The picture is from the Wikipedia article “Legality of bestiality in the United States.” I have no idea if it’s perfectly accurate, but I’m guessing it’s close. And so the old joke “Wyoming: where the men are men, and the sheep are nervous” has a basis in truth.
There is another chart under the first one, which can see by surfing over, entitled “Legality of sale and distribution of zoophilic pornography in the United States”. You won’t be surprised to learn California is one of these paradises. The pr0n itself is legal in all but Oregon, which is surprising, given that state has a large contingent of Antifa.
Well, whatever. Bestiality, a.k.a. zoophilia, is a sexual orientation.
And since lusting for goats and for the beasts of the fields is a sexual orientation, it will be protected under the new sexual orientation laws that are coming to a location near you. Not “it”. I mean the people who you don’t want as cat sitters. They will be protected.
“Come on, Briggs. Everybody knows bestiality isn’t a sexual orientation.”
Is it not? Why not? I mean, why not specifically?
“Everybody knows sexual orientation means LGBT.”
So sexual orientation only applies to sodomy? No. That doesn’t make sense. The “T”s who play dress up might even opt for normal sexual relations, i.e. reproductive ones. And they’re protected.
Is isn’t a matter of “consent”. We don’t ask chickens if they wouldn’t mind eating them, so we needed ask them if they’d be first interested in a little foreplay.
And if you’re worried about sexual orientation not applying to live animals, well, it could apply to dead ones. No worries at all about consent, then. We could all the orientation zoonecrophilia. Road kill could take on a whole new meaning.
Besides, there is nothing in the world that privileges sodomy. Singling it out for special protection is bigotry. A prejudice. Saying zoophiles, or zoonecrophiles, can’t have simulated sex with animals “dehumanizes” them. It says they “don’t exist” as people. Or at least I think that’s how the argument goes.
As long as we’re at it, and we have now come to the enlightened view that zoonecrophilia is a sexual orientation, then so is old-fashioned necrophilia (as we said a week back or so) a sexual orientation. No question of consent here, either. And anyway, consent could always be given by the pre-deceased in anticipation of their sexy demise.
You might not like it, but once you cast aside natural law and allow “sexual orientation”, there is no justification whatsoever in denying any behavior as legitimate. Of course, lines will be drawn. I’m betting zoonecrophilia won’t show up in any library story times taught by zoonecrophilic drag queens any time soon — though I do not say it is impossible. I do insist that disallowing such thing is utterly inconsistent with the espoused philosophy of sexual orientation.
The people advocating for zoonecrophilia, or for whatever perversion that strikes their fancy, will use this point in their advocacy. “You let them, so why not let us? We have rights, too.”
How long before we hear Fr James Martin announcing, “God made necrophiliacs that way. They are differently ordered. They have unique spiritual gifts to offer us. The Church has historically treated them badly. We need to welcome them with open arms”?
I’ll tell you how long. Not long.
If Martin, SJ, does not say such things, he too is being inconsistent; he too is a bigot and is prejudiced. Call him that and he will weaken and be forced to agree.