A guest post by Yeoman
Recently, here on this blog, there was some discussion on sex and slippery slopes, together with the nature of marriage. Dawn, in her interview in Radar, correctly notes this in the context of "homosexual" marriage. As anyone alive in North America today well knows, the argument on homosexual marriage is that homosexuals are denied the right of marriage, as they can't marry somebody of the same sex. Dawn correctly points out that homosexuals have the same right to marry as anyone else, but that means they have the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex, marriage being by definition a union of people of the opposite sex. The proponents of same sex unions argue instead that their inclinations dictate their rights, and that this should be respected, and sanctioned, by the state. What does it hurt, after all?
Even ten or fifteen years ago, such an argument would have been regarded as on the fringe. At that time, there were still those concerned by the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings that the State's couldn't look at any conduct between two "consenting adults". The argument was that, if you eliminated that ability, then soon you'd have no ability to address any such conduct. We'd have, the argument was made, polygamy, and same sex unions. After all, if its legal to marry one women, but live with twenty, what logic keeps you from marrying all twenty? No solid logic. Still, it wouldn't happen, was the argument. Same sex unions are one thing, but that doesn't open the door to all sorts of things, right?
Well, if you allow one man to marry another, why not allow a man to marry, um, his livestock.
Sound too extreme. Well, here's the proposal:
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Denmark's Council for Animal Ethics said on Thursday there was no need to ban sex with animals unless it took place in pornographic films or sex shows.Now, it would appear the "right wing" Danish legislator is likely right. Denmark probably won't legalize animal sex . . yet. But its interesting how this is now a topic which is openly discussed. This isn't at all the same as same sex unions, and I'm not arguing that it is. But, having lost the moorings of marriage, and having forgotten what the definition was, it would now seem that not only has it been forgotten by some that it is a union between two sexes, but that some have forgotten that a sexual union ought to be restricted to unions within the same species. In loosing the definitions of the words, it's seems, we've lost to a degree to even define moral conduct.
Only one of the 10 members of the council, set up by the Danish Justice Ministry to establish and uphold animal ethics, wants bestiality expressly forbidden.
The others said current laws provided enough animal protection, according to Danish news agency Ritzau.
A senior member of the right wing Danish People's Party was shocked by the recommendation and said the subject should be put to a referendum.
"Then there wouldn't be any doubt about the result," Christian Hansen said. A Justice Ministry spokesman was not available for comment.
Or, in other words, "ick".
Well, can similar arguments for legalization of polygamy or pedophilia, and whatnot, and more such discussions be far off?
In looking at this, the really weird part is, given that we've now managed to get past the whole sexual orientation, species orientation thing, the concern over pornography? The proponents are not concerned about bestiality, but they are worried about filming it? Weird.
Extreme, I know. But a reminder, perhaps, that when you end up discussing anything as okay, there's no limit as to what can be discussed.
But not viewed, apparently. After all, animal porn would still be illegal . . .