Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Sex with Dogs and Other Important Problems Your Tax Dollars Are Being Used to Fight

Last week, as the Vermont and Maine legislatures’ and the Iowa Supreme Court’s progress toward equality under the law for all people was in the news, Pennsylvania State Senator John Eichelberger decided to once again dredge up that tired old refrain and introduce a bill to amend the Pennsylvania constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman – a measure that has already been attempted twice (in 2006 and 2008) and failed both times.

Eichelberger told the Altoona Mirror that he introduced this bill, despite the fact that same-sex marriage is already illegal in Pennsylvania, to prevent state courts from ever ruling unconstitutional the denial of the civil and legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. And why does Eichelberger imagine gay marriage to be so dangerous that Pennsylvanians need multiple layers of defense against it? “Legalizing same-sex marriage would weaken it and lead little-by-little to other ‘models’ like polygamy and pedophilia,” he told the paper.

Hearing this, one can’t help but hearken back to the infamous man-on-dog argument, made by former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum. In a 2003 interview with Associated Press reporter Lara Jakes Jordan, Santorum opined that if antiquated sodomy laws typically used to punish homosexuals (though it would be difficult to claim with a straight face that many – perhaps even most – heterosexuals are not engaging in acts that meet the definition of “sodomy” too) were repealed, “man-on-dog” sex would ensue.

Jordan, understandably startled by this segue, was a bit taken aback. “I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to be talking about ‘man-on-dog’ with a United States senator,” she said. “It’s sort of freaking me out.”

The man-on-dog theory has also been promoted by Santorum associate Hadley Arkes, who has warned that gay marriage could lead to “cross-species involvements” and who asked in a 2003 National Review column disagreeing with the Supreme Court ruling that struck down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, “If people practice sadomasochistic sex or bestiality, if they have sex with animals in forms familiar and novel, would Kennedy truly contend that the rest of us are obliged to respect virtually everything that is done?”

Putting aside questions of what is wrong with these men that they go around thinking about man-on-dog sex (and apparently dreaming up “novel” ways of having such sex), the argument that allowing gay and lesbian couples to receive equal treatment under state and federal law will lead to people having sex with their family pets is just silly. Removing gendered language from marriage statutes is not a slippery slope. Americans in states that permit gay marriage, where they were previously permitted to marry one consenting woman/man who was capable of making a legal contract, may now marry one consenting adult who is capable of making legal contract. Marrying children, pets, inanimate objects, or multiple people or things is a far cry from allowing adults a free choice with respect to who will be their marital partner. Marriage remains a legal – and, in some cases, religious – partnership between two adults who share responsibilities and provide for their mutual support cooperatively.

Santorum, Arkes, Eichelberger, and others who subscribe to their theories seem to be operating under the assumption that a gay or lesbian person is not truly homosexual, but rather is a heterosexual with no sexual impulse control at all – a person who will attempt to have sex with anyone or anything that has the misfortune to cross his or her path. That this claim is not supported by any factual evidence does not seem to bother them. For example, copious research has disproven the idea that homosexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals, yet Eichelberger is still citing pedophilia as a concern addressed by his bill.

Pennsylvania has much more important issues for our legislators to be spending their time on than man-on-dog sex. The economy, health care, education, environmental degradation, violence…the list goes on and on. Let’s concentrate on the real problems, rather than inventing wild and unfounded threats to our state and its people.

Becca in Harrisburg

See Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial here

Labels: , , ,

11 Comments:

Anonymous Horace said...

Marriage was invented by humans who defined it as an act between one man and one woman. Why shouldn't those who feel this way continue to reserve this right for themselves? Those who fall into the category of having same sex relationships can develop their own social system and call it anything they want, without demanding that heterosexuals accept their behavior as being on par with same. Heterosexuals should be permitted to retain their own relational distinction without being coerced into sharing what they believe is special to them. It's a simple as that. There is nothing wrong when it comes to separate but equal in the case of sexual bias.

Homosexual has long since morphed into "gay", and gays can adopt anything term they should wish that is analogous to the term "marriage."

9:50 PM  
Anonymous end the hate at Penn State said...

Horace, separate but equal is like saying that white people and people of color should be segregated based on the social construct of race as is was developed by Anglo-whites.

Same-sex marriage will not prevent heterosexuals from engaging in their traditional marriage construct, it will only give legal and social equality to same-sex couples.

All "humans" should have equal value and opportunity to engage in social activities which empower them to progress and thrive as people. Shame on anyone who values the ethic of segregation (which is never equal).

2:45 AM  
Anonymous Horace said...

"Shame on anyone who values the ethic of segregation (which is never equal)".

We already have social venues that are segregated by views; they're called religious beliefs and we practice them in church, and such practices are protected by the Constitution.

What gays actually want is social acceptance, something that cannot be legislated, anymore than mandating that everyone has to like peas or broccoli. Gays have rejected the idea of civil unions in lieu of marriage and an equivalent to separate-but-equal, because they can't accept the idea that their sexual predilections are disgusting to many heterosexuals, and will probably always be so. Legal recourse is a means of forcing acceptance by sticking the noses of their opponents into the mud.

10:14 AM  
Anonymous end the hate at penn state said...

Not everyone accepts the views of religion, and not all religions reject the LGBTQ community, but your right that the Constitution can empower the forced social views, and acceptance, of religion on non-believers via special protection though the law.

I think that it is ironic that people who engage in the social construct of religion are given special protection to retain their beliefs, but the LGBTQ community which is organic and created by god (not man as religion was constructed) are not protected at all in PA.

As a deeply spiritual person, who is a big fan of Jesus, I feel badly that mankind is so threatened by the multicultural society created by god, and that man seems to feel the need to marginalize the creations of god that many people have a difficult time understanding.

I hope that you will work to educate yourself on the complexity of culture and all gods creations and accept the incredible complex world god has created for everyone!
Take Care!

3:24 PM  
Anonymous Horace said...

"..... but your right that the Constitution can empower the forced social views, and acceptance, of religion on non-believers via special protection though the law."

Actually, the Constitution does not force acceptance on anyone, with the exception of the concept that everyone is permitted his own religious views and that the State cannot force them to change. It is interesting to note that it is the ultra-left, who are defacto changing the Constitution by their insistance on the concept of "hate crimes" in which the accused is not only punished for the act of his crime but what he was thinking when he committed it. Just think, the person who confesses his reason for a crime as a hateful one would receive a different sentence from that same person if he kept his silence. Moreover, it is difficult in my mind to commit murder without hate, yet left-wing society would not only mete out punishment for the crime but additional punishment for why it was done. This borders on making a travesty of the 14th Amendment, where a convicted murderer would not receive equal punishment to his peers. Woe to society that develops mind reading, because thoughts of hate may subject us all to the scrutiny of the courts, even if no crime is committed.

11:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm against sex with dogs. Our population already has enough ACLU members and democrats.

6:20 PM  
Blogger sexual-problems said...

Premature ejaculation is one of the most common sexual dysfunctions in men under a certain age.
There are multiple methods of treatment when it comes to premature ejaculation, some of them in the form of medicines, some in the form of
specialized techniques, and some in the form of herbal supplements.


The Easy way to prevent premature ejaculation.Anti Premature Ejaculation.Stop Premature Ejaculation

12:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Related Information :



Buy Cialis

12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God loves all of his children and all people should learn to love each other and be accepting, Jesus is suppose to judge not mankind. If Gay and Lesbian want to marry they should be able to and have all the same rights as anyone else. If everyone that was so negative and was so worried about other people would take that energy and put it into positive think of how much of a better world it would be. Look in the mirror and start with yourself, and be honest how perfect are you? Stop and think how can you improve yourself and help mankind? Let lesbians and gays be.

9:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

phone number lookup

1:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

reverse cell phone lookup

reverse address lookup

cell phone directory

phone number search

free people search

criminal background check

reverse phone lookup

reverse phone lookup

5:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home