NJ Lawmakers Vote to Discriminate Against People Who Want to Have Sex with Animals
Lawmakers in New Jersey did a discriminatory thing. I realize that for most (probably all, although there are some liberal trolls) the readers of Godfather Politics will approve of what New Jersey has done. But take note of the fact there is no moral, logical, constitutional, traditional, legal, or scientific basis for its decision given the way our courts are ruling.
The Associated Press is reporting that the “state Senate [of New Jersey] unanimously approved a measure that would bar people from having sexual contact with animals.”
How is this possible in a time when sexual choice is the prevailing moral ethic? What people choose to do sexually is nobody else’s business.
What if people are born that way? Isn’t this the argument of those working overtime to normalize same-sex everything? Bruce Jenner wants to become a woman because he believes he is a woman on the inside.
Trending: What’s Happened to Ann Coulter?
President Obama issued a statement “indicating that he and First Lady Michelle Obama would commemorate “International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.”
“Michelle and I join our fellow Americans and others around the world in commemorating the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia . . . [on] May 17. We take this opportunity to reaffirm that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights are human rights, to celebrate the dignity of every person, and to underscore that all people deserve to live free from fear, violence, and discrimination, regardless of who they are or whom they love.”
How discriminatory! Bestialphobic!
The omni-sex crowd should be outraged that there is no mention of the love that some men and women have for and with their pets. Note what President Obama declared: “regardless of who they are or whom they love.”
I think it’s time to boycott New Jersey for discriminating against people who want to engage in a sexual relationship with animals.
On what moral or legal basis can people be denied to have sex with their pets or any animal? An appeal can’t be made to the legal tradition since the courts have ignored history. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the following in April about same-sex marriage:
Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition … Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female.
Why isn’t this also true for human-animal sex? Actually, given the operating assumptions of evolution, we humans are also animals. The Bloodhound Gang got it right:
You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals
So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.
Let’s not forget that the Bible, disdained and rejected for its views on same-sex sexuality, also prohibits bestiality: ” Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.” (Lev. 18:23). If the Bible is to rejected for its outdated views on same-sex sexuality, then it’s only consistent to reject its prohibition against sex with animals.