I found this particularly tasteless.

[ambitious_wench]

jazzmasterson Wrote recently of a website where you can marry your pet.

One of the comments was that it may be an effort to legalize bestiality.

I tried to not respond, but I just can't.

I thought of the comments that I hear all too often when I bring up the subject of legalized gay marriage: "Well, if we legalize *that* (said with an air of disgust and ridicule), what's next? Marrying your pet?"

I once had a co-worker say to me in front of other workers that they had seen me "in the barnyard". I am not a zoophile. I am a lesbian. I have struggled to understand a close friend's zoophilia, tried not to be judgemental. But this just is another insult in a long line of discrimination toward gays and lesbians.

I don't know if Matilda is serious. From the hand stitched wall plaque, I'd say she is. Further, it specifies: "2. This union is a marriage of minds and companionship. You have no conjugal rights."

I remember "Who wants to Marry a Millionare", and now "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy". The first is a mockery of marriage, and the second is a pathetic endeavor to make straight men more attractive for their girlfriends.

And through it all, gays and lesbians are told that by granting us the basic right to marry, we somehow are destroying the sanctity of het-weddings.

I am sick of being second class.

Comments

[artemii.livejournal.com]

personally i find it pretty telling that people who ardently oppose queer rights appear so obsessed with bestiality.
:shrug:

exactly what it tells i couldn't personally say for sure, but i'm not the first person to think such a thing.

[remus-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I know of at least two people who married their pets (with conjugal rights) long before this website existed. One was a bona fide fruitcake who believed his dog was his 'soulmate'. The other was a down-to-earth and very intelligent zoophile, who loved his horse dearly and did it as a nice gesture. He realized it meant nothing to anyone else...but he did long for some kind of legal acknowledgement that pets were more than just property. Someone could have killed his horse -- his lover -- and legally would only have been responsible for paying her cost as livestock. I agree that it would be nice to have some kind of legal status more valuable than 'property' but with less rights than 'human being'.

Yes, I understand that gays&lesbians are brought down to second-class citizen status by being compared to third-class citizens like bestialists and zoophiles. Being in that third-class status, I can sympathize...but my sympathy is the problem, isn't it. :/

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

Remus,

When I told my assistant manager that I was a lesbian (during my breakup with my first lover, no less), his response was "No shit! Can I watch?"

I replied "Tony, I said I'm a lesbian, not a sex industry worker."

I've learned a great deal form you. I've tried very hard to understand, and failing that, not to be judgemental.

But when it comes down to it, the idea of "marry your pet" websites (with or without conjugal rights) is pretty offensive to me as a woman who isn't allowed to marry the human partner of her choice.

The world is not a fair place. Animals are property. Hell, human women are property, too, in many communities. And while spousal rape laws are on the books, it's still under reported because women believe they are culpable for violence committed against them.

I'm sorry, Remus, but I cannot accept that the relationship between a human zoophile and their lover has the same value as two human beings. And frankly, I can't see the relationship as more valuable than a non-conjugal relationship between a pet owner and pet.

Third class citizen? Yes. Zoophiles are. Should they be? That's not my debate. But frankly, I'm tired of fighting for a right I will never have. I just don't have the energy to feel sorry for the zoophiles right now.

As for your sympathy being the problem, not really. To me, you aren't third class. You at least have the option to marry a woman. I don't.

Of course, none of this is helped by my split with the woman I wanted to marry, does it?

Edie

[remus-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, Remus, but I cannot accept that the relationship between a human zoophile and their lover has the same value as two human beings.

Oh, neither do I. Nor do any sane zoophiles I know. (There are a few insane ones, however...) Nor does the owner of that website, from what I can tell. I think it's someone having fun and trying to make some pocket change from zoophiles and cat ladies.

To me, you aren't third class. You at least have the option to marry a woman. I don't.

Now wait a second. I am not an exclusive zoo, but let's say I was. My 'option' to marry a woman would be about as useful as your 'option' to marry a man. In either case it would be going against our natures.

I don't think I'm in any better position than you are, except that I'm trying to change myself to fit into society. That's my choice and in some respects it's a surrender, an acknowledgement that the person I am cannot survive in today's world. You're not surrendering; that takes a lot of courage, although you do have a lot more support as a lesbian than I do as a zoophile.

You know, there's one way to solve both of our problems. Edith Howe, will you marry me? :)

Of course, none of this is helped by my split with the woman I wanted to marry, does it?

(hug) No, the timing doesn't help at all. But I don't think this site was an assault on you, or on the G&L&B community, just another example of why the internet is a desperately strange place.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

Remus,

I didn't articulate very well in either my initial entry, nor in my response to you.

You aren't third class in my eyes because you are a decent human being, kind, intelligent, talented, good looking and responsible. I didn't mean to make it seem that you were not third class becuase you have the option to marry a woman. It was a case of really bad stream of conscious writing.

I know you aren't exclusively zoophile. First hand experience, remember?

And you *do* have the option to marry a woman because of that. But yes, I know what you mean. I hate it when I am told that I have the same rights as anyone else, that I can marry a man just like any other woman.

Now, just to let you know, I about swallowed my tongue when I read your proposal. And yes, I see the emoticon afterwards.

A dozen things run through my head, Remus. And I am just off-balance enough by my life right now to think some really selfish things.

I hope to all the Gods that you are only joking, my friend, because right now, that is the best offer I've had in a long time, and it would be REALLY hard to say no if you were serious, in spite of the fact that I have a whole list of reasons to say no.

Edie

[remus-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Let's say I'm semi-serious, after having had first-hand experience (although I thought that was a secret. ;) )

You're a wonderful woman and far too good for me. But I wouldn't propose to anyone with any sincerity without having at least a trial run of living together first. I am *not* getting divorced again -- if I re-marry, it's going to be to someone who's right.

Now if you ever want to have that trial run, as I've said in the past there's a place for you here in my little home on the prairie. That offer's been open; nothing has changed. But you're right -- you have countless reasons to reject that offer. :) Maybe I'll court you seriously if and when I move back east. For now, I hope I didn't cause you any serious bogglement. :) (hug!)

And don't let that website bother you. I think it was put up by a cat lady trying to rationalize her lunacy. :) The anti-zoos will find it soon and make her life a living hell.

[texas-tiger.livejournal.com]

It's things like this that make me wish I had a magic wand, bolt of lightning, orbital mind control laser or what-have-you to use against people who treat others like second class citizens.

[malada.livejournal.com]

Equating same sex marriage with 'marrying your pet' is just another attempt to smear Gay people.

The website was weird... another reminder that *some* people have Too Much Time On Their Hands(tm).

But reading through the 'previously married' section, with quotes like "We met at the Vet" convinced me that it's a spoof site.

I wonder who'll actually *spend* 200$ for the premium package.

-m

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

But reading through the 'previously married' section, with quotes like "We met at the Vet" convinced me that it's a spoof site.

Yeah, that was my verdict too.