9 responses

  1. Lindoro
    December 4, 2008

    Wait, can she marry her dogs, since she is heterosexual?

  2. Bill Ware
    December 4, 2008

    As much as we may get some psychic relief from pointing out these failures in “traditional marriage,” they really do little to promote our cause.

    First, it’s far better to promote the benefits of gay marriage to the couple, their families and society as a whole than it is to highlight the failures of those who are allowed to marry now. This is part of the great failure of the No on Prop 8 campaign in California. They failed to show the benefit of gay marriage to all, not even having gay couples and families in their ads.

    Second, “they” look at this couple and all they see is how relaxation of the laws involving marriage over the decades have led to perversions like this. This only reinforces their impetus to make sure further changes, like the “perversion” of gay marriage, don’t further erode their precious marriage ideals.

    In other words, they blame proponents of gay marriage and their forebears for their own decadent ways! So pointing out failures in heterosexual marriages like this does us no good at all.

  3. a. mcewen
    December 4, 2008

    Actually it can be useful. On my blog, I pointed out the ordinary day-to-day routines of the Florida family in the middle of the gay adoption case and compared it to a case of the 17-year-old child who ran away from captivity in a hetereosexual family. Then I took comments from Free Republic and various religious right sites as they jumped up to attack the same sex family.

    It put everything in an interesting perspective.

  4. Jason D
    December 4, 2008

    Bill Ware said: “As much as we may get some psychic relief from pointing out these failures in “traditional marriage,” they really do little to promote our cause.

    First, it’s far better to promote the benefits of gay marriage to the couple, their families and society as a whole than it is to highlight the failures of those who are allowed to marry now.”

    Why can’t we do both? To me, the point of these kinds of posts is an answer to the “marriage between a man and a woman is sacred” argument. Clearly not all marriages are created equally, but it’s hard to say a gay couple that pays their taxes and obeys the law is LESS deserving of legal recognition than a couple that holds a child captive for over a year and a couple that has photographed sexual encounters with dogs and drunk children. All of which is illegal.

    “Second, “they” look at this couple and all they see is how relaxation of the laws involving marriage over the decades have led to perversions like this.

    What on earth does beastialty, having sex with drunk minors, and kidnapping have to do with relaxation of laws involving marriage? Please, Bill, point to me what about no-fault divorce and legalized interracial marriage made these two examples possible yet still illegal?

    This only reinforces their impetus to make sure further changes, like the “perversion” of gay marriage, don’t further erode their precious marriage ideals.”

    How does it do that? No changes to our marriage laws made these situations possible, and again, these examples are of ILLEGAL things that LEGALLY WED straight couples are doing.

  5. elaygee
    December 4, 2008

    These two miscreants live less than 10 miles away form me physically and probably a million miles away ethically. I’m sure these too didn’t vote (not even in between dog sex times) of course but if they did, you betcha they’d vote against Gay marriage casue its wrong to them.

  6. Alex H
    December 4, 2008

    My, my, my, my, my!

    I thought this was the same couple that had the 15-year-old boy shackled, but this is a new pair!

    Heaven forbid that we gays should taint these lovely heterosexual marriages with our filth!

    The humane society better give those dogs STD tests, because Mrs. Maldonado doesn’t look too clean.

  7. Sapphocrat
    December 5, 2008

    I’m with Alvin and Jason D — that’s why I’ve been doing Conservative Babylon for the past five years.

    I’ve branched out into a series of YouTube videos called “A Salute to Traditional Marriage”; e.g., Richard Ramirez can rape and slaughter a grandmother in her bed, drink the blood of children, and while away his remaining days on Death Row, and he can still get married (and, in fact, he did).

    There are some things that must be said. This is one of them.

    P.S. Speaking of legally-wed heterosexual couples who allegedly got it on with dogs (and their killer white-supremacist trainer), let’s not forget Marjorie Knoeller and Robert Noel. (At least she’s rotting away in prison now for the mauling death of Diane Whipple.)

  8. Bill Ware
    December 5, 2008

    Mud slinging may seem like fun, but it only leaves everyone dirty.

  9. Jason D
    December 5, 2008

    Bill, this isn’t mudslinging.
    From Merriam-Webster Online:
    : one that uses offensive epithets and invective especially against a political opponent

    That hardly characterizes this article.

    Bill you just don’t get it. These idiots will probably go to prison, get out, and still be married. Their relationship is still legal, despite how totally screwed up in the head they are.

    What does it say about a country when it lets murderers, child abusers, even child molestors get married and have kids and yet two men are completely out of luck because their relationship isn’t “good enough”?
    No mattter how many dogs this woman has sex with and photographs, no matter how many minors she sleeps with and photographs, no matter how many times these idiots go to jail — their relationship is still considered more worthy of legal recognition than mine or yours or any other gay couple’s relationship.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop