Consenting adults?

When all else fails, and you have no reasons or facts that will back up an argument, the easiest approach is to employ practically comical exaggeration. Rational people will see right through it, but for the most part they will remain silent and let the crazies flame out.

What you want is just a loud, albeit usually small group, who will repeat whatever it is you have said, and pass it on to anyone gullible enough to accept it.

Apathy is your best friend, as the rational people will not see the need for doing anything to set the record straight based on their belief in human intelligence, while the adherents to your crazy claim will actively support and promote it, winning out by sheer numbers.

One of the unforeseen side effects of the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act is that those who have supported the act and opposed marriage equality seem to have caught a bad case of stupid.

Being unable to explain why American citizens should be denied the rights with which they have been endowed by the creator and which are protected by the Constitution, they have fallen on arguing the absurd. Without any evidence or basis, they have explained society and civilization will be destroyed, and that allowing loving, committed same sex couples marriage will open to door for people to want to marry all manner of things including inanimate pieces of furniture.

As Rush Limbaugh said, “I love my sofa. I sit on it every night. If I could marry my sofa, I might think about it. And maybe in a few years, it could be possible”.

Wife number four needs to watch what goes on in the living room.

Glenn Beck has his own opinion, “you cannot then tell me that you cannot logically tell me you can’t change the other variable: one man, three women. One woman, four men”.

Rand Paul ruminated, “And I think this is a conundrum. If we have no laws on this, people take it to one extension further – does it have to be humans? You know?”

( People look at Rand Paul as some sort of libertarian, but it states in the Libertarian Platform:

1.3 Personal Relationships: Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.


3.5 Rights and Discrimination: Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that "right." We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual's human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect.

I see no "except", or "unless". )

Pat Robertson, God’s Ham Radio, strongly believes that same sex marriage will lead to legal polygamy, bestiality, child molestation, and pedophilia based on nothing more than saying that.

What these nuts do not seem to understand is the simple phrase “consenting adults” which precludes, animals, children, furniture, and any and all of Maria Von Trappe’s favorite things.

American crazies are by no means unique in their stupidity.

In addressing the possibility of legal same sex marriage in England, former Daily Telegraph editor, and biographer of the iron Lady Margaret thatcher, Charles Moore has chimed in with, “I wonder if the law will eventually be changed to allow one to marry one’s dog".

He must have a pretty intelligent dog which, if it can give its consent equal to that of an adult human, would be a fantastic argument for evolution.

He continued, “Until now, this would have been considered disgusting, since marriage has been a law revolving around sexual behaviour [sic] and sexual acts with animals are still, I believe, illegal. But, as this column has pointed out, the unintended consequence of the same-sex marriage legislation has been to take sex out of marriage law. Civil servants, unable to define same-sex consummation, omitted it. So marriage, from now on, can mean no more than the legally registered decision of two people to live together while not being married to anyone else”.

You have to wonder why these people, when others are discussing the rights of committed loving couples, go immediately to bestiality, pedophilia, molestation, and bizarre sex acts with inanimate objects while claiming it is the other people who have a problem. welcomes thoughtful comments and the varied opinions of our readers. We are in no way obligated to post or allow comments that our moderators deem inappropriate. We reserve the right to delete comments we perceive as profane, vulgar, threatening, offensive, racially-biased, homophobic, slanderous, hateful or just plain rude. Commenters may not attack or insult other commenters, readers or writers. Commenters who persist in posting inappropriate comments will be banned from commenting on