My biggest question here is why? Why would a public school suspend (without pay) a behavioral specialist just for being accused of having sex with a dog? Why would she then be charged with a crime, indicted, and be expected in court this week? After all, she is a consenting adult that presumably did no harm to the animal, performed these acts in the privacy of her own home, and simply lived out the lifestyle choice she desires. What is all the fuss about?
It seems to me that if this woman wants to have sex with her dog in the privacy of her home that no one should infringe on her right to do so. It’s not as though she actually abused the animal, unlike the man who sexually assaulted his pet peacock to the point of death. This woman, Stephanie Mikles, simply wants to be free to love who – or what – she loves because, as we all know, people can’t decide who (or what) they love, the heart decides that.
You get my point, right?
The same arguments being used by homosexuals to push for marriage redefinition can easily be applied to just about any sexual relationship. Here, let me show you what I mean.
A person with an unnatural tendency towards bestiality can easily say “I was born this way.” The same person can also claim they “aren’t hurting anyone’s marriage” by engaging in their perverted acts. They can also say that “what goes on in the privacy of my house is none of your business.” Is there any reasonable refutation of these claims? (Click here to see how the sex-with-animals crowd are gearing up to demand their rights.)
How about a pedophile? A pedophile can claim they are just expressing their “sexual orientation” (click here to see evidence of this taking place even now). They can claim they “have no control over who they love.” They can also claim that as long as both parties are consenting they should be free to live as they choose.
Let’s not forget about polygamists. They have long claimed their “lifestyle is one that benefits children.” They also can reasonably claim that they are “consenting adults acting in the privacy of their own home”. They can claim to be “living according to their preferred sexual orientation.” And they, more than the before mentioned, can demand their rights to sexual satisfaction as adults.
We might be tempted to bristle at the first two scenarios and immediately focus on the polygamists. Considering there are few articles dedicated to the idea that pedophilia and bestiality are two logical outcomes from marriage redefinition, most people give them little more than a passing glance. (Click here to see how pedophiles are using the “sexual orientation” argument to demand rights.) And, as you might expect, there is article after article on how polygamy should be legalized in light of same-sex “marriage.” With the recent admission of a lesbian activist that marriage should not exist, and will definitely change if same-sex “marriage” is legalized, there is no reason to believe polygamy will not be next.
An article in Slate magazine demanded that we legalize polygamy:
“While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.”
Writing at Breitbart.com, Ken Klukowski said:
“As a lawyer in the same-sex marriage litigation at the Supreme Court who has spent a couple years working through all the implications of declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage, it became clear that such a declaration would also mean there is a right to polygamy.”
It seems willfully ignorant to pretend that if marriage is redefined once it will not continue to be redefined over and over again. There is no logical reason why polygamists, pedophiles, and bestiality will not be legalized in light of such a decision. The government will have to give every one of these groups their “rights” or they will be guilty of the same discrimination they now accuse traditional marriage defenders of.
As you can see, the arguments being used by homosexual advocates can easily be applied to each of these groups. If that is true, and same-sex “marriage” is legalized using these arguments, there’s no reason to believe these other sexual perversions will not also be legalized. This is the realistic end of the marriage debate.
Help Protect the Family Now! Please click here to give through our secure online server
About Nathan Cherry
Nathan Cherry is the chief editor and blogger for the Engage Family Minute blog, the official blog of the FPCWV. He serves also as the Regional Development Coordinator as a liaison to the pastor's of West Virginia. He is a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-religious freedom conservative. He is also a husband, father, pastor, author, musician, and follower of Jesus Christ.