Comments on: the love that dare not bark its name

the love that dare not bark its name

archimago — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:06:39 -0800

The Great American Man-Dog Marriage Panic. Muttrimonial bliss could be yours, now that the gates of hell are opening!

By: trondant

trondant — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:07:39 -0800

arf!

By: SealWyf

SealWyf — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:18:59 -0800

Won't someone think of the puppies?

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:19:20 -0800

"If you can marry gays then you can marry dogs" is essentially saying "I equate gays to be of equal worth to dogs." So to these concerned parties, gay people are the new Irish/Jews in the signs stating "No dogs or [ethnicity] allowed inside." Of course, this is classic misdirection and fear-mongering. Equal protection doesn't apply here because no one can marry their dog. I would assume that most politicians/religious leaders who are using this line of attack are aware of this, but are hoping that the ignorance of the general public will incite outrage. Dogs don't want to be married anyway. They want to be single and have every opportunity to hump other dogs, legs and furniture.

By: PigAlien

PigAlien — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:46:58 -0800

I married my dog in 1998 in Labrador. It was easy to retrieve the marriage certificate. This is old news in Canada. Arf!

By: rschram

rschram — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:02:03 -0800

It's a good point that most of the hysteria around gay marriage seems to focus on the idea of male homosexual sex. Lesbians get a pass, at least at the level of symbols. But is this really the case?

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:05:25 -0800

Lesbians get a pass, at least at the level of symbols. I did some research at The Hun's Yellow Pages, and it appears that all lesbians are hot blondes. Who could be against that?

By: nofundy

nofundy — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:22:49 -0800

Will Rick Santorum make an honest bitch of her? Enquiring minds want to know.

By: dabitch

dabitch — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:35:22 -0800

Marry your pet

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:41:07 -0800

Somewhere a chicken is recieving a diamond ring from Larry Flynt. But that's not important right now.... I'm just thinking ahead here, but what about people who masturbate with cucumbers and bananas, and pumpkins and whatnot. Aren't they having sex with vegetables? Who are life forms after all. Pronouncing someone zucchini and wife is inevitable, if nothing is done. Won't someone please think of the summer squash??!! I'd talk more but I've got to remove those filty voyeurs from the produce aisle.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:23:41 -0800

What about polygamy. I brought this up before and someone said the numbers are so small its not worth discussing. Ignoring historical precedent of entire communities (state of Utah) allowing it in the past, there exists today a rather large "underground" alternative lifestyle culture that IMO the gay community glosses over. Swingers, B&D, etc.. these are not just weekend warriors who go home to the burbs and live a normal hetro life, these are serious lifestyle people who are for the most part kept in the closet by society at large. Eventually, sooner or later, they too will want to have their lifestyle be legit and recognized by the State and that includes polygamy. The dog argument is IMO a bullshit issue but polygamy and other forms of relationships is not.

By: Dreamghost

Dreamghost — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:36:21 -0800

but can a gay man marry a gay dog? Somewhere a chicken is receiving a diamond ring from Larry Flynt. But that's not important right now.... as long as it's not camilla, gonzo would be heartbroken. ;/

By: archimago

archimago — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:38:11 -0800

So who is stopping them from leading the charge if they feel they are being discriminated against? If you are going to use the term "lifestyle" then you first have to understand that homosexulaity is not a lifestyle. This isn't something that I do on the weekends or in dark clubs or at parties. It's what I am every minute of every day, yet it doesn't define me completely.

By: 4easypayments

4easypayments — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:44:41 -0800

Polygamy will be a much easier sell to conservatives than same-sex marriage. Polygamy is, after all, the de rigeur form of marriage in The Bible. I'd wager that the main opponents of state-sanctioned polygamy would come from the Left, since it's usually a patriarchical harem-style situation.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:46:37 -0800

What about polygamy. I brought this up before and someone said the numbers are so small its not worth discussing. OK. If everybody is of age and consenting, I say go right ahead. Swingers, B&D, etc.. these are not just weekend warriors who go home to the burbs and live a normal hetro life, these are serious lifestyle people who are for the most part kept in the closet by society at large. Eventually, sooner or later, they too will want to have their lifestyle be legit and recognized by the State How exactly? Isn't the whole purpose od "swinging," to have anonymous sex without entanglements-legal or emotional? And S&M & B&D (and quite possibly BLT's) happens inside of legally recognized traditional hetero marraiges already. Nothing more needs to be "recognized" as far as I can tell. Nobody's glossing over anything, and plenty of hetero people are part of those subcultures as well. It just has zero to do with the issue of gay marraige.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:54:29 -0800

I had a dear pet whom I surely would have married, a very beautiful Doberman named Ophelia. I desperately yearned to tie the knot with her, and I even wrote to Mr. Richard Santorum for advice on the matter - on account of the fact that he seemed so passionate concerning the issue of human-animal love. I thought he, if anyone, would understand. Alas, he did not respond. It did not matter though. dear Ophelia was always a bit skittish, or perhaps touched and - to my undying grief - this was a thing my love could not rectify. At this point, I should mention that it was a strictly platonic love, the purest love of all. We never sullied it with our carnal passions regardless of our mutual yearnings. Just to be near her, though, was bliss. One day Ophelia, in a fit of despair I think, threw herself in a lake and drowned. My life and world was blown apart, and things haven't been the same since. I can't bear, anymore, the very sight of a female dog. I rarely leave the house but merely while away the hours gazing at photos of my beloved. My human wife seems not to understand. Bitch.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:19:49 -0800

I had a dear pet whom I surely would have married, "You may now hump the groom's leg..."

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:38:00 -0800

The dog argument is IMO a bullshit issue but polygamy and other forms of relationships is not. Again, it's an equal protection issue. Some people can marry one other person and others (gays) can not. Nobody can marry two other people, so everyone is held to the same standard. The issue isn't about marriage at its core. It's about an existing right that isn't extended to all people. The right to marry a bunch of people is not an existing right for anyone, so it's a different issue.

By: jfuller

jfuller — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:09:22 -0800

> Pronouncing someone zucchini and wife is inevitable, if nothing is done. Swamp Thing: I can't love you the way you want me to. I'm a vegetable. Heather Locklear : (huskily) I'm a vegetarian. > "If you can marry gays then you can marry dogs" is essentially saying > "I equate gays to be of equal worth to dogs." You say that like it's a bad thing. I really do think we need a bit more respect for our four-legged and chlorophyll-bearing brother life forms in this thread. Think of your karma.

By: tomplus2

tomplus2 — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:35:56 -0800

Dogs don't want to be married anyway. They want to be single and have every opportunity to hump other dogs, legs and furniture. I know people who are married but want to be single and have every opportunity to hump other women, guys, and furniture.

By: gd779

gd779 — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:53:14 -0800

If you can marry gays then you can marry dogs" is essentially saying "I equate gays to be of equal worth to dogs." I'm afraid that's not what they're saying. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you live in a social environment where absolutely no one you know makes this argument or would even consider it, right? Heh. The argument they're making goes as follows: Marriage, on the whole, does a lot of good - for children, for society as a whole. Marriage was originally supported by Judeo-Christian values that said the purpose of marriage was procreation. However, we have now discarded both the religious and the secular conceptions of marriage that linked it with procreation. Without that conception, marriage is an arbitrary and logically unsupportable institution. The only thing supporting it is the weight of tradition. If we abolish that tradition, then these other arbitrary rules (like not marrying dogs, and not marrying more than one person, and arguably not marrying children) will also be swept away. This is reasonable - destroy the foundation, and eventually the whole house crumbles. There is also some empirical evidence for it. In Sweden, for example, where marriage has become divorced from child rearing, and where homosexuality is comparatively legitimate, there is a sharply rising rate of bestiality. Other examples exist as well. To put it another way: In The Beginning, there was Religion. Religion gave force to Tradition. Then we discarded Religion, but tried to keep Tradition. Now we want to discard Tradition but substitute a new Tradition, only there's no Religion to give it force. And without Tradition backed by Religion the only reason to oppose bestiality is the "yuck factor", and that wasn't strong enough to prevent the legitimization of homosexuality, was it? (What? You think we're going to oppose bestiality on consent grounds, and then slaughter cows to make hamburgers? Yeah, right, where's the consent there?).

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:10:15 -0800

The argument they're making goes as follows: Marriage, on the whole, does a lot of good - for children, for society as a whole. Marriage was originally supported by Judeo-Christian values that said the purpose of marriage was procreation. However, we have now discarded both the religious and the secular conceptions of marriage that linked it with procreation. If that's the case, why would most religions oppose polygamy? There's nothing about polygamy which is inconsistent with procreation. There must be more to the Judeo-Christian idea of marriage than procreation, I think. I suspect that religion, and tradition, support pair-bonding rather than polygamy simply because they are more likely to be successful societal practices, not because they're morally superior. I suspect that polygamy, to be successful as a standard practice, would require a shift in the ratio of women to men. In Sweden, for example, where marriage has become divorced from child rearing, and where homosexuality is comparatively legitimate, there is a sharply rising rate of bestiality. Really? I don't have any statistics to support my disagreement with this, but I have the gut feeling that, at most, perhaps more Swedes are simply willing to admit they're screwing sheep than they were before. What? You think we're going to oppose bestiality on consent grounds, and then slaughter cows to make hamburgers? Yeah, right, where's the consent there? You don't have to oppose bestiality at all to make the argument that people can't enter into consensual arrangements, such as marriage, with beings unable to grant consent. By your logic, I could just go marry someone who's in a coma, right? "Baby, when we got hitched, you didn't complain a bit!" I could make a honeymoon joke here, but I'll restrain myself.

By: Triplanetary

Triplanetary — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:27:13 -0800

Curely: Some people can marry one other person and others (gays) can not. Nobody can marry two other people, so everyone is held to the same standard. That statement is just word-play. A same-sex marriage opponent can say that no-one is allowed to marry persons of the same sex, so we are all equally protected. By the same token, let's say you can marry person X, but I can't because I'm already married. That's not discrimination in my opinion. Same-sex marriage should be allowed because it's the decent thing to do and because society would be better off as a whole. Using only abstract logic you can't prove that gay marriage is more right than polygamy.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:50:27 -0800

And without Tradition backed by Religion the only reason to oppose bestiality is the "yuck factor", and that wasn't strong enough to prevent the legitimization of homosexuality, was it? And the real point, and what all these arguments come down to--the "yuck factor." Too damn bad for you. This is America.

By: Secret Life of Gravy

Secret Life of Gravy — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:55:43 -0800

But when a fantasy repeats itself again and again, you have to consider what it means All it means is that there are too few arguments to be trotted out against gay marriage, so when you ask someone why they are opposed to gay marriage, they inevitably answer with the unholy triumvirate; "Because it will ruin the sanctity of marriage and lead to polygamy, bestiality, and incest." Occasionally you will get some flourishes such as, "and pedophilia and bondage." This was never made clear to me-- why someone would be driven to have sex with pets if gays are allowed to marry. Do the anti-gays mean that people will become more open with their already existing urges to copulate with animals? Or do anti-gays mean that the excitement of gay marriage will spill over and inflame hidden perversities in Joe/Jane Suburbia? Maybe they are afraid that little Bobby, viewing the government sanctioned matrimony of his two lesbian mommies, will naturally assume he can put his dick anywhere. Or maybe, the anti-gay marriage crowd are too lazy to think for themselves and are just spouting the same tired old rhetoric they heard from the pulpit on Sunday.

By: Secret Life of Gravy

Secret Life of Gravy — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:38:07 -0800

All this talk of gay marriage has all ready been too stimulating for some people. Man tries to board plane with seal's head! And I think we all know what he was planning with that head.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:35:38 -0800

Society of breaking down, clearly. I blame Massachusets. It's all those "s's" in the name - just like a hissing snake or........SATAN!

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:44:51 -0800

"The man, who bound for Denver, told investigators that he is a biology professor and that he had found a dead seal on Revere Beach, officials said. He then cut off its head so he could take it home for educational purposes, he told them. After more than an hour of questioning at the airport by federal and state authorities, investigators said the man was allowed to board a plane -- without the seal's head. The head is now in the possession of investigators from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement......" - God almighty... those crazy, whacked out scientists. No wonder they're so wrong about Global Warming, Evolution, and the degenerate claim that the Earth orbits the Sun (as any fool can plainly see, it's the reverse). Satan has lured them into perverted sex with seal heads, and now it's all they can think about and so their science has gone to Hell - and so will they too, fetish seal heads and all! Seal head sex : don't.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:12:04 -0800

What if I want to marry a cactus?

By: Eirixon

Eirixon — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:57:24 -0800

There is also some empirical evidence for it. In Sweden, for example, where marriage has become divorced from child rearing, and where homosexuality is comparatively legitimate, there is a sharply rising rate of bestiality. Other examples exist as well. Statistical covariation does not equate causality.

By: Goofyy

Goofyy — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 05:13:36 -0800

troutfishing: then you would marry a real prick. personally, I find the tradition of liberty and freedom in America to be good enough foundation to accept gay marriage. But I'm a queer American.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 06:42:19 -0800

Goofyy - What what what? Umm... Pet-Ophelia ? Hamlet?

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:04:59 -0800

In Sweden, for example, where marriage has become divorced from child rearing, and where homosexuality is comparatively legitimate, there is a sharply rising rate of bestiality. Other examples exist as well. - gd779 No citation, no response, no email - no credibility.

By: gd779

gd779 — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:52:42 -0800

Haha. Sorry, dash_slot, I must have missed the research paper assignment. But since you asked nicely, and since I have 15 free minutes and access to a Westlaw account, I’m happy to oblige. Animal sex was decriminalized in Sweden in 1944 in connection with the simultaneous decriminalization of homosexuality.1 The Swedish government, “afraid of dictating sexuality”,2 has refused to re-criminalize animal sex, despite a rising tide of reported incidents.3 Instead, Swedish activists argue that child pornography should be decriminalized, to provide an outlet for sexual desires.4 The government fear about “dictating sexuality” actually makes sense in Sweden. The legal basis for criminalizing bestiality rests on a recognized distinction between licit and illicit sex.5 The sexual revolution (which has progressed faster in Sweden than in America, because Sweden is only weakly religious)6 has obliterated that distinction and decoupled sex and marriage from procreation and child-rearing.7 In America today, that revolution is attempting to decouple sex from heterosexual sex, and in thirty or forty years it will inevitably attempt to legitimize pedophilia and bestiality.8 In that sense, Sweden is a glimpse of our future. As Princeton University Professor Peter Singer has said in a recent article on bestiality, "One by one, the taboos have fallen.".9 1. Carin Pettersson, Animal Activists Demand Law Against Animal Sex, Nettavisen News, Jun. 2, 2004. 2. Id. 3. Id. 4. Id. 5. Larry Cata Backer, Raping Sodomy and Sodomizing Rape: The Transformation of Modern Sodomy Jurisprudence, 21 American Journal of Criminal Law 37, 126 (1993). 6. Stanley Kurtz, The End of Marriage in Scandinavia, The Weekly Standard, Feb. 2, 2004, at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp. 7. Michael A. Scaperlanda, KULTURKAMPF IN THE BACKWATERS: HOMOSEXUALITY AND IMMIGRATION LAW, 11 Widener Journal of Public Law 475, 476 (2002). 8. Id. 9. Id. citing: Peter Singer, Heavy Petting, available at www.nerve.com (on file with the Widener Journal of Public Law) (reviewing MIDAS DEKKERS, DEAREST PET: ON BESTIALITY (Paul Vincent trans., Verso 2000) and arguing that nonabusive sexual relations between human and animal are morally acceptable).

By: gd779

gd779 — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:58:32 -0800

For those who may be unaware, "Id." refers to the previous citation.

By: gd779

gd779 — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:06:30 -0800

Statistical covariation does not equate causality. You're right, it doesn't. In that sense, nothing in the social sciences can ever be proven. But if we predict X before knowing it, and then we see X, then it is at least plausible that we've got the right explanation. Besides, homosexuality and bestiality have long been linked in Swedish history. See Jens Rydstrom, Sinners and Citizens: Bestiality and Homosexuality in Sweden,1880-1950 (Chicago Series on Sexuality, History, and Society), 2003. And the real point, and what all these arguments come down to--the "yuck factor." Again, I'm going to hazard a guess: you too live in a social environment where no one would dare to oppose homosexuality on moral grounds, right? In my experience, the "yuck factor" has little if anything to do with opposition to homosexuality. It's usually religion that motivates disapproval of homosexuality. (And, again, highly secular nations like Sweden have embraced homosexuality much faster than highly religious nations like the US). The advantage of this is that religion does not generally oppose homosexuals, but rather homosexual acts - this makes homosexual acts a sin, just as adultury is a sin, and when discussing this with a religious person you should simply argue that they should tolerate your differing religious views just as they tolerate adultury. Anyway, that's just my opinion.

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:12:07 -0800

The Swedish government, “afraid of dictating sexuality”,2 has refused to re-criminalize animal sex, despite a rising tide of reported incidents. Again, though, are there actually more incidents, or are they just more often reported than when they were illegal? Besides, homosexuality and bestiality have long been linked in Swedish history. See Jens Rydstrom, Sinners and Citizens: Bestiality and Homosexuality in Sweden,1880-1950 (Chicago Series on Sexuality, History, and Society), 2003. That's interesting. Without my having to read the book, can you summarize the nature of these links? Are they just linked in the sense that both were considered unacceptable? (Sorry for another "research project" request.)

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:20:32 -0800

So America can do it differently, gd779. Instead of legitamizing all sex, it can legitamize all sex between consenting adults. And there you go. No bestiality, no kiddy-sex, and no marrying your cucumber. Polygamists, homosexuals, heterosexuals, and incestuous adults will be happy. And you, my friend, won't be harmed in any way, because you will choose to not consent.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:27:37 -0800

and no marrying your cucumber. *throws fiancee into the brine*

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:59:47 -0800

jonmc - but, but.....there are other cucumbers in that brine! Aren't you just a little jealous? I guess you weren't that emotionally committed after all, hey? Or maybe you're one of those "free love" types but - in that case - you've been really mean to your vegetable sweety, what with the marriage proposals and all. Maybe the other cukes in that brine are all the wrong sex to appeal to you or your cucumber paramour?...if that's likely or even possible. So... how does one sex a cucumber, anyway?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:21:03 -0800

how does one sex a cucumber, anyway? Slower. Deeper. Out. In. Now faster. Faster! Deeper!

By: gd779

gd779 — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:47:34 -0800

are there actually more incidents, or are they just more often reported than when they were illegal? That's a good question, and I think the answer is that there are actually more incidents. The article I cited says that Sveriges Veterinärförbund, a Swedish veterinary organization, estimates that between 200 and 400 animals are harmed each year through bestiality. (If that doesn't sound like a lot, remember how small Sweden actually is). So either there are actually more incidents, or the incidents are becoming more harmful to the animals than before. Johan Beck-Friis of Sveriges Veterinärförbund says, "It appears as if the assaults are becoming more common". Without my having to read the book, can you summarize the nature of these links? Are they just linked in the sense that both were considered unacceptable? "Sinners and citizens... explores the history of homosexuality and bestiality in that country [Sweden] to consider why these sexual practices have been so closely linked in virtually all Western societies... Based on testimonies from men in diaries, letters, and interviews conducted by the author, as well as medical journals, psychiatric reports, and court records from the period, Sinners and Citizens reveals that bestiality was once a dreaded crime in Sweden. But in time, mention of the practice disappeared completely from legal and medical debates. This, Rydström contends, is because models of penetrative sodomy shifted from bestiality to homosexuality as Sweden transformed from a rural society into a more urban one." The above is excerpted from the book summary.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:55:49 -0800

gd779 - You might really enjoy the writings of the great Arab historian Ibn Khaldoun, who had an early (14th Century, maybe?) theory of the dynamic which drove the rise and fall of civilizations. It involved - as civilizations grew in wealth and power - a gradual decline in morality in emerging urban centers. Eventually, Khaldoun saw this process leading to civilizational collapse unless the uncorrupted peoples of the desert (or rural areas, to extend the picture to current times) swept in - to purge society's corrupt elements and culture, and restore a fundamentalist religious order.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:58:23 -0800

Meanwhile, back to the cucumber groove - FFF, no no no! I meant - how do you differentiate between male and female cucumbers?......Err, but in the context of your comment, maybe it doesn't matter much.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:06:18 -0800

But if we predict X before knowing it, and then we see X, then it is at least plausible that we've got the right explanation. I predict : The sun will rise tomorrow because it is pulled by a fiery chariot pulled by magnificent cosmic weasels. I see : The sun then rises. Conclusion : Bow to the Weasel God. Plausible isn't really good enough, I don't think. We can look back and laugh at the credulity and foolishness of the primitive beliefs of the weasel-worshippers now, much as those who follow will look at us.

By: onlyconnect

onlyconnect — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 00:30:15 -0800

I can't tell the male from the female carrots here, but I think it proves irrefutably that carrots can love as deeply as you and me (maybe deeper), and suffer profoundly when forced into isolation on a dinner plate. via mimi smartypants.