When Harry met Spot

This is too much.

If marriage isn’t defined as only a union between one man and one woman, state Rep. Arthur D. Hershey believes people will want to marry animals.

Hershey, of Cochranville, who represents the 13th District, was one of about 90 legislators, including four others from Chester County, to cosponsor the Marriage Protection Act, a bill introduced Tuesday to constitutionally define marriage in Pennsylvania.

Hershey said this week that without the bill, “down the road, people will want to marry their dogs and horses to get benefits.”

Daily Local News: 5 county lawmakers co-sponsor marriage bill

Where do they come up with this stuff? Oh, I know. Rick Santorum.

If nothing else, some reps provide quality yucks. You have to laugh. Otherwise, you’ll cry. Or scream. Or bang your head against the wall.

Thankfully, reps like Hershey do an excellent job of destroying their own credibility.

Andy in H-burg

9 thoughts on “When Harry met Spot

  1. I haven’t ever wanted to marry one of our dogs but I have wondered if our 3 legger could get SSI and a handicap space.

  2. Could it be that Arthur is just getting a little tired of listening to his wife say that she’s married a horse’s ass??

  3. This is precisely the stuff that people are being preached in churches around the country. It happened in Oregon the same way.

    It seems like no one is intelligent enough to say, “Why don’t we define marriage as between two human adults of legal age?”

    That solves the animal argument, the polygamy argument, and the pedophile argument.

    I guess it’s too reasonable to expect them to listen to.

  4. All it would take to prevent human-animal marriages is a requirement that the animal give informed consent….

  5. Again, I have to say that what you are seeing is what happens when fear is the motivator. Fear that, without every move dictated by an endless stream of requirements and prohibitions, people will have to figure out for themselves what’s right and what’s wrong, and why. And we just can’t have that, can we? Because, after all, if some of us can figure out on our own how no navigate the courses of our lives, what does that say about those who have forever relied on some mystical authority and still can’t get it right?
    -Schuyler DuQuesne

  6. “Any relatioj to Mrac C. “Blackie” DuQuesne?”

    I get that – not a lot, but from time to time. Perhaps a great-uncle, but not in this reality. Geneology was never one of my interests, so it will be left to others to verify. (I never throw out old documents, though.)
    -Schuyler DuQuesne

  7. Re: DuQuesne

    Check your birth cert to see if you were delivered by “Doc” E. E. Smith.

  8. I argued against that particular straw man (or is it the slippery slope, these logical fallacies are hard to keep track of) excepting it was a goat not a dog.

    I like the “Why don’t we define marriage as between two human adults of legal age?” but I’d be more likely to go with “two consenting legal adults”

    The only problem there is: what about family realtions?

    We’ve removed the biological influence, why shouldn’t they? I’m not proposing this as another argument against, but how do you answer it?

Comments are closed.