Bestiality “OK If Animal Approves”
“Frank Kameny, a hero to the homosexual community who was integral in pressuring the American Psychiatric Association to reclassify same-sex activities as ‘normal,’ has written to a pro-family organization that he believes bestiality is fine, ‘as long as the animal doesn’t mind.’ In a weekend letter to Americans for Truth, an organization dedicated to revealing the truth about homosexuality, Kameny also said there is no such thing as ’sexual perversion.’ ‘Absolutely indisputably a central part of the very definition of Americanism is the guarantee, found in the Declaration of Independence, as not merely a Right, but as an Inalienable Right, of the ‘Pursuit of Happiness,” he wrote. ‘If something which someone arbitrarily defines as a ’sexual perversion’ provides happiness for consenting adult participants, then its enjoyment is enshrined in basic Americanism. So: Let us have more and better enjoyment of more and better sexual perversions, by whatever definition, by more and more consenting adults. We will all be the better off thereby. And that will be Americanism in action,’ he said… Kameny, now 83, said, ‘Bestiality is not my thing … But it seems to be a harmless foible or idiosyncrasy of some people. So, as long as the animal doesn’t mind (and the animal rarely does), I don’t mind, and I don’t see why anyone else should.’” — WorldNetDaily (US)
(Thanks to Furpo for the link.)
There are two issues here: first, Mr. Kameny’s argument in favor of bestiality and, implicity, AFTAH’s argument against it; second, the wisdom of sending a pro-bestiality argument to a group that clearly doesn’t want to hear it. (Americans for Truth About Homosexuality is a group “dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda. AFTAH seeks to apply the same single-minded determination to opposing the radical homosexual agenda and standing for God-ordained sexuality and the natural family as countless homosexual groups do in promoting their harmful agenda.”)
Kameny’s argument is premised on consent: if an animal consents to sexual behavior with a human, then does another human have the right to interfere or to pass judgement? To this AFTAH responds: “how exactly does an animal signal his or her ‘consent’ to have sex with a human?” Admittedly, it’s a tricky question. If you look at it philosophically, it raises all sorts of issues about what it means to be human or animal and what it means to communicate. While there may be evidence that some animals use primitive language systems and engage in mechanical forms of reasoning, few would argue that animals are rational or capable of making any higher-level decision about sexual consent. To this most bestialists would respond that you only have to spend significant time with animals to develop lines of communication with them. Animals may not speak as they do in Doctor Doolittle, but there are a variety of ways they can indicate consent. A dog doesn’t need to talk to show you he likes being petted.
As is the case with most philosophical conundrums, there is never going to be an irrefutable resolution to the question. People will choose sides but the argument itself isn’t going to evolve. Which leads directly to the second issue: is there any point in Mr. Kameny sending a pro-bestiality screed to AFTAH? LaBarbera and his followers will never accept the pro-bestiality argument. Kameny and his followers will never accept the anti-bestiality argument. You’re left with the spectacle of opponents engaging in debates that will lead nowhere. About the best outcome for which either side can hope is that the contest serves to get his argument out to the public.
In the end, though, it’s difficult to imagine that this debate will be solved by debating. A greater force has entered the game, like the deus ex machina in a Greek play. It’s the internet. Never before in history have deviants been able to come together, communicate, or organize as they do now. (That’s precisely Mr. LaBarberra’s bugaboo.) Will the world at large ever learn to accept bestiality? Now may be the moment that that question gets answered. Imagine the internet as one huge poll on a single question: “Do you think it’s ok for people to have sex with animals?” You get the sense that it won’t be long before a majority emerges.
Personally, I don’t care for far-left wackos any more than I care for far-right wackos, and this Frank Kameny begins to sound a bit like a far-left wacko.
no animal wants to be raped by a human, i really don’t care usually how two consenting human adults enjoy their bodies but if it involves another party that cannot by human standards give clear verbal consent and is not mentally able to clearly understand what is about to go on then it is wrong, my philosophy is that as long as the sex doesn’t involve children or animals then a person is free to do as she or he pleases in their own home, but like 10 yr old little johnny the 2 yr old labrador cannot give consent and so i believe it is rape and rape is against the premise of “pursuit of happiness”
i personally don’t “get” people into that sorta thing. i like adult human males. but, what if the dog (just to pick an animal) is humping you and you allow it penetration? is that “consent”? probably. i mean, he started it. so really, the problem is someone sticking something into the dog. if you don’t restrain it, penetrate it, and it’s ok and sticks with ya, maybe that’s enough? i mean, we gotta separate dogs from kids a bit. a kid really doesn’t know how to fight back, but a dog can and will get you if you harm it.
Do you have the phrase ‘heavy petting’ in the States?
All comments become the property of PervScan. You must use an email address to post a comment. However, PervScan disallows email addresses in the text of comments.
Vag Vids
