Despite the liberal opinings that the logic used to justify homosexual marriage had no impact on the legitimizing of other types of unions, a British woman has married a dolphin after a "15 year courtship."
While she acknowledged the "wedding" had no legal bearing she did say it reflected her deep feelings toward the bottlenosed, 35-year-old object of her affection.
"It’s not a bad thing. It’s just something that we did because I love him, but not in the way that you love a man. It’s just a pure love that I have for this animal," she said.
This harkens back to Civil Unions Between Mother / Daughter, in which I argued that the logic used to include gays as an acceptable marraige partnership has no logical way to exclude other types of "loving relationships", including polygamy, polyamory, and beastiality. If it is merely a sign of love between beings, who are we to judge somone else’s love relationship if they all feel it is mutually beneficial?
The logical place to cut it off is at the male/female relationship, due to biological and sociological reasons. I think that The Weekly Standard, Reason, and the NRO agree. For a good read of both sides of this issue, check out the polygamy article at religioustolerance.org.
What’s really interesting is that, beyond the Brits we’ve seen wanting to marry daughter and dolphin (respectively), it may be the Christian Polygamists who are pushing the boundary next.
This is so typical of you, seeker. Some dimwit “marries” an animal and, _et voila!_, it’s gay peoples’ fault. Yet more evidence of your deep and vicious homophobia. You are an evil man.
Actually, it’s not “gay people’s fault.” It’s the fault of the pro-gay marriage logic, which is faulty. It is leading just where many conservatives thought it would – to the devaluation of marriage, and the traditional family unit. It contradicts healthy biology and sociolology – and healthy public policy. Neither condemn nor condone. That’s what we should do with questionable things.
And I can’t believe that someone who calls conservatives “hateful” for opposing gay marriage has the nerve to judge and condemn this woman as “dimwit.” Hypocrite!
Seeker, this story isn’t stupid because it’s a “devaluation of marriage” — it’s stupid because there’s just no way for a Dolphin (as smart as they may be) to actually take part in a wedding ceremony. A dolphin cannot make a verbal commitment to a person, take responsibility for a relationship, or even express his willingness to be a part of one. Calling this woman a “dimwit” might be a tad mean, but she’s certainly a little delusional.
Your post is meaningless because you claim that homosexual marriage has legitimized “other types of unions” (e.g. Human-Dolphin), but this “wedding” is completely unlegitimate. That is, nobody has recognized it as having any kind of meaning, apart from this woman. Most importantly, even Cindy the Dolphin hasn’t recognized its legitimicy.
Also, this “wedding” took place in a country that doesn’t even acknowledge same-sex marriage or unions.
Good Lord Seeker,
It’s my fault these two got married. You will grasp at any straw anywhere to protect straights from gays. You know that this has NOTHING to do with gay marriage, and yet you still can’t help posting it. You’re so dishonest sometimes. You’re so dishonest.
I don’t come here battling with you with lies; you can’t seem to help yourself.
In case you haven't been reading, I earlier proposed, like many conservative sites mentioned above, that the logic used to include gay marriage does not exclude other types of "loving" relationships. In addition, if you think it is wrong to exclude gay relationships, I have asked for your reasoning for excluding other types of relationships from marriage. Despite the silliness of a woman marrying a dolphin, it does lend credence to the idea that the open-ended logic of the pro gay-marriage argument dilutes marriage by including almost any kind of love.
Where is the lie in that? Sure, this woman is not having sex with the beast, but is sex required for a loving relationship? Is that how you define marriage? By the ability to copulate? You see, I still can't figure out why pro-gay-marriage people oppose other types of marriage, like polygamy, or how they can have the audacity to judge the Christians for limiting marriage, while turning around and then disallowing other types of marriage that *they* don't approve of.
Am I lying when I say that this is hypocritical?
It's not your fault that people are marrying their daughters or their pets. It's the fault of the pro-gay marriage lobby and their weak argument. That's what I have been saying, and this is just teh beginning of evidence.
Seeker, it is not the "pro-gay marriage lobby's" fault that this woman is pretending to get married to her pet dolphin. I can't believe that you have the willful ignorance to ignore the glaring difference between a human-dolphin 'marriage' and a same-sex marriage.
I really have a hard time believing that you have to ask Sam where we draw the line. But if you're honestly that blind, I'll point it out for a second time. Cindy the Dolphin cannot meaningfully take part in this 'marriage', because she's a freaking dolphin.
Get it? She's not a human being. She can't speak. She can't even pantomime that she agrees to this ceremony. All she can do is squeak and chirp and flap her flippers because — again — she's not a person, she's a dolphin.
I'm sure that this woman honestly loves the dolphin, and I bet the dolphin loves her too. But Cindy the Dolphin can't make a lifelong commitment to her owner, because — and pay attention — she's an animal.
I don't think you're a liar, Seeker, but I do think that your selective view of reality makes you a dangerous person. And even though we've asked this before, I'll ask it again: If you're so f-ing worried about the devaluation of marriage, why do you constantly post about homosexuals, and practically never, ever, ever mention skyrocketing divorce rates? It's hard to look at this Blog's history and not make some assumptions about your feelings towards gays.
I'll grant you that the dolphin is not a human, and that your pro-gay logic could exclude such marriages. Perhaps that is a little unfair. But it does make a point that marriage is being devalued. Perhaps this case was not caused by pro-gay logic, but it fits the prediction that conservatives have meant. But how do you exclude polygamists? They're human, right?
I have given my reasons for focusing on homosexuality before, but here they are again…
1. I have been helped by ex-gay literature, and so have some of my friends. I have many personal connections to this topic.
2. No one is trying to legally justify adultery or divorce in the halls of congress (although no-fault divorce comes close).
3. I don't have to adopt your hierarchy of values just because YOU think divorce is a more important topic. I happen to think it is important, but not my bailiwick. Plenty of Xians work on divorce, from helping people develop healthy relationships, to divorce counseling.
4. I have a few issues that I am interested in, and I can't be an expert on everything. I happen to have interest in ex-gay stuff. Why can't I specialize in that? It's not crime to be focused. Just because it irritates you, you like to impinge my motives. I don't mind having a motive check, but um, you read a lot into my motives.
5. I am a victim of the media. That's right. Whatever is in the news, I just kinda flow along with it. I suppose if the MSM wasn't so focused on gays, and were more focused on, say, absentee fathers in the inner city, I would write about that. Then people like you would start accusing me of racism. Since you are a liberal, I am assuming you will buy my plea of victimization ;)
If not, then I will take this point – perhaps I should focus on creating content for the things I am interested in, rather than taking cues from the MSM or James Dobson. Point taken.
Phhht. 8p
Actually, I don't think divorce is a big deal at all. I only think it's a big deal when people who are raising children split up, because that unequivocally hurts kids, but if two married people want to split up, and they aren't going to harm their kids by doing so, then I have no problem with it. I don't worry about "devaluation" of married, because I don't think it has intrinsic value by itself. The only reason you do is because you believe that your god said it does.
As for polygamists, I don't really have any problem with them either. I don't, for example, think there's anything unethical about three people deciding to spend their lives together. If it makes them happy, fine. I think that some kind of legal stipulations need to be in effect to protect health insurance companies from having to cover a family of twenty adults, but otherwise I don't see the harm. You do, though, and I don't know why, because your god seemed to have no problem with polygamy back in the day. Weird, huh?
Anyway, I'm not convinced at all by your statements about the media. If they were really true, you'd be blogging your ears off about all sorts of other Stories du Jour. But you don't, and frankly the media doesn't cover same-sex marriage nearly as much as you do. Unless, of course, you're only reading the Gay Haters Weekly, and watching CBN — in which case, I stand corrected.
The only reason you do is because you believe that your god said it does.
Wow, you crawled inside my mind to see that, huh? You make too many assumptions, but this one is common. Please change your assumption to something more complex. I am influenced by my faith in the scriptures. I am convinced when empirical data or logic supports it. Please see my discussion of faith and reason in Dangers in the Search for Truth
In the case of divorce, I think it is bad because, while it may be necessary for people who marry inadvisedly, I don’t think it should be easy or an easy out for people who take the marriage comittment lightly. THAT devalues marriage even if there are no children, and unfortunately, it is difficult, or impossible to devalue marriages without kids without affecting marriages with kids.
I am sorry my media argument didn’t fly. It was, of course, mostly meant as humor, but I do react and respond to some of the alarmist things I read on xian sites. My main exuse, though, is that the topic is of interest to me.
Regarding polygamy, you have a good point there, and I am researching it. I mean, polygamy isn’t in any of the biblical lists of “sexual sins.” So why do biblical xians not accept polygamy. There ARE biblical reasons, but I’ll be posting on that later. It is a good question.
However, I am glad to see that you are at least intellecutally consistent, in accepting other types of marriage. What about loving, non-sexual relationships between relatives like mother/daughter or cousins?
Seeker,
"No legal bearing." Quit being so damned dishonest. So somebody has a stupid function that only she believes in. Who cares? I don't care when you go to church.
I have no problem with the idea of a mother and a daughter who want to legally commit themselves to a supporting relationship (it doesn't have to be anything weird), where they both agree to care for each other, and take legal responsibility for each other. That's basically what a marriage is, once you strip away the religious and romantic ideas that encircle it.
I think that any two people (and maybe more, given some realistic limitations), who are legally able to enter into a binding, contractual relationship with each other, should be allowed to have a civil marriage. I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't.
Arguments that involve the concept of children, sex, religion, non-platonic love, etc, are largely beside the point, because none of those items are should be required, or even encouraged by our government. You can take any of those pieces out of a modern marriage, and you may still have a perfectly viable, legal marriage. And as I said before, the issue of polygamy is — at least in my mind — only one of plausible logistics, not one of ethics/morals/etc.
Interesting perspective Stewart, I'll think about that.
Sam,
"no legal bearing" doesn't mean "no cultural impact" – and that's what I'm asserting, whether this case has legal bearing or not – marriage is now just a contract between two people, not the contract between two committed people who can bring children into the world and continue society, being the building block of any civilized society. 78^|
In most states such a marriage would be prohibited by law. Dolphins lack the capacity to consent.
Your homophobia appears to have fogged your argument just a bit.
Technically, seeker isn't a homophobe: he isn't afraid of homosexuals. Rather, he hates them. His on-going obsession with enumerating the fantastical dangers of gay marriage and equality proves this despite his unconvincing bleating to the contrary.
Your casual and constant misuse of "hate" is tiring. Same with the accusations of homophobia.
I agree now that the pro-gay marriage logic could easily exclude marrying animals (though it can't exclude polygamy). However, I also think that by extending the definition of marriage, we are diluting marriage to the point where it is essentially meaningless. No fault divorce has done that too. People "marrying" animals may not be legal, but it shows the lowering of public respect and understanding of what marriage really is – a covenant before God, professing lifelong fidelity to a romantic, pro-creative partner, in order to form a family unit.
I'll tell you again, in case you are listening. I don't hate gays. I think homosexuality is a developmental disorder, is unhealthy for society, and should not be condoned (nor criminalized) by government.
You don't like my logic or assumptions, fine. You don't like the fact that ex-gays exist, fine. You don't like that science has no definitive answer for us yet, fine.
You want to accuse me of bad motivations, do it if it makes you feel better. I don't hate gays, I don't fear them. I have friends and family who I like who are gay. We disagree, and respect each other as people. They may think me mistaken, or narrow. I may think them mistaken, or deceived.
I'm sorry, Louis, that you mistake my interest in this subject with obsession. I guess you haven't noticed that I've hardly published on this lately, having been more interested in the Dover case and evolution. But hey, I know YOU have a personal interest in this subject, and have to paint me as some crazy, extreme, obsessed person in order to comfort yourself and others that my arguments can't be right, not even a little.
I'm sorry if my language or approach is too direct, not gentle enough, or offputting. I'm working on it, but I don't think you'll ever be happy with my approach if my content remains the same.
At least Stewart engages me with excellent logic and respectful dialogue. I've learned a thing or two from his approach. You should too, if you care.
Engaging YOU on a reasonable level is a pointless waste of time. You’ve made it clear you cannot be reached on this subject.
Frankly, I don’t believe your denials. Tough. Evidence? –
“I’ll tell you again, in case you are listening. I don’t hate gays. I think homosexuality is a developmental disorder, is unhealthy for society, and should not be condoned (nor criminalized) by government.”
Your very words belie your denials. You are a bigot and a hate-monger. Typical Christian, in fact. Your “sorrow” is bullsh*t.
Man, your troll is pretty uptight, Aaron.
Good to see you’re getting some engagement, though.
I may be shooting you an email about a subject we’re discussed before, though. The Apologetics Aggregator :D
Do you get this level of response about gay topics often? :D
Well, it's not much of a level, as far as numbers are concerned – there's probably about six of us who get into it regularly.
As far as quality of responses, I'll let you be the judge.
Lewis,
Not sure I expressed any “sorrow” as you say. I understand why you think my position is bigoted. I am similarly bigoted against adulterers, fornicators, and other sexual sinners. They are people caught in sin who need to repent, just like me. I don’t “oppose” them – only those who seek to justify such sins as normative and OK.
I understand why you consider that bigotry – because you consider hx as a normal, genetic condition which is as normal a characteristic as eye color. Just like I can’t choose my eye color, and the environment has no affect on it (contacts aside), the environment has little to do with homosexuality, so to call it wrong is just bigoted. I get that.
But I don’t agree. I see a huge environmental component and predictive precursors, and it appears to directly contradict biology. And the growing number of healed gays makes me think that, despite whatever controversy surrounds reparative therapy, claims of biological origin for homosexual are… um… overblown. ;)
In most states such a marriage would be prohibited by law. Dolphins lack the capacity to consent.
Laws change, there is no law about the necessity of getting cows consent to eat them because we don't care about their capacity to consent.
(The Times (London)
September 15, 1999, Wednesday
SECTION: Features
HEADLINE: The joy of pets – do we really need to know?
BYLINE: Joe Joseph) (Emphasis added)
Is this poor minority waiting on their Kinsey so that they can grow in numbers? That's the point of that bit of propaganda.
Anyway, of course we have knowledge of basic natural categories like human and animal, living and dead, male and female and so on that we are basing our judgments on and defining sexual perversions like zoophilia, necrophilia and homophilia by. But if such God given self-evident truths are not a good reason in the case of homophilia and instead we go with the idolatry typical to subpagans who not only say that there is no God but that nothing transcendent or essential "exists" then they're not good reasons in the other cases either.
As George Washington noted would happen, subpagans have lost their reason.
Your homophobia appears to have fogged your argument just a bit.
Apparently your mind is easily shaped by the emotional conditioning and manipulations typical to effeminates, not that you or they necessarily realize what you are doing, as you tend to be defined by your own feelings. Who would have thought that people would begin to self-define by their own feelings and then work to define ethics and law that way, eh?
Actually, some people did see this type of mental retardation coming. It's all so absurd and craaazy, until it isn't.
Technically, seeker isn’t a homophobe: he isn’t afraid of homosexuals. Rather, he hates them.
Don’t you just hate that?
Don’t try to deny it because I know what your feelings are. Oh yes, how I know.
I do think that your selective view of reality makes you a dangerous person.
He's probably causing people to get HIV, huh?
Quite a dangerous fellow…yet I wonder about those who are talking about feelings of fright all the time. Danger, fright, these sorts of things combine and in the end people often come to hate what they're frightened of.
It seems that some here hate Seeker.
Jeez, what a moron. Of course, I fear and hate the likes of seeker. He and his ilk were/are responsible for thousands of years of persecution of gay people. He/they continue to oppose every single advance gay people have made and hope to make. Look at his words: gays just aren't natural and should be converted. He has, in the past, called us perverts, and continues to dismiss us a "sinners." His position is irrational, based as it is on "biblical" not scientific principles. If he has his way, I'll be forced back into the closet, if not into mental hospital complete with drug and shock therapy (what happened in the past). This is why I call him evil.
I will fight seeker and his ilk until my last breath. And with arms if necessary.
My values may be shaped by my faith, but my public policy is based upon reason – both biologic and sociologic. (BTW, good to see you here mynym).
BTW, I never said gays should be converted – they should be healed. Your terminology is religious, mine is pscyhologic/scientific.
You may have missed that I included myself as a sinner, along w/ gays – I am not being dismissive, but rather, clear in my presentation of the immoral and destructive nature of homosexuality, as well as its pathologic roots.
I have answered the “perversion” accusation previously in two ways – one, apologizing for my pejorative use of such, but also mentioning that this is meant as an accurate descriptor of the behavior (not the people) – and that the scriptures use such a word in Romans 1 to describe all sexual sins – words like unnatural, perverse, and debased. Apart from any pejorative use or negative connotation, these adjectives apply to sexual sins, in the Bible’s opinion.
As far as opposing gay advances, I am glad to see that sodomy laws are disappearing, since I have no desire to see hx criminalized. However, neither do I want to see it legitimized or sanctioned by law as a normal, acceptable lifestyle that the public schools must then teach to my kids. You have freedom to live and love as you like, but don’t look for the legal privaledges that belong to married couples. But then again, I may be wrong. We’ll see how the arguments play out.
Get bent, jerk.
Ooh, you have an ilk.
Plus, your troll is gonna shoot you, if he sees you.
"With arms, if necessary."
Nice. The internet certainly makes people brave.
Well, speaking from experience, there's a fine line between bravery and stupidity. Despite sometimes resorting to namecalling, I'm still glad that Louis (sorry for mispelling it previously) and others are still around to keep us re-examining what we think and say. Otherwise we would just be talking to ourselves (boring).