I thank the President for sharing with us on the news this evening his announcement that he supports legal marriage between persons of the same-sex, and for giving us his reasons for that support; his reasons were not only rational, but also very touching. I almost teared up, just listening—and he wore such a sincere expression. In fact, he was an inspiration for Yorkie and me. We’ve been together such a long time now, and just like those same-sex couples he mentioned who are members of his staff, Yorkie and I are in an “incredibly committed relationship.” And like them, we too are “raising kids together.” Two years ago, we adopted Bonnie Sue, a rescue from a puppy mill. And last, he cited those in the military forces who risk their lives “on [his] behalf.” Yes—quite right. All those canine heroes in the military who give their lives “on [my] behalf” and “yet, they’re constrained (sic) in their marital rights.”
It’s a sobering reflection. Right after the newscast, Yorkie and I discussed it (although he is somewhat verbally challenged) and I think we will marry. After all, the reasons he gave for granting same-sex couples that privilege are literally no different. If that’s all it takes to justify granting a marriage license, Yorkie and I will apply for our license tomorrow morning. Invitations are forthcoming ….
Argos and I will be delighted to attend. My only concern, is that as Argos is somewhat larger than Yorkie, they may not get along as well as two partners of the same size. However, our doctor assures me that there is some terrier in the typical Doberman’s background (hence Argos’ compulsive need to devour every groundhog he can dig up); so perhaps they will have more in common than some of the rest of us.
Dear Sophia,
Please forgive me, but I’m afraid we cannot include your name on our invitation list. While Joseph’s comment condemning the prejudice that opposes same-size marriages is very well taken, there is one other issue involved: We are vegetarians. Same-size issues are not our concern, but we hope you understand that same-diets in this case are of paramount importance. (I hope you’ll note that I make no mention of the Doberman penchant for small-animal entrees.)
If you are able to enlighten Argos on the benefits of a plant-based diet, perhaps we can extend an invitation for some evening after we return from our wedding trip to Jamaica…. So sorry. We hope you understand.
p.s. We are registered at Bloomingdale’s Pets in New York and at the Mr. Barkley store on Rodeo Drive–whichever is more convenient for you.
Miguel,
I think people are no longer capable of that “cognitive dissonance”; in fact, cognitive dissonance may have become the requirement for things to be accepted now. If an idea, or a sexual practice, is not sufficiently outrageous, it’s dismissed. That’s the way concupiscence works best–via titillation.
When Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae, he predicted all of this. People dismissed it because it was so cognitively dissonant, so outrageous. It was his own argumentum ad absurdum. Besides, he was a Pope–no need for anyone to pay attention unless one is a Catholic. (As we know, it was the Catholics, especially our bishops, who dismissed H.V. first and loudest.)
The pill did all this, but it did more: Once sex was separated from procreation, it became a source of endless possibilities in perversity. And when that door into darkness is opened, it can’t be shut again.
But I draw the line at same sex human/canine marriage. Call me a bigot, but that’s disgusting. 😉
Curious: would president Obama be in favor of extending marriage rights to same-sex cousins (even opposite-sex counsins can marry in other countries) or same-sex siblings who are truly in love with each other? If not, why not? Incest is usually opposed by people in general because of the possibility for genetic problems with offspring, but if that problem is absent, and if consent is the sole determinant of the good, then why can’t two brothers marry? And don’t say “because it’s disgusting,” that’s bigotry.
I mention this because I think it may be a better way to make some headway with people who naively support gay “marriage.” While Dena’s argumentum ad absurdum logically flows from approval of gay marriage, beastiality, the analogy to beastiality, being so extreme, is just ignored by gay marriage proponents. But I think the above questions may just cause enough cognitive dissonance in their minds to get them to think twice.
I must protest the narrow-minded bigotry of Sophia Mason’s post. While I wholeheartedly endorse the inclusiveness of marriage between humans and their pets, and applaud the way in which she has shunned the old-fashioned adherence to same species marriage, I cannot endorse her assumption that enlightened canines cannot overcome the differences imposed by size. I say no to the insistence of same-size marriage!