the thing. Your not refuting anything by saying this. Sure, Ann probably called someone a name. She's a writer and has to keep it interesting. Writing has to have some Pop and she no doubt responded to someone like Ted-the-swimmer-Kennedy comparing W to the Taliban. Of course I don't really know that because you never state exactly what you're talking about.
Also, I got your FReep mail and No, I don't know you. My mentioning that it was possibly time for your OPUS was an instinctive judgment by a true FReeper that immediately pegged you as a short-timer on the forum. Hope you come back to FR to get this message because I cannot e-mail your personal addy.
Just because you do not know of anyone personally does not mean that they do not exist. I don't know anyone who has been murdered, but I know that people ARE murdered. I tried to find info for you regarding the harmful effects of anal sex on the web and can not go to those sites from the computer I am at. You can easily do a search yourself for the information.
You seem to have some sort of mental block towards the word average.
No, you seem to have a mental block about how this "average" probably isn't the actual average. In order to arrive at an actual average, you have to have a reliable statistical sample. I pointed out why this method does not provide that. That's your lesson for the day. You're welcome.
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.