The moral descent around the world is moving at an accelerated pace. It seems that everywhere we turn moral degeneracy is front page news. It used to be, “If it bleeds, it leads.” That’s no longer the case. Perversion is the new headline grabber.

Here’s a recent story that did not get a lot of attention:

“A Papa John’s delivery man in Florida has been arrested and charged after he was allegedly caught on hidden camera having sex with the family dog. Joshua Lee Werbicki, 22, was taken into custody on Friday at the Palm Bay restaurant where he works and charged with felony cruelty to animals and misdemeanor criminal sex act with an animal after a video was handed to the police.”

Given the latest court decisions about same-sex sex and same-sex marriages, I don’t understand why this is still a crime or why we should consider it unnatural.

You may remember the story about the scientist who intimated that humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig. So what can be wrong with a human trying to mate with a dog? Isn’t the dog “man’s best friend”? Inter-species sex and love sound quite natural to me given the assumptions of today’s live-and-let-live ethic and the operating assumptions of the secular religion of evolution.

Who can say that such sexual integration isn’t part of evolutionary advancement? Evolutionists have talked about “hopeful monsters,” a term that was suggested by a geneticist named Richard Goldschmidt in the 1930s.” Paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed something similar. They called it “punctuated equilibrium” (punk-eek for short) to contrast their theory with painstaking evolutionary gradualism.

Maybe the pizza man and his dog were on to something.

It was all presaged in the film Spaceballs. You may remember John Candy’s character. “Name’s Barf. I’m a mog, half man, half dog. I’m my own best friend.”

How are mogs made? You see, there was this pizza delivery guy and a dog . . .

Then there’s the standard same-sex argument about love. Homosexuality has been described as “The love that dare not speak its name.” People should not be denied the right to love. What if the man and the family dog were in love with one another? We hear stories of people who leave their estates to their pets. How many times have you heard someone say that they love their pet?

There you go. If the standard for same-sex sex is love, and if the pizza delivery man can show that he and the dog love one another, then who are we to deny them their special relationship?

And what’s good for the family dog must extend to the children. What if a father loves his ten-year-old daughter and the daughter loves her father and wants to have sex with him? Absurd? Not hardly.

“Italy’s Supreme Court sparked international outcry online recently when it overturned the conviction of a 60-year-old man who engaged in a sexual relationship with an 11-year-old girl because they were in love.”

“According to an AFP report, the initial rulings did not take into account the ‘amorous relationship’ the unidentified 11-year-old shared with 60-year-old Pietro Lamberti, a social services worker from Catanzaro in southern Italy.”

Who are we to object if they’re in love?

Without an objective moral standard, nothing that I’ve written in this article is absurd. Any of it could be argued in a court of law. On what fundamental, transcendental, moral standard do our courts stand on at the moment? They no longer have a place to stand.