As an update to my rant on the extremists against gay marriage earlier this month…
I am so glad I am not the only one who feels the need, at last, to point out the sheer and utter ridiculousness of the extremists who fear that bestiality may, indeed, come along next if we allow gay marriage.
Richard Goldstein of The Village Voice (admittedly, a leftie imprint) has a wonderful piece on Petaphilia, full of lovely bon-mots such as:
To those who struggle against the longing to marry their animal companions, let me say, I feel your pain. The heart is a lonely pointer; I know that all too well. But there are ways to keep this passion on a leash. You can stay away from dog runs, avoid pet-store windows, and relieve your tension with erotica like the Westminster Dog Show. But first you’ve got to stand up and admit, “I am a petaphile!”
Every time I come across a story on this, I find myself asking: “Are these people actually serious about the whole bestiality thing, or is it just shock factor?”
Your thoughts?
The bestiality argument is largely bogus but arguments of bigamy, pedophilia, incest are logical arguments and must be considered as cases that could very well be demanded by someone “down-the-road” .
Ah, the infamous slippery slope arguement, one of my favorites!
The sad thing is that I think a decent portion of the people that use that arguement really do believe that homosexuals marrying will cause life to cease to exist.
The other portion are using it for shock value and to attempt to sound informed and present a logical arguement (albeit flawed) when there are in fact no logical arguements to prevent homosexuals from marrying.
Jacb makes the point I wanted to make. The bestiality argument is ridiculous and has been completely misrepresented. The original author now realizes, I assume, the dangers of using extreme examples when making arguments like this.
Let’s all laugh at the animal thing and move on. Now… what about bigamy, pedophilia, incest, etc., the issues Jacob brought up? I, and I’m sure many other people, can put together a very pursuasive argument explaining why bigamy, pedophilia and incest are essntially no different than same sex marriages from a legal standpoint. We all can list the many reasons why those things are repulsive to us, but those are our opinions. Case law supercedes. I am not gay, but my best friend (ironically, best man at my wedding) is gay. My ex wife turned out to be gay. I have no problem with how people choose to lve their lives. But, two issues scare me. First, as Jacob brings up, where does a decision (let’s call it Supreme Court decision for the sake of argument) validating same sex marriages lead us? In my opinion, into very dangerous and, frankly, non-productive issues. Then, as activists start using the decision to validate their own particular relationship agendas, you quickly have a huge mess on your hands and this country (and this world) have far more important things to worry about. The second thing that scares me is the issue of children being brought up by same sex couples. You can agrue this point till you’re blue in the face, but scientists far smarter than me have conducted many studies on the maturation of children. Guess what? Children are largely the result of how they are brought up. There is no way I would ever agree with same sex couples raising children. It has nothing to do with the quality of their parenting. They probably love their kids more than the average parent. But who has the right to expose a child to an alternative lifestyle that is in a VERY small minority? I love kids. I have 2 young children. I know how easy it is to get them to think the way you want them to.
I expect that the gay and lesbian communites would be outraged by this view, but as far as I’m concerned, some things are just plain unnatural and wrong and forcing (yes, it is forcing) a child to live in an environment that is confusing and potentially embarrassing at school and other social situations is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. That ain’t love. It’s selfishness.
edicius
Republicans I know bring up the marrying the pet thing all the time. It seems so stupid to me, people are covered by the Constitution, animals aren’t.
I’m sure there are people out there that want to do just about anything, including marrying their pets.
My favorite solution is stop recognizing all marriages. Have the states only recognize civil unions, if people wanna do a religious ceremony they can. That way everyone is equal.
I think Christian Fundamentalists often unconsciously way how much they’ve suppressed and limited their own lives. All the appetites they’ve throttled. They see themselves as barely contained cesspools.
They think that if they weren’t constrained by their crazy religion they’d suddenly try to act our every repressed desire, every rejected fantasy. That scares them. They see what they perceive as their own wickedness and assume all the ‘ungodly’ folk are even worse.
And from their monomaniacal perspective bestiality and same-sex love are equally disgusting and ‘sinful.’
Many of them are dead serious about the beastiality thing. You have to understand that they equate gays and gay sex as sub-human anyway. Thus, if marriage between “sub-humans” is legal, it is a small jump for them to imagine beastiality becoming legal.
I, myself, can’t imagine living inside the head of someone whose mind work in such a warped and twisted manner.
Like you, I’m sick of it. Gay marriage, or even partner rights, do not in any way, shape or form lessen the meaning of my conventional marriage. I’m sick of it. SICK of it. I normally go with the Republican side of things, but this is just ridiculous. In this world, the way things are now, I think that if two people can find love, regardless of who/what/what sex…whatever, they are then by all means they should be allowed to. The message should be “love”, not “hate”.
On top of that, it’s not my damn job to judge whether other people’s actions are sins or not. It’s God’s. And while I’m talking about sin, let me say this; my uncle is a Methodist minister and he always taught us that a sin is a sin in God’s eyes. No one sin is worse than any other sin, and since WE ALL SIN, we need to just let people live their lives. Good grief people! Get a fucking grip!
Alright, now I’m riled up. I’m ready for a fight, so bring it on! LOL
I agree completely with the notion that gays raising children has far reaching consequences that have been overlooked by the majority of us. I can see the writing on the wall the first time the child of gay parents objects to the time honored assignment in grade schools of children writing about their families and reading the essays in class. The gay outcry over the embarrasment of the child in class and the profession of “denial of civil rights”.
I believe that the gay community is acting selfishly. While they profess the sanctity of their own “civil rights” they ignore the civil rights of the children the seek to raise. How can the lesbian parents of a male child or the gay parents of a female child think they have the inherent skills of the opposite sex necessary to teach the child what to expect in the way of treatment by the opposite sex? Does not the same sex marriage also tell the child that having parent that are of the opposite sex is irrelevant? Not only that, but I believe that as the child grows up the gays will have a very difficult time explaining the importance of heterosexual relationships. After all they don’t believe it themselves. And without this ability there is little chance that the child can learn the skills necessary for a normal relationship that the majority of us enjoy.
And what about my civil rights. As the same sex unions become legalized why should my children be denied the learning experiences that I enjoyed because gays/lesbians are uncomfortable/annoyed/angry with healthy, happy heterosexual relationships. Just as an aside, in my location it is not the gays but the lesbians that are making the biggest stink over same sex marriages. And it is the female politicians of all persuasions that are in the fore front of the push to have these unions deified by the government.
While liberals will always take great pains to warn us of the “tyranny of the majority”, I believe it is a far more dangerous situation to have a tyranny of the minority that ignores the majority.
“I expect that the gay and lesbian communites would be outraged by this view, but as far as I’m concerned, some things are just plain unnatural and wrong and forcing (yes, it is forcing) a child to live in an environment that is confusing and potentially embarrassing at school and other social situations is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. That ain’t love. It’s selfishness.”
First, since *when* has wanting to give your all, your life, your love and your soul to take care of a child selfish?
Second: What about other environments that are confusing and potentially embarrassing? What if, say, a mother is overly fat? What if the family is very poor and the child has to wear home made clothes? What if the child is never allowed to have or attend birthday parties? What if the father likes to pass wind constantly in public? What if a mother or father that was married, had children then decides they needed to be true to themselves and “come out” – do they lose custody because they may take on a same-sex life partner? What about the mother who strips for a living (as in what happens on “What-My-Parent-Does-For-A-Career Day?)
Should all these parents (because of the ‘choices’ they’ve made – things that can actually be changed, as opposed to homosexuality – whole other argument we won’t get into here) be forced to give up, or never be allowed to have children in the first place, unless they pass the “ideal parent” litimus test based on an embarrassing moment or five that might happen in their life?
I’m sorry, but no matter who a child’s parents are, they are going to be embarassed, confused and angry at one point (or six). If a child has a loving, safe, protective, supportive environment, I don’t care who the parents love as their spouse.
Jodie – who has lots of video, stories, initiative and the personality to make sure her son is embarassed and feels awkward by being around her as a teen at least 14 times. Will try for 23.
“How can the lesbian parents of a male child or the gay parents of a female child think they have the inherent skills of the opposite sex necessary to teach the child what to expect in the way of treatment by the opposite sex? ”
News flash: not so many straight parents can do this with any degree of competency. And, what of single mothers of sons? What about single fathers of daughters?
Basically, if men knew how to do this really well – you wouldn’t hear women complain so much, and I wouldn’t be in business.
The *real* lesson is not “what should you expect from the opposite sex” – but “what should you expect from another human being and what should you expect of *yourself* when living with others on this big, blue marble.”
The rest will take care of itself. Remember, a child has *many* role models aside from his/her parents.
“but arguments of bigamy, pedophilia, incest are logical arguments and must be considered as cases that could very well be demanded by someone “down-the-road” .”
Down the road? Those are UP the road!
Most of the people demanding our approval of their bigamy, pedophilia, incest, and/or combinations of those (for example, he who forces his 12-year-old daughter to marry his 30-year-old nephew) certainly don’t say “If their interracial or gay relationship is OK then so is this!”
No, they say “this is part of our culture, we’ve done it for centuries, and you’re a Nazi if you don’t like it!” >:(
For more details, see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/newsid_1206000/1206979.stm and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/africanlives/ivory/ivory.htm
Just as a news flash to some who oppose homosexual unions on the grounds of “the children”, homosexuals are legally able to adopt children now in most if not all states. It is estimated that about 28% of homosexual couples have adopted a child in a recent article I read (sorry can’t remember the source).
Therefore, your fears about what it will do to the children are unfounded, because people are already being raised by homosexuals — some of them adults now. If there really was a huge problem with that don’t you think you would have read about it in a major media outlet?
Because homosexual couples are adopting children there is a great need to the rights and protections of marriage. Currently only one person legally adopts the child. If that person were to die in an accident, the other person in the relationship would not automatically become the guardian and the child could end up back in the system.
Sure, the kids might get picked on. But no more than normal kids get picked on for any of the reasons Jodie listed above. If anything they’ll be more open, free thinking and accepting of others. We definitely need a little bit more of that in this country.
i believe some of these comments have become a bit extremest when making the claim that it is WRONG(?) for homosexuals to raise children. since when? if you really stop and think about it, homos have been around since the beginning of time. they have been an active part of mankind as family members, partners, employees/employers, caregivers, your hairdresser…the list goes on. they aren’t lepers or aliens. they love just as much or more as any parent can or could. there are so many children in state custody who are needing homes/adoption that i say more power to homo couples who are willing to give up their lives as a couple to become parents to a child who deserves a loving home. don’t you know kids in shitty homes, homeless, have sorry parents? who cares if the adopting couple is the same sex? at least they are willing to go the extra mile for a deserving child. they will be doing the best they can for their baby.
me personally? i’m going to marry my shower massager 🙂
Personally, I agree with the poster of the first comment – do away with “marriage” as a legal concept, in favor of civil unions. If the couple wants a religious ceremony, that’s fine, and religious institutions don’t have to marry anyone that doesnt’ conform to their rules, but the law won’t recognize it as legally binding unless there’s an accompanying civil “ceremony” (aka filing the right paperwork). This way, the church/mosque/synagogue/etc doesn’t have to worry that they’ll be “forced” to marry people that their relgion says shouldn’t marry, (which seems to be the fear of a lot of religious people) and the law can define marriage in a way that supports the rights of all citizens.
I’d like to make it clear here that I’m not just talking about same-sex marriages, either. I’m fully in support of multiple marriages as well. As to the other “slippery slope” conequences – incest, pedophilia, and bestiality – the first is bad for the gene pool, and the second two are infringing on the rights of the young person/animal, so I don’t see those as being issues at all. The law can simply be phrased in such a way as to make it clear that marriage is a contract between two people of legal age, and not more closely related than second cousins. (or something to that effect)
And that’s my $0.02. *waits for his change*
Why should the government recognize “civil unions” of any kind?
How is offering legal advantages to straight married couples, but not to gays any worse or less fair than offering those same legal advantages to gay or straight couples, but not to singles, platonic friends or polygynous couples?
Straight married couples are given legal advantages to promote monogomous sex, reproduction, and healthy families.
Why should the government promote homosexual unions the same way they do straight marriages? I understand the advanteges to gay couples, but what does society get back?
Is it to promote monogamy in general?
I’m not being snarky. I just want answers.
If you want not only to legalize gay civil unions or marriages but to promote them with preferential treatment by the government, then you must convince doubters why it would be good for society.
If your only argument is that it’s not *fair* to give straights privileges that are denied to gays, then you should argue to take those privileges away from married couples, not to give them to any group that complains loud enough.
Why should the government promote reproduction?
Why should the government promote reproduction? Aren’t the millions of kids we already have good enough?
Not to be off-topic, but what happened to Vikki?
It’s been almost exactly a month now… did she get too close to the truth (the last thing you’ll hear will be the black helecopters)? Fall victim to Mad Cow disease? Did her vibrator short out?
Vikki, where are you??????
Unfortunately, most Americans do not realize that our news organizations do not really report news. They are in it for the profit, since the news hour is one of the most profitable hours on television and this is what drives them to report far out and ridiculous points of view and claim it is from a large majority
I think its the shock-factor.
“The bestiality argument is largely bogus”
kudos!
First of all, I am doing an editorial paper at school for this exact issue and the editorial paper is an evaluation which means I am not putting in my opinion but facts from both sides and letting the reader decide what he or she wants to believe. This is just one of a very many websites I’ve found and I must say you all sound like squibling children I have to add that people like Raven are extremely wrong when it comes to scientific studies it is proven from the homosexuals raising those very children you say have nothing wrong with them that they are unsure of who they are or how to act. Such as a boy being raised by lesbians is more feminine and a girl raised by gay men are more masculine. Also the marriage is not the same between homosexual and heterosexual. Homosexual marriage stitistics show even monogamous homosexual couples are unfaithful to eachother by a large percent. Example: steady male homosexual partners have an average of 8 other partners a year. Only 2.7% of older homosexual males have had only one sexual partner. Studies have also shown a girl with an active staight father is less likely to give in to her boyfriend on sex and she knows what she wants to look for in men, this also brings down teen pregnancy rates. I can argue both sides of boat like what about heterosexual marriages when the father skips out. Same thing. But remember even if homosexual fathers could do that what about lesbian mothers? And with boys, aboy needs a father. Studies have shown that a boy with out a father involved is less socially active and deliquent. Again same with heterosexual couples but lesbians are still invovled. They do not even think about the role model a man might be. Homosexual marriages are no better with families than heterosexuals. The child will still ask about a father. Why did they leave, did they not want to see me, why don’t I have one? Homosexual marriages can be worse because of the fact of they are rarely faithful to eachother. You say hetersexuals arnt either? Check this out Bob:Honosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous. Accourding to study aithor Carry Adoam,”Gay culture allows men to explore different forms of relationships besides the monogamy coverted by heterosexuals. Many self apointed monogamous couples have an average of 3 to 5 partners in the past year. Do tell, what does that do to a child to know that it is okay for daddy to constantly cheat on daddy or mommy to constantly cheat on mommy? In a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one thirty-seven years: only 7 couples have had a totally exclusive relationship and these have all been together less than five years. by the way 85 percent of married women and 75.5 percent of married men have been faithful to eachother. 4.5 percent of homosexuals have been faithful to one another again in less than 5 years. My site is http:www,frc.org/get.cfm/i=I504c02.
we are out of that now we can discus the aids thing. Started in Africa huh? Alright. But in 2002 404 British Columbians tested positive for HIV: 37% were gay or bisexual, 33% injection drug users, 19.9% were women(also think of prostitution now kitties) 19.7% hterosexual sex.
Wanna go again? 2002 2,473 Canadians tested positive for HIV: 43% gay 33% drug, 25% women, 13.9% hetersexual. Average 43% homosexuals have 500 partners or more. 28% have a 1,000 or more. Those are unbelieveable numbers to me. Our conclusion is even if homosexuals would be more loving it screws with the child and they can’t stay faithful in the marriage. I’m done. Next time put in facts instead clever opinions.