If you missed this week’s press conference at the White House, you probably haven’t heard about the ridiculous question World Nut Daily reporter Lester Kinsolving posed to press secretary Jay Carney. He actually asked what the president’s position is on bestiality! Oh for crying out loud, what a doofus. I can’t believe World Nut Daily reporters even get press credentials at the White House.
But alas, they do. Kinsolving was referring to the recent vote in the US Senate to abolish Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The article prohibits sodomy in the military, as well as sexual relations with animals. Presumably, repealing the whole article would have the effect of legalizing both behaviors in the US military.
“(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 by punished as a court-martial may direct.”
To Carney’s credit, he refused to entertain the ridiculous question, preferring to dismiss it off the cuff. Of course the commander-in-chief opposes bestiality in the armed forces. That’s why he plans on signing the bill just as soon as it hits his desk.
Okay, okay–so the Senate just voted 93-7 to abolish the article. But that doesn’t mean it would be legal to boff your poodle. That would still be punishable under other articles. Presumably, however, my favorite activity–sodomy–will not continue to be punishable under other articles. By abolishing the article that specifically prohibits sodomy in the armed forces, we are legalizing butt sex in the barracks. But by abolishing the article that specifically prohibits barnyard play, we are not legalizing it. Not sure why, we just aren’t.
Ho hum. Okay, so that explanation doesn’t work. How about this? I’m sure that the Congress will fix it at a later date. This whole thing is a mistake that will be straightened out eventually. Kind of like how two persons who are closely related by blood can get married in my state, just as long as the marriage is homosexual. Seven years after gay marriage came to the Bay State and brother/brother marriage remains legal. They’re still getting around to fixing it. State legislators are very busy people, you know.
Every time I watch this video, I imagine that horrible bigot Rick Santorum sitting at home, rubbing his hands together in glee. I bet he thinks he was right about the whole “man-dog” thing, which is just silly. As he famously remarked in 2003:
“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. “
Can you believe that? It’s one of those ridiculous slippery slope arguments. If we redefine marriage, there will no end to it. Next thing you know, we’ll have man-on-dog sex in the barracks! Ha! So stupid. Well, I mean it would be stupid if it weren’t for the fact that the US Senate just voted to legalize it. But I’m sure it won’t pass the House, and if it does, I’m sure the president will veto it. Even so, Santorum was technically wrong–sex with animals will now be permitted, but the full benefits of marriage are still an elusive dream from soldiers who love their house pets. I guess that’s tomorrow’s civil rights battle.
I remember the infamous Santorum “man/dog” interview. I was so offended that he would compare loving sodomy with my husband Michael (and a few score other casual partners) to something as repulsive as bestiality. There’s a HUGE difference between the two. In the case of homosexuality, the sex is consensual. It’s just two consenting adults gettin’ it on in the privacy of their home. But an animal can’t consent, and so it’s actually a form of rape.
Wait a second, did I just say that homosexuality involves consent? I slipped up there. There’s nothing consensual about two men sodomizing each other, because if there were, that would mean that there’s a choice involved. And as we all know, homosexuality is NOT a choice. If it were a choice, who would choose it? Nobody. So let’s just abandon the silly notion that we choose our sexual practices and partners. I know that I sure don’t.
And while I acknowledge that animals don’t consent to sex with humans, it’s also true that they don’t consent to being killed and stuck on our dinner plates either. They probably don’t consent to having sex with each other, considering the fact that most non-human forms of life don’t possess the faculties to make rational decisions. They act on instinct.
The truth is that we consistently treat animals as lower forms of life. Humans do what we please with them, even without their “consent”. That’s why we find it acceptable to kill animals for food or sport, to do grotesque experiments on them for the advancement of medical research, to skin them and use their hides to make wallets and belts, as well as to place wagers on them and watch them race around tracks. We employ them to serve as guides for the blind, and to entertain us at the circus and SeaWorld. We do all of these things to animals without their consent, and we don’t give a shit. Because they’re friggin’ animals, that’s why. No one cares about the consent of animals.
Except we don’t usually have sex with them. Because that’s gross.
Even so, just being “gross” isn’t reason enough to ban a person’s behavior. Some people think that it’s gross when I open my asscheeks to other men. Some might say it’s gross when all of that ‘Santorum” comes dripping out after the fact. For those of you not “in the know”, Santorum is a mix of fecal matter, lube, and jizz that sometimes seeps from a person’s asshole after anal sex. Kind of a little bit gross, I suppose.
The dilemma I face here is that I have to think of a reason why bestiality is wrong on a rational basis. I can’t just say that it’s wrong because it’s disgusting, immoral, unnatural, or against some religious doctrine of mine. Because then I wouldn’t be able to dismiss those arguments against me as mere prejudice. I need to think of a reason why my objection to man/dog sex is based in reason, while the homophobes’ objection is simply overbearing religiosity. What we came up with is the old “animals can’t consent” canard, which really isn’t all that believable.
The more I think about it, the more I see that this prohibition against bestiality has got to go. With a few simple questions, I can determine whether or not bestiality enthusiasts “choose” their lifestyle or not. I’m leaning towards no.
First of all, if bestiality were a choice, who in their right mind would choose it, knowing that society would shun and hate them? Does someone reach a certain age and just decide ‘Hey, I want to be known as the neighborhood animal fucker?’ Who would choose it knowing that their old, religious, intolerant mother would cry herself to sleep every night knowing that her child is a perv? Who would choose to be at the bottom of the social stratum, denied equal protection under the law? Any takers? I thought not. So it can’t be a choice.
Second, if sexual attraction to another species is a choice, it naturally follows that sexual attraction to the same species is a choice. I ask myself, when did I choose to be attracted to homo sapiens? Hmmm? Well, I didn’t. It’s just part of my DNA code, the same way sodomy is part of the code. (I’ll find the gene later, m’kay?) So zoophilia (attraction to animals) is obviously not a choice, since androphilia (attraction to human beings) isn’t either. It’s science! There’s no way you can argue with that.
Third, I must say that I would fail Dan Savage’s “choicer” challenge. The pushy, annoying fag coined the term “choicer” in an obvious allusion to “birther” and “truther”. Because if you think that homosexuality is a choice, that means you’re as crazy as the people who think Obama was born in Kenya or that the Moussad pulled off 9/11.
You’re. that. fucking. crazy.
Dan Savage was a little perturbed when Canadian MP John Cummins mentioned on the radio that homosexuality is a “choice”. Enraged as always, Dan devised the ultimate test that would determine whether or not guzzling cum is a choice. He threw the gauntlet down at Cummins’ feet.
But what if the choicers are right? What if being gay is something people consciously choose? Gee, if only there were a way for choicers to prove that they’re right and everyone else is wrong… actually, there is a way for choicers to prove that they’re right! I hereby publicly invite—I publicly challenge—John Cummins to prove that being gay is a choice by choosing it himself.
Suck my dick, John.
I’m completely serious about this, John. You’re not my type—you’re about as far from my type as a human being without a vagina gets—but I have just as much interest as you do in seeing this gay-is-a-choice argument resolved once and for all. You name the time and the place, John, and I’ll show up with my dick and a camera crew. Then you can show the world how it’s done. You can demonstrate how this “conscious choice” is made. You can flip the switch, John, make the choice, then sink to your bony old knees and suck my dick. And after you’ve swallowed my load, John, we’ll upload the video to the internet and you’ll be a hero to other choicers everywhere. It’s time to put your mouth where your mouth is, John. If being gay is a choice, choose it. Show us how it’s done. Suck my dick.
Ha! Ha! Savage sure showed him. Of course, the cowardly Cummins chose not to take him up on the offer, thus proving that sucking Dan’s dick never really was a choice. See how that works? If you choose not to engage in a behavior, you inadvertently prove that the behavior is not a choice.
Savage later offered the same choicer challenge to Herman Cain. Cain too declined to suck Savage’s cock, thus failing the choicer challenge. Bitch.
Now, let’s say a bestiality enthusiast devised a similar “choicer” challenge. You know, he could bring in his prized thoroughbred horse and part-time lover, then offer me the opportunity to get down on my knees and suck it. If I failed to go through with it, that would be proof enough that sucking horsecock isn’t really a choice at all. If it were, I could choose it.
I can say with 99% certainty that I would fail a bestiality “choicer” challenge. I say “99%” because there’s always that lingering doubt in the back of my head that I might be able to get hip to it. But I probably wouldn’t, because sex with animals is not really a choice at all.
The more I think about it, the more I see that zoophiles are kind of like gay people. And gay people are, as we’ve already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, kind of like black people, left-handed people, and redheads. Yeah. Makes sense to me!
So let’s not let the H8ers write the laws in this country. I’m glad Article 125 is being abolished, most of all because I am a sodomy enthusiast, but also because I can see that it unfairly targeted animal lovers. They have civil rights too, you know.
I’d bet that silly World Nut Daily reporter even harbors a secret love for the animal kingdom. He and all the other uptight anti-bestiality people are all a bunch of closet cases. The ones who scream the loudest always end up getting caught later on sneaking around with an Irish setter. Seriously, who spend their time worrying about this stuff other than a repressed animal lover?