Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Heterosexual Menace: Their Marriage Is Perfectly Valid

Jim Burroway

December 4th, 2008

Even though she has sex with dogs and young teens while he takes pictures:

A Palm Coast couple was arrested Tuesday on charges of lewd and lascivious battery and contributing to the delinquency of a minor in connection with a 2004 incident involving sex with dogs. David Maldonado, 42, and his wife, Carla Maldonado, 40, were being held in the Flagler County Inmate Facility. …

To be fair, Carla really loves dogs. She was a longtime employee for the Flagler County Humane Society.

The Sheriff’s office also found photos of Carla Maldonado having sex with a 15-year-old female while her husband took pictures. The couple also provided the minor with alcohol.

This couple is legally married, and the state of Florida thinks their marriage is perfectly dandy. Florida schoolchildren are being taught that their marriage is just as good as anyone else’s — except for gay people. Because, you know, that’s a much bigger threat to marriage than people who have sex with dogs and with 15-year-old family friends.

Good thing all of those “pro-family” Floridians saved the fine institution of marriage from us gays.

[Hat tip: Reader Erin]

See also:
Heterosexual Menace: Straight Married Couple Tortures Teen
The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Lindoro
December 4th, 2008 | LINK

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

Bill Ware
December 4th, 2008 | LINK

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.

a. mcewen
December 4th, 2008 | LINK

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.

Jason D
December 4th, 2008 | LINK

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.

elaygee
December 4th, 2008 | LINK

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.

Alex H
December 4th, 2008 | LINK

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.

Sapphocrat
December 5th, 2008 | LINK

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.)

Bill Ware
December 5th, 2008 | LINK

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

Jason D
December 5th, 2008 | LINK

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 Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.