Wednesday, December 5, 2012

The Love That Dare Not Bark Its Name

From the November 27, 2012 U.K. Guardian comes this story of narrow-minded, intolerant, sexophobes:

Germany to ban bestiality under animal welfare law

Germany is to introduce a ban on bestiality with a revision of animal welfare law that will reverse a decision in 1969 to legalise zoophilia.

Animal rights groups have called for the practice to be recognised as animal defilement and rape, using dramatic photographs of animals being cruelly treated by humans for sexual purposes to put pressure on the German government.
Zoophiles, or those who practise bestiality, argue that they treat animals as equals and never force them to do anything against their will.
Unsurprisingly, this attempt to ban sex with animals means that "zoophiles" are going to file suit to prevent the Merkel government from pursuing this.  And unsurprisingly, American liberals are making the argument that the U.S. needs to catch up with Germany on sexual liberation, as in this follow-up piece in the November 29, 2012 Guardian.

Interestingly, it appears that Germany decriminalized bestiality when they decriminalized homosexuality.  Remember when liberals and libertarians were misquoting Senator Santorum to make it appear that he was saying that they were equivalent?  He wasn't, of course.  He was saying if laws against homosexuality are suspect because they represent a majority view of morality, then what could justify keeping these other laws, which were also based on a majority view of morality?  The answer, in German, it appears, was nothing.  And even now, it is only concern with animal welfare driving this law--certainly not anything as second millennium as Christianity.

6 comments:

Anthony said...

On the plus side, San Francisco banned public nudity. They've finally realized that walking around with your dick hanging out is essentially sexual harassment.

Rich Rostrom said...

Volokh Conspiracy ran a long post from a new contributor arguing that the animal cruelty basis for bestiality laws is not supportable; and that if it is lawful to kill an animal at will, there is no serious argument to criminalize copulation with an animal.

And I just had a conversation with a libertarian friend who said he agreed - even though he is a devout evangelical Christian. (Or was... haven't asked him lately.)

We are going down the sewer, faster every day.

I wonder how long before bestiality becomes as respectable as homosexuality.

I can see all kinds of rationalizations:

"It's better if men satisfy themselves with animals than committing rape."

"An animal doesn't care if its partner is obese or deformed. It's a way for the severely handicapped, elderly, or mutilated to have pleasure."

"I bought my daughter a sex-trained dog. It will keep her from chasing after boys and getting pregnant."

"It reduces transmission of STDs."

Would you bet against it?

AlanKH said...

Old Conventional Wisdom: get it on with the Aryan Race and no other.

New Conventional Wisdom: get it on with other species.

Couldn't Germany find a happy medium?

Clayton said...

Rick: I agree that if it is okay to kill an animal to eat it, it is difficult to justify banning sex with animals from an animal rights' perspective. But our prohibitions on this come not from animal rights, but from the Judeo-Christian moral framework. But because that no longer has any influence in Europe, and very little in America....

Windy Wilson said...

For that matter, what is the argument against public nudity the council used in San Francisco? Hygiene? Judeo-Christians had a religious-based argument against public nudity, which the Adamites, among others objected to, but there really isn't a strong argument arising out of the secular realm.

Clayton said...

Once you acknowledge that laws in one area can be based on Judeo-Christian morality, then it is impossible to distinguish such laws from the ones against homosexuality, and that means that all such laws have to be destroyed in the name of consistency.