Man-Horse Love

So here’s something I don’t get: why is it that whenever people start talking about same-sex relations, members of the right instantly leap to bestiality? We all remember former Sen. Rick “Man On Dog” Santorum, R-Penn. Then there was Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and his box turtle lovin’. Now we have former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., talking about horses.

“You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage — now get this — it defined marriage as simply, ‘the establishment of intimacy,'” Hayworth said. “Now how dangerous is that? I mean, I don’t mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point — I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse. It’s just the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with that federal marriage amendment that I support.”

Now, look, J.D. — I get that you’re sexually attracted to horses. I’m sure you make regular visits to Tijuana, where you angrily complain that you came here for some hot man-on-horse action, and you don’t care that it’s just an urban legend. I’m sure that scene in Clerks II was oh-so-close to your dreams. And okay, I respect that — we all have our weird hang-ups.

But J.D., what are you and the horse going to talk about when you’re done? Hay? Galloping? The Kentucky Derby? And it’s going to be a pretty one-sided conversation, given that horses aren’t sapient, and can’t talk.

That’s sort of the difference between your sexual hang-up and homosexuality, J.D. You see, when a man loves a man, sure they can get their sweet lovin’ on. But afterward, they can talk about a whole panoply of topics, from the utter fabulousness of Johnny Weir to the upcoming baseball season to excitement about the new Iron Man II trailer to the idiocy of former Republican politicians. You know, just like men and women do.

You see, J.D., people who love other people — regardless of gender — love other people. It’s the “people” thing that’s important, J.D. You can love your horse all you want, but when you take it down to the local justice of the peace, and she asks your horse if it will love and cherish you ’til death do you part, the horse won’t answer. It will just stand there, bemused, as always. Indeed, there’s no way for you to find out if that horse is even interested in you or not.

Two men? Two women? A man and a woman? They can talk to each other. Laugh. Love. Yes, have sex. Find out if they’re right for each other, if they’re someone they want to be with for the rest of their lives. And then, if they both agree, they can mutually decide to pledge themselves to each other, come what may. That can never happen between you and your horse, J.D. And that’s why those of us who support your right to marry a man don’t support your right to marry a horse — and why the slippery slope you propose is all in your oversize muppet head.

This entry posted in Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues, Same-Sex Marriage. Bookmark the permalink. 

17 Responses to Man-Horse Love

  1. 1
    Redisca says:

    Well, marriage requires consent, so … horses can’t consent, right? Because they lack legal capacity? I think that should take care of the problem.

  2. 2
    Jake Squid says:

    Ah, but Redisca that’s precisely where you’re wrong. What if I hire a really, really good ventriloquist. That could fool the solemnizer and, presto-bango! man/horse marriage. We must stop this. I don’t think that a “Federal Marriage Amendment” is the way to go on this one. It’s clear that what we must do is make ventriloquism a federal crime.

    Who’s with me?

  3. 3
    Vidya says:

    I have to say I’m not really comfortable with the humorous tone with which this post treats human-animal rape. Let me say it one more time, RAPE — the magic word which is missing from this analysis.
    The law ought to protect all animals against rape by humans, full stop. (It presently doesn’t, by the way; sexual penetration of animals by human limbs and/or instruments while the animals are tied to so-called ‘rape racks’ is currently the standard way of artificially inseminating large livestock for food production.)

  4. 4
    Jeff Fecke says:

    Vidya —

    That’s sort of the point of the post. While I take a humorous bent, the obvious difference between same-sex relations and bestiality is that animals can’t consent. While I spend a lot of time joking about it here, that is the underlying point — and the reason that this “slippery slope” argument is hokum.

    (Incidentally, if we ever came across an animal that was sapient and could consent — say, if we discovered a lost group of Neandertals somewhere, or if we figured out dolphin language — I’d be foursquare in favor of the right of humans and them to date and marry.)

  5. 5
    Siobhan says:

    The Manfolk just happened to wander through the room as I was reading this post. He looked over my shoulder, read the J.D. quote and said, “Well that tells you what these guys think of women – no more capable of independent thought than a dog or a horse.”

    Pretty much says it all.

  6. 6
    Angiportus says:

    I thought they just put the cow or mare in a stall with a kick-barrier of some sort before going to work. Anyway, Jeff and the 3 other commenters pretty well nailed it.
    As for urban legendry, it isn’t just a legend–a few years back there was a horse-on-man incident in this neck of the woods and the man wound up dead.
    Let gays marry; they should be as miserable as the rest of us.

  7. 7
    Silenced is Foo says:

    As icky a subject as it is, I really can’t get angry about bestiality… but I’m not a vegan. I just figure if you’re going to kill an animal to eat it (and hell, manually jack them off to breed them), it seems like small potatoes to fuss about sex things with them.

  8. 8
    fannie says:

    You can guarantee that whenever anyone constructs a sentence like:

    “I don’t mean to be [insert adjective] about it, but…”

    They are going to be exactly [insert adjective].

  9. 9
    Myca says:

    Did you catch Hayworth on Rachel Maddow? It turns out that, even ignoring all the man-on-horse (centaur?) stuff, his claim that the Massachusetts Supreme Court defined marriage as “the establishment of intimacy” is just plain false. As in a lie.

    Check it out. The ‘establishment of intimacy’ section starts at 8:50 or so.

    Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


  10. 10
    Sailorman says:

    Yes, but,

    Now they’re diamonds.

  11. 11
    Elusis says:

    Look at this blog. Now at your own blog. Now back at this blog. Now back to your own blog. Now back at this blog.

  12. 12
    Angiportus says:

    Thanks, Silenced is Foo. Still, I suspect many of the things we do to them could be done more humanely, and for some species, sexual use would be utterly inhumane.
    To say nothing of the risk for human beings who might eat the meat of an animal someone had managed to give some disease to.
    When someone says “I hate to say this…”, they love to say it.


    An oldie, but goodie: Why Gay Marriage Is Un-American. (Don’t worry, you’ll laugh.)

  14. 14
    Phil says:

    Let me say it one more time, RAPE — the magic word which is missing from this analysis.


    I don’t mean to sound accusatory, but I think there are several issues with extending the word “rape” to the kinds of behaviors you describe.

    I realize that it seems appropriate to describe all “sexual penetration without consent” as rape, but it also seems to diminish the experience of (human) rape survivors–suggesting that their experiences are comparable to those of livestock during breeding.

    Further, if we operate from the modern understanding of what it means to give meaningful consent, then all , or virtually all, sex in the animal kingdom is rape. This expanded definition thus further dilutes the word.

    I don’t mean to suggest that concerns about the human mistreatment of animals are unwarranted, but I don’t think it’s in the best interest of humans or animals to try to cross-apply human concepts to animals as if they’re people. Concepts like rape, but also respect, dignity, fairness, murder–these may have value as buzzwords, but they don’t accurately represent the situation re: animal/human interactions.

  15. 15
    piny says:

    Vidya, NOBODY is suggesting that we go out and force sexual intercourse on horses. Nobody is suggesting that we go out and offer sexual intercourse to horses. EVERYBODY in this discussion believes that sex with horses is unappealing. The morally objectionable aspects of horse-fucking are sort of beside the point, because nobody wants to fuck horses. That’s why Mr. Hayworth brings it up. He’s comparing the desire to fuck people of the same gender with a desire to fuck horses because it is just that ridiculous and (as far as he’s concerned) unattractive a choice. Horses, box turtles, dogs: they are neither sentient nor sexy.

    When there is an actual discussion about the relative merits of horse-fucking–with people who are either honestly interested in fucking horses or smart enough to distinguish between Seabiscuit and Greg Louganis–then it would also make sense to have a protracted side-discussion about the irresponsibility of failing to condemn horse-fucking in the most emphatic terms possible. This is not a discussion about the morality of horse-fucking. It’s a discussion about the morality of dipshit analogies. So I don’t see why people can’t choose any of the thousand reasons horses are not like human beings.

  16. 16
    Tom B says:

    “Look at this blog. Now at your own blog. Now back at this blog. Now back to your own blog. Now back at this blog.”

    … Sadly, your blog is not this blog.

    hahaha pure win.

    Re: the post topic. Very good, and I agree. Somehow the idea of marriage being a contract between two consenting intelligent beings seems to get lost somewhere in the shuffle of the anti-SSM arguments. This is *probably* just cynical exaggeration to scare-monger, but the unfortunate forgetting of this critical feature does remind one of the very “traditional” forms of arranged marriage in which one, and often both, of the people being married didn’t have much choice in the matter.

    Of course, another common feature of their argument is that marriage was created By God just as it is today, or, from a less outwardly theistic argument, has always “Naturally” been between one male and a female, both of which require one to completely ignore many previous (and sometimes problematic) formulations of marriage that have occurred in the past. Or at least, require one to ignore the problems surrounding them and the complete lack of consent that the participants in them often faced.

    One of the worst problems with romanticizing marriage as this timelessly wonderful tradition (well, in addition to, you know, using this idea as a bludgeon against equal rights) is that it erases the experiences of those for whom marriage was more or less a form of slavery or oppression, as well as experiences of those persons in existence today who face oppressive and terrible marriage practices.

    And of course, there is the connection of the idea of marriage as sacred with the idea that the persons in the marriage must subordinate their own happiness and well-being to preserve it, to extraordinary lengths. Or the idea that ‘sacred’ marriage has a ‘sacred’ hierarchy that must be respected.

    Oof- what began as a short “good joke!” post turned into a longer rant. Oh well. Cheers!

  17. Pingback: Pastor Fred Phelps Is Not A Secret Gay Pedophile! — ChristWire