I don't really follow the Gay Atheist blog, but @
cinematt01 RT'd an article that I took a lot of issue with.
Disgusting! RT @gayatheist Zoophiles Coming Out, A Man Admits To Animal Attraction: The Next Gay Rights Movement? http://tinyurl.com/m6aqya
If you know me at all or have read any of my other entries on gay marriage, then you likely know I'm incredibly offended by this article. For starters, it tries to make the gay community sound like the bad guys for not allowing Zoophilacs in on our ballot - that we're one and the same. Other than the fact that animals cannot consent within any reason of human law, we are fighting for equal-marriage rights for two consenting adult humans under human law. We're not asking for a complete legal overhaul so much as simple inclusion.
Secondly, the article states "People turn a blind eye to the fact that a dog is a sexual being." NO, dogs are NOT. Yes, animals have sex, but from what I understand, Humans and Dolphins are the only two species of animals that actually get pleasure from sexual contact. Sure, pigs have orgasms that last thirty minutes, but they don't get pleasure out of it. Dogs use humping often as either practice for sexual behavior or to assert dominance. There are certain species of monkeys that use sex instead of war (two fighting prides will simply mate with each other and become one big monkey family.) A sexual relationship between human and animal could be misconstrued by the animal as either a dominance issue or peace treaty, or even completely misunderstood and it becomes part of training... and any way it's looked at, inter-species sex
is unnatural. I know many people say that about homosexual human contact but that, at least, is well documented within most sectors of the animal kingdom and throughout history, and in humans it's consenting homosexual relationships between members of the same species.
Asserting that it is possible to have an emotional relationship with an animal is plausible, but there is no way to quantify or qualify a non-human animal's capacity to exhibit love in any human terms, so until an animal to human translator is developed, it is unethical to even consider equal marriage rights for zoophiliacs. I can expect that Zoophiliacs put animals on equal level to them, which would allow for the assumption that they can love humans back. I, of course, completely disagree with this notion.
I would compare Zoophilia more to Pedophilia than to Homosexuality. Pedophiles also often believe that it is not an affliction but a sexual orientation that they were born with, and consider Children to be on the same mental, physical, and emotional level as themselves. Children and animals are
not on the same mental, physical, or emotional plane as adult humans, and therefore cannot consent or legally participate in sexual or emotional encounters with adult humans the same way that adult humans engage each other sexually and emotionally.
That, and it's just icky.
