I suppose the next step after taking away the humanity of gays and lesbians is to classify them as animals. Geeze. And I thought all human beings were mammals - therefor animals, no? But I digress. The following is a recent letter to the editor of the Valley Chronicle of Hemet, California:
Gay marriage no better than marrying an animal
"A Hindu woman who fell in love with a snake has married the reptile at a traditional Hindu wedding celebrated by 2,000 guests in Orissa". (Hindustan Times)
A woman married a snake! What would you do if your daughter came home and said she wanted to marry a snake?
Today, there are people who say it is wrong to prohibit same-sex marriage. They say no one has the right to prohibit loving individuals who want to marry. So I ask, would it be wrong to prohibit Homo sapien and reptilian marriage (i.e. zoosexual marriage)? How could you argue it logically?
Would you appeal to reproductive sense? I suppose they could adopt - maybe one human baby and one snake baby. Would you appeal to common sense? "Does not even nature teach you ..." Snakes with snakes, dogs with dogs, human with humans. Many today tell us that marriage should not ever be restricted to merely heterosexual unions. Instead, any loving individual should be allowed to marry. If so, what prohibitions in the persons of marriage would ever be valid? If homosexual unions should be allowed, the same reasoning would validate zoosexual marriages. If you allow homosexual marriage but prohibit zoosexual marriage, then you are just as guilty of the same "hypocritical," "right-wing," "prejudicial," "narrow-minded" "hate crime" as those who would oppose marriage between homosexuals.
The same "law" that makes you think it's wrong to marry a snake is the same "law" that says marriage between any other than a man and a woman is unnatural (see Romans 1:23ff; Genesis 2). That's what makes it right for humans to make laws prohibiting zoosexual as well homosexual marriages. If it's against the law to marry a snake, it should be against the law for Jim to marry Jake.
Alan Piner San Jacinto, Ca.
Such a sound logical argument Mr. Piner makes. How could any thinking adult possibly go against his reason. As he so aptly puts it, snakes with snakes, dogs with dogs, human with humans. But wait. Aren't Jim and Jake humans? Aren't they both homo sapiens? Where did I miss the scientific evidence, secular law, or even Biblical law which states one's sexuality could remove a person from the genus homosapien?
I like the way Mr. Piner morphs from homosexual unions to zoosexual marriages. (He's even coined a new word for gay marriage!) Certainly such creative thinking doesn't make Mr. Piner prejudicial or narrow-minded. Does it?
He makes the claim that homosexuality is unnatural. Yet it's been documented that about 3% of all species in nature show homosexual activity. That's about the same percentage as is found in the genus homosapien. Hmmm. Sounds pretty natural to me, despite the Biblical references. Could those texts possibly be referring to something else since the word "homosexual" wasn't even coined until the late 1860's?
Mayhaps Mr. Piner and his ilk should write to their Repubo Congress people and have them craft a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating that homosexuals are animals, not people, and therefore should have no rights whatsoever that are granted to citizens of our country? After all, dogs and snakes aren't citizens are they? Oh, queers would still be protected by law, just as other animals are protected. Then we could be done with this silly marriage argument once and for all.
Isn't it fun to carry Mr. Piner's reasoning to its logical conclusion?
