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category and bestiality (sexual intercourse with animals) becomes a socially acceptable activity that only outdated, reactionary, hateful oppressors will dare oppose.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.

Continue reading

How’s this for “Diversity” and “Inclusion”?

The United States Senate has approved a defense authorization bill by a vote of 93-7 that includes changes to Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: no longer banned are sodomy and sex with animals (bestiality).

Article 125 used to state:

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The change in Article 125 ostensibly is due to President Obama’s support to remove the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Quite likely, the removal of the bestiality provision was not intentional.  But, the simple fact is that under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, there’s no longer a provision to prosecute military personnel who engage specifically in bestiality.

The U.S. Armed Forces have been touted by those on the political left as being on the vanguard of “social change.”  They cite, as the primary example, the demise of segregation in the U.S. military following World War I and officially when President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 9981 on July 26, 1948.

So, if The Motley Monk “gets it,” any soldier who engages in sodomy with an animal cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the Uniform Code.

Hopefully, the Conference Committee will deal directly with this particular “social experiment,” as the House version of the Defense Authorization Act includes reinforcing the Defense of Marriage Act and prohibiting same-sex marriage on military bases.

What is this nation coming to when U.S. Senators legislate something like bestiality in the U.S. Armed Forces?

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

Enter your email:

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