The reporter claimed to be shocked at the reference to human-animal sex. Homosexual activists and the liberal-left blogosphere went bananas denouncing the Pennsylvanian as ignorant, bigoted, hateful, intolerant, and homophobic. It was ludicrous and outrageous, they averred, to claim that giving full legal marital status to homosexuals and lesbians would lead to the breaking of taboos against inter-species venereal relations.
The following year it was Christian athlete John Smoltz, pitcher for the Altlanta Braves, who was put on the media hot seat for criticizing the effort by militants to legalize homosexual marriage in Georgia. "What’s next?" he asked. "Marrying an animal?" Predictably, the lavender lobby went on the warpath, demanding his scalp.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
In 2006, Colorado Republican candidate for lieutenant governor Janet Rowland went beyond the pale in the slippery-slope analysis. "For some people, the alternative lifestyle is bestiality," she said. "Do we allow a man to marry a sheep?" she asked rhetorically. The apoplectic fusillades from the uncloseted GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered) extremists and their "straight" enablers were not long in coming. A spokesman for the Democrats called Rowland’s remarks "insensitive, close-minded, derogatory and crude" and demanded an apology.
In 2008, it was GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee’s turn to suffer the wrath of the "gay" thought police. He responded in an interview to the "radical" label that was being affixed to him for defending Biblical-based sexual morality. "I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal," Huckabee said. "Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again."
David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign provided the typical response, charging that Governor Huckabee’s comments were "really out of the mainstream of American thought, and most people will find that offensive."
Yes, those supposedly ignorant Bible-thumping, Christian troglodytes are so "out of it" they actually believe that legitimizing and normalizing one perversion may open the door to legitimizing and normalizing other perversions! While all enlightened folk know how preposterous such a notion is. Right? Hmmm. Well, if you check back a few short years ago the same troglodytes were warning that legalizing the sodomite "lifestyle" would lead to demands for same-sex marriage and the right for GLBT adoption of children. And the same "enlightened" folk were denouncing such fears as homophobic nonsense. Yet, here we are.
Ralph McInerny, professor of philosophy at Notre Dame University, doesn’t see these slippery slope fears as nonsensical in the least. "Agitation for the lifting of the ban on bestiality has scarcely begun but it is safe to say that it is an idea whose hour will surely come, and soon," Dr. McInerny warns in a September 3 online essay for thecatholicthing.org entitled "Animal Husbandry."
Actually, the agitation for sweeping away taboos against bestiality — along with every other sexual taboo — was begun half a century ago by the sainted high priest of the Sexual Revolution, Alfred Kinsey. The famous (or infamous) Dr. Kinsey started his scientific career studying bugs (gall wasps, actually) and ended it promoting buggery — and every other sexual perversion. As Dr. Judith Reisman points out in her definitive study of the man and his work, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, the celebrated sex researcher assembled bogus statistics on sexual habits of American men and women to redefine what is "normal" and acceptable sexual activity. He then used these new norms to sweep aside all sexual inhibitions and to influence legislators, lawyers, and judges to strike down all laws restricting sexual activity. Kinsey wrote to one judge: "There is no scientific justification for the definitions of sex perversion which are customarily made under the law…. In non-inhibited societies and in non-inhibited portions of our own society, the so-called sex perversion are a regular part of the behavior pattern…. This statement applies to such things as … homosexuality, group activities, relations between individuals of diverse age, and animal intercourse."
Kinsey co-author Wardell Pomeroy (who was also one of Kinsey’s numerous sex partners), wrote that having sex with "the male animal, whether it is a dog, horse, or bull, or some other species, may provide considerable erotic excitement for the boy or older adult."
As far back as 1990, the National Endowment for the Arts provided a $15,000 grant (courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers) for an exhibit by homosexual "artist" David Wojnarowicz that included explicit pictures of bestiality. Since then, the Internet has become the cloaca maxima of pansexual vice, providing a path to "normalcy" for every deviant behavior. Numerous websites boast videos of human-animal sex acts and provide forums for zoophiles or "zoos" (as bestiality practitioners prefer to call themselves) to share their perverse experiences.
In Maine, in 2001, zoophile Phillip Buble petitioned a judge to allow his dog "Lady" to accompany him in court and to have their relationship acknowledged as equal to a marriage. Buble wants "Zoo couples" to be treated as married couples under the law. Buble insists zoophiles "are born with a true love for animals and have a lifelong commitment to their care." Thankfully, the judge didn’t buy Buble’s argument, but you know absolutely there are plenty of ACLU judges, even outside the enlightened 9th Circuit, who are more than ready to open that door — as soon as they deem the timing is right. Who can doubt that some exalted jurist (or group of jurists) will find our Founding Fathers hid a right to barnyard sex amidst the "penumbras, formed by emanations" (to use the Supreme Court’s subversive rationale) in our Bill of Rights.
Alarmed by the direction Buble was trying to take society, the Maine legislature passed a law criminalizing bestiality. A number of other states have done likewise, though some have done so, it seems, more to protect animals from cruelty than to protect society from the devastating effects of the proliferation of perversion. Bestiality has become widespread enough that the Humane Society, medical and veterinarian organizations and publications, and animal rights groups are treating it as a serious problem. Evidently, the zoophile lifestyle is spreading and progressing from vicarious satisfaction via video on the Internet to actual bestiality at pay-for-action farms.
Professor McInerny and the other "alarmists" are right; if same-sex marriage is legalized, the battle lines simply will be moved further down the slope. Those who proudly identify themselves as "polymorphous perverse" will not be satisfied even if every vice is freely permitted; it must then be accepted and promoted (by government, with taxpayer funds) as natural and good. The great danger is that these perversions are so absurd, repellent, and beyond the ken of most Americans — and are festering just far enough beneath the surface — the average person will not see the threat (or allow himself/herself to believe it could possibly be that real or that serious) — until it is too late.
But the slide down that slippery slope can quickly accelerate to a free fall into the abyss. The "progressive" pansexualists insist they will not be bound by what they consider the archaic and artificial moral restrictions of the Bible; they demand the unrestrained libidinal license of Philip Bubel. They have made their choice, and the rest of us must also: The Bible — or (shudder, God help us!) Buble.
Alfred Kinsey photo courtesy of AP Images
