Zoophilia: Why Not?

I was told by intolerant homophobes that this might happen one day, and it looks like that day is getting a little bit closer. I am talking, of course, of the glorious and triumphant day that zoophilia (sexual attraction to animals) becomes a legally-protected category and bestiality (sexual intercourse with animals) becomes a socially acceptable activity that only outdated, reactionary, hateful oppressors will dare oppose.

The first thing to remember, of course, is that while we must consider this to be a manifestation of social progress and enlightenment, that is, part of a movement that is clearly moving in one direction, we must avoid the “insane” slippery slope logical fallacy that those illogical religious fanatics keep bringing up. Slopes go down. Down is bad. We are climbing a mountain to new and lofty heights of freedom. Up is good.

Next, the only issue upon which there could possibly be any legitimate debate is whether or not the animals can consent. If the animals cannot consent, then bestiality may be considered a form of animal abuse, in which a deranged pervert takes advantage of a helpless animal to gratify his sexual urges. If the animals can somehow consent, and of course zoophiles believe that they can and do, well then, as long as as it is an adult animal, there’s no problem. Anyone who would object to such a union is a heartless, judgmental a-hole who wants to interfere with a perfectly legitimate expression of love. There is no natural order. There are no abominations. The subjective choices of individuals, as long as they cause no immediate, direct, physical harm to another person (or let’s say, living being) or violate their government-determined privileges must be regarded as sarcosanct. “And it harm none, do as thou wilt.” That is what our entire civilization is built on.

There will be no significantly negative cultural or social consequences that will result from men and animals mating and engaging in life-long partnerships. Special bathrooms, seating arrangements, transportation, and so much more can all be created to comfortably accommodate an animal partner. Anyone who refuses to install them can be charged with the crime of speciesism, and of violating the civil rights of a protected class. Fido and Spot can join a long line of intrepid civil rights trail-blazers from Rosa Parks to Harvey Milk, fighting the good fight against a reactionary society that just wants to stop the spread of love and joy. The legalization of human-animal marriages will soon follow. That way when your zoophilic uncle shows up at your college graduation with Aunt Freckles and cousins Pepper and Lassie, they won’t have to fear the judgments of a cruel, intolerant and backwards society – and there will be plenty of kibble waiting for them in their special banquet bowls.

Another thing that old reactionary types might bring up is the potential spread of diseases that has been known to occur as a result of bestiality, from syphilis to AIDS. But even if this were true, we now have efficient government bureaucracies and enlightened policy-makers to minimize the frequency of such public health catastrophes. As we have seen in the case of premarital sex and the legitimization of sodomy, we can simply print some pamphlets and distribute condoms to prevent the spread of disease. We also have abortion to dispose of unwanted offspring (if the animal spouse were to be unfaithful) – Planned Parenthood, I am sure, could adapt its facilities to accommodate a dolphin’s right to choose. We can ensure that men and sheep are fully informed of all potential health risks and provided with the tools to engage in safe sex. Trained veterinarians can hold seminars with the animal-inclined, and teach them not only how to be safe with their lovers, but how to increase their sexual pleasure as well.

Best of all, we can begin teaching children as young as five that Heather actually has a mommy and a daddy. Its just that one of them is a man, and the other is a goat. Heather’s mommy is a goat. Of course, I don’t want to imply that a zoophile can’t have a same-sex attraction to an animal either. That would be bigoted, unenlightened, and backwards. Just to be safe, we’ll have to say that Heather has two parents, and one of them is a human hermaphrodite and the other is an asexual animal. Of course now I am being insensitive to the polygamists, for which I deeply and sincerely repent. Heather has three mommies, and we can cover another base right now by making one of them a genetically engineered human-animal hybrid. We can also teach young children that it is perfectly normal for them to be attracted to their pets, and to be curious about what it would be like to have sex with them. Ideally, however, we want to abolish the entire concept of pets. Animals must be seen as potentially equal partners, not slaves for our amusement.

Thus we will have entered the liberated future, in which religious obscurantism and medievalism no longer interfere with man’s pursuit of happiness. There will be animal dating services. There will be animal brothels. There will be zoophilic pride parades. Taxpayers can support the giant aquariums that will need to be rolled through the main thoroughfare so that men who have married dolphins and whales can publicly and proudly express their love to the beat of the Village People. And all will be right in the world.

Until those sick freaks who want to have sex with trees come along. We’ll have to oppose that, because that’s just wrong.

 

StumbleUponRedditPrintFriendlyShare

25 Responses to Zoophilia: Why Not?

  • Valentin says:

    Please don’t use their language, anyone who thinks bestiality is a good idea should think about why something so crazy could be good (as well as research STD’s).

  • “It would as give a whole new meaning to cat houses.”

    Not with my two cats, Worf and Gabby! While Worf is old and has only 10 switchblades, Gabby is young, having all twenty of hers, and she is not afraid to use them! Justice would occur in short order to the pervert who would try any with her!

    ;-)

  • Bonchamps says:

    And after zoophilia…

    “Jerry: Didn’t go for it, huh?

    George: No.

    Jerry: So, she didn’t appreciate the erotic qualities of the salted cured meats?

    George: She tolerated the strawberries and the chocolate sauce, but eh, it’s not a meal, you know? Food and sex, those are my two passions. It’s only natural to combine them.

    Jerry: Natural? Sex is about love between a man and a woman, not a man and a sandwich.”

    ——-

    Jerry: So, how’s the fornicating gourmet?

    George: Doing quite well, thank you. Yesterday I had a soft boiled egg and a quickie. You know what? If I could add TV to the equation, that would really be the ultimate.

    Jerry: George, we’re trying to have a civilization here.

    ——

  • Joe Green says:

    Having dogs all my life and considering them generally superior to humans in traits such as love, loyalty, obedience and kindness, I believe the relationship between a man and his animal can be better than a loveless marriage. Leave the sex out of it. A dog is a man’s best friend. Period.

  • Pinky says:

    I wonder if politicians’ views on this issue will evolve – although, now that I think about it, “evolve” is a speciesist insult, isn’t it?

  • Bonchamps says:

    Well, if it was going to be found anywhere, I would expect it to be found in Scandinavia, the most morally depraved place on the planet.

    At this point, I am rooting for the jihad to sweep these people off the face of the Earth. People who legalize screwing animals are not my allies. They are my enemies.

  • Mary De Voe says:

    “There is no natural order. There are no abominations. The subjective choices of individuals, as long as they cause no immediate, direct, physical harm to another person (or let’s say, living being) or violate their government-determined privileges must be regarded as sarcosanct.”
    “By the power vested in me by the Sovereign State of Maryland, I now pronounce you man and man” and again, “By the power vested in me by the Sovereign State of Maryland, I now pronounce you man and make believe wife”, or “By the power vested in me by the Sovereign State of Maryland, I now pronounce you wife and wife”, and again, “By the power vested in me by the Sovereign State of Maryland, I now pronounce you wife and make believe husband.”
    Civil servants from the most humble garbage collector to the president of the United States of America, Notary Publics, Justices of the Peace, Sea Captains, by the power vested in them by the Sovereignty of the people can only bear witness to the TRUTH, the whole TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH.
    “man and man” were man and man when they came before the Justice of the Peace. “man and make believe wife” cannot be witnessed by the civil servant or the power of the sovereign state because they lack the validity of the TRUTH, so help me God.
    The power is “vested” and does not come with sovereign personhood, nor does this power come with citizenship, but this power is derived from the Supreme Sovereign Being, WHO is God and “their Creator”. If puerile and infantile individuals want to be validated as men and women, they need to grow up. A mature individual recognizes the TRUTH.
    A civil servant witnesses the vows of a consenting man and woman to become “husband and wife” Husband and wife are offices in the vocation to Matrimony through which a man and a woman are called to serve God. A man and a man cannot become “husband and wife” no more than a woman and a woman can become a “husband and wife.” and who gave anybody the right to lie about it? or any civil servant the power to witness to a lie?

  • “People who legalize screwing animals are not my allies. They are my enemies.”

    There is a reason why God told Joshua and the Children of Israel to wipe all such people in the Land of Canaan off the face of the Earth. I am not advocating the initiation of force. But I note what God told the Israelites to do. Normalizing godless perverted sodomy and lesbianism in these United States will result in exactly the situation that Scandinavian countries now face: beastiality. Perhaps Bonchamps is correct. Perhaps God is using the Church’s Muslim enemies to prune the dead, decaying branches of sexual filth from the tree.

    I want these people out of civilized society (if any remains) and back into the closet where they belong. I want their culture, their ways, their habits and their customs eradicated from the face of the Earth. But I fear I shall be long dead and buried before that happens. Sadly, my children will face this putrid mess of sexual rot. Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy. Lord have mercy.

  • Kristin says:

    This got me to thinking… how would you explain why this sort of thing is wrong without using religious arguments? I’m not sure if you can argue that it’s wrong because the animal can’t consent; animals, after all, don’t consent to living with humans or being eaten. And if it could indeed be proven that animals aren’t always being abused, then why would a secularist oppose it in principle?

    I would argue that zoophilia, as much as it may harm the animal, harms the perpetrator psychologically. Rather than seek intimacy with an equal who can truly love them back, they’re content with using a captive, living thing that can’t choose otherwise. It’s so opposed to how we, as a species, are wired that I suspect it would affect how the perpetrator relates to other human beings.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .