Skip to main content

This past Sunday I met a friend of mine (a Solid Conservative, although he refuses to identify as a Republican!) from Virginia, for lunch in Annapolis.

At some point in the conversation he got around to complaining about his new Governor and Lt. Governor. He was claiming that they were trying to make changes to the Virginia gun laws, something to do with record retention periods, and the government being able to go back over time and look into who bought what and when. To be honest I wasn’t really paying close attention. A) I had not heard this. I live in West Virginia, and while we only have the DC news channels as our news source, and thus get all the MD. and VA. news, I hadn’t heard any such thing. And B) About 5 seconds after the election he started railing about “here goes my gun rights” now that the state house was packed with liberals. So my guess was that no matter what was really happening he was going be talking some conspiracy theory. I simply responded that “I hadn’t heard that. I learned a long time ago that there was no point going into any political, or ideological discussion with him. Once upon a time I was trying to make some point, on some topic, I don’t even remember what it was, I just remember it was very benign, and just mildly progressive, and he started shrieking in my face, “You always were an Obama lover”! Which isn’t actually the case, and had nothing to do with the point I was making, but every time I tried to speak he would just start shouting that over top of me until his veins were bulging. But, I digress.

Come below for the rest:

Then he said, “Yeah, and they trying to push that gay marriage stuff too”! So, I just said, “Well, that falls into my – None of my business category”. Long ago he had agreed with me that his philosophy, much like mine, was that what people do is their own business. He didn’t want people telling him what to do, or how to live, and he had no interest in telling them the same. He wanted to be left alone, and he left other people alone. I agree with him. He’s not a religious person. I’m an agnostic. We at least agreed on that point. I bring up the religious point because that closes the door on all the usual conservative/fundy issues like abortion, contraception, prayer, etc, etc. i.e., what people do in their homes, with their bodies, generally, isn’t an issue with him. God, the Book, or his Code of Morality, isn’t guiding him to pass judgments, or rail on these issues.

So, I was surprised when he brought up “teh gay”. “No, No, That’s Different”, he said. “Well, I don’t see how”, I replied. “As far as I’m concerned what two folks do in their bedroom, and in private is their business. If they want to make it official, it’s no skin off my nose. Who Cares!?! If someone is chasing me down the street trying to corn hole me, yeah, ok, that’s different, that effects me, and it’s not like that’s ever going to happen, and that’s not this, so…. None of my business”. So here it comes: “Oh, That’s like me marrying my dog”! POW, Right to the bestiality analogy.

Where does that come from? I guess the logic is same sex marriage is “unnatural”, bestiality is “unnatural”, ergo SSM=bestiality, or some such!?!?

He had no other argument, That was the sum total of his opposition to SSM.  I just repeated that, “well, what two people who love each other do with their lives is up to them, not me”, plus I added for a poke, “to be honest, if you want to marry your dog, that’s ok by me too, what goes on between a man and a consenting K-9 is none of my business”! He just looked pissed, and changed the subject.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    You have your right to your opinion, I will grant you that, but do not denigrate my right to mine!

    by MrQA on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 06:37:52 AM PDT

  •  Nobody likes the answer (5+ / 0-)

    but it is due to "Moral Retardation"

    Morality develops in the child as the child grows up and "Matures".

    In conservative circles, that moral development gets arrested/halted/stunted at about the 4-5 year mark.

    Read up on either Piaget or Kohut on 'moral development' and note that most Conservative values, as expressed by their sexual preoccupations reflect thwarted moral development.

    it explains their inordinate preoccupation with YOUR genitals and where you put them; it explains their "I can do it and its ok but if you do it its a crime" mentality.

    What they are telling you is they are uncomfortable with their preoccupation with your sex conduct and values so you should be punished for making them think about it.

    They are also preoccupied with sex with animals, which is a projection onto the 'gay concept' they cannot handle either.

    See also their preoccupation with the "rammed down our throats" analogies.

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 06:48:57 AM PDT

  •  Really? (0+ / 0-)
    I added for a poke, “to be honest, if you want to marry your dog, that’s ok by me too, what goes on between a man and a consenting K-9 is none of my business”! He just looked pissed, and changed the subject.
    Why equate this with mairraige equality?

    Notice: This Comment © 2014 ROGNM UID 2547

    by ROGNM on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 06:52:41 AM PDT

    •  He's the one who brought it up! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, AJayne, Cassandra Waites, gffish

      He seemed to be concerned about marrying his dog! The who point of the post is to discover why he equated "marrying his dog" to SSM.

      Did you read the post?

      You have your right to your opinion, I will grant you that, but do not denigrate my right to mine!

      by MrQA on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 07:00:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because it's a common and stupid trope (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, radarlady, gffish

      that needs to be mocked mercilessly until it stops.

      When anti-gays bring up their "point of view" of why Teh Gay should not marry, they always throw that unrelated shit about "bestiality" into the picture. That's completely insane and uneducated and something is needed to counter it. It's entirely too common, and it's ridiculous.

      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

      by lunachickie on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 07:56:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  they turn to bestiality because it appears to be (5+ / 0-)

    the one alternative sexual style which their leaders do not practice.  Vitter taught us that no matter how exotic the sexual preference, there is always a winger leader who happens to enjoy that particular diversion.

    I am just guessing that no winger bigwig has been caught in flagrante with their poodle.  I would also point out that they also are really big on insisting that gays are also very much into furniture sex.  This came to mind as Santorum claims marriage equality will lead to people marrying their dining room table.  

  •  Well, that or incest. (3+ / 0-)

    I think incest comes up at least as often as the counterpoint.

  •  Male Privilege (6+ / 0-)

    "If someone is chasing me down the street trying to corn hole me, yeah, ok, that’s different, that effects me, and it’s not like that’s ever going to happen,"

    Off topic, and I don't mean to be rude, but what you just described is something women have to deal with every day. We constantly have to check our behavior because there's always that threat of being attacked.   It's second nature to most of us. Which is extremely sad, and I truly hope things change as my daughter grows up.

    Back to your regularly scheduled diary!

    •  THAT (4+ / 0-)

      Is a REAL problem that people should be worried about! It does actually effect a majority of our population! If conservatives were 1/2 as worried about that as they were about SSM, or their K-9's Then we'd be talking about something.

      Sadly they seem to support the opposite. :-(

      You have your right to your opinion, I will grant you that, but do not denigrate my right to mine!

      by MrQA on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 07:23:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've heard more than a few people (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gffish

        speculate that a lot of the panic over the possibility of gay men being able to be open about being gay is actually men who mistreat women and see this as the way men are supposed to act towards people they are attracted to being scared as hell that another man will treat them the same way.

        Just look at all the churches that preach even the slightest bit of sexual attraction in a man is totally the woman's fault, 'leading him on', something the man should not be expected to resist without divine aid, and enough to make any resulting rape at least half the woman's fault if not entirely her fault. And these same churches, the ones that claim genes for C-cup breasts make a woman an immoral hussy, precocious puberty is a sin issue on the part of the young girl whose shirts no longer fit the same -- and in some cases have been known to make teenage girls confess to the sin of adultery when a married man in the church molests or outright rapes them -- and time and time again these are the churches that in the other half of their sermons will be preaching against homosexual men and acting like gay men are sex-crazed maniacs who can't turn down sexual temptation ever.

        It's projection and fear of being a victim of someone like them.

        And in the worst of them, heaven forbid a woman take a leer or innuendo as a threat from a man but if a man glances at another man the wrong way it's justification for felony physical assault or worse.

  •  My answer to that (5+ / 0-)

    as well as to the related pedophilia argument is that neither children nor animals have the legal capacity to consent. One can no more marry a dog than one can enter into a contract with a dog.

    "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

    by jrooth on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 07:25:41 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, but that kind of answer (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gffish

      presupposes logic and knowledge.  Neither is much use when you're dealing with irrational fears, hatreds, etc.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 07:37:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, if you don't think (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, Cassandra Waites

      That women are people, or capable of giving informed consent, or really mean "Yes" when they say "No", you're not going to see the difference either.

    •  Since when do we require consent from animals? (0+ / 0-)

      I became my dog's owner without his consent, had him neutered without his consent(I bet he wouldn't have said yes to that), and I could take him to the vet and have him put to sleep without consent.  Why would I need his consent for marriage?

  •  And then there's homosexual panic -- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    the fear that more than a few God-fearin' Normal Manly Men have that they might actually like being caught by some "cornholer" chasing him down the street.

    Most guys aren't entirely oblivious to the attractiveness of other guys, and it isn't as if their prostates don't send them occasional "there's pleasure to be had down here" messages, you know.

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 07:29:06 AM PDT

  •  It's their version of the slippery slope, and is (0+ / 0-)

    valid in the context of blurred lines and what's next? As a line of reasoning, slippery slope arguments appear all the time, e.g. Citizen United to McCutcheaon to no limits, or reproductive rights whose erosion leads to anxiety about choice. Or, more recently,racist statements by Paula Deen or Donald Sterling made in the privacy of your home unintended for the public but have very public consequences. Building upon your logic regarding indifference to what type of sex people enjoy in the privacy of their homes, do you believe that extends to racist speech in your home to your spouse or girlfriend? As far as marriage equality, the slippery slope I see most often mentioned is the polygamy argument.

    The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science. Carl Sagan

    by Kvetchnrelease on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 07:31:48 AM PDT

  •  ask a republican: i understand it's wrong to marry (0+ / 0-)

    your dog, but is it a sin to shack up w/ your dog?

  •  I see three factors which cause them to bring up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassandra Waites

    bestiality.

    First, some of them don't accept GLBT folks as being human, and therefore they must be "animals", thus the association with sex with animals.

    Second, particularly among religious conservatives, sex is seen as a dangerous activity likely to lead to sinful behavior.  The more extreme among them believe that the only time that sex isn't sinful is during an attempt to have children, and even then the married couple should have as little physical pleasure as possible.  This is because the whole sex thing is just "animal passion" while humans are supposed to be these "higher, moral beings" who are only biological beings to the minimum necessary to remain alive.  It's basically a 'spirit good, biology bad' value system which elevates "self-denial" to being the highest expression of morality.

    Third, for some it's simply an opportunity to insult people they hate by hurling the most insulting term they're comfortable expressing.  

    •  all societies have this problem (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gffish
      This is because the whole sex thing is just "animal passion" while humans are supposed to be these "higher, moral beings" who are only biological beings to the minimum necessary to remain alive.  It's basically a 'spirit good, biology bad' value system which elevates "self-denial" to being the highest expression of morality.
      I think you'd be hard pressed to find a religion - or a political philosophy - that didn't have its own sexual hangups in addition to the belief that life isn't supposed to be about you and your stuff.

      Even the hippies were all about self-denial in pursuit of mystical "oneness" with the cosmos.

      Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

      by Visceral on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 09:22:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  it's a Freudian slip. (0+ / 0-)

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 09:34:07 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site