Hear the audio version here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)
Veteran White House correspondent Lester Kingsolving had the temerity to ask the question: "Does the Commander-in-Chief approve or disapprove of bestiality in our armed forces?" I could be mistaken, but I am guessing this is the first time the subject of human sex with animals ever came up at the daily White House press briefing. Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney made it clear he was sincerely unimpressed with the question, condescendingly brushing it off by scolding, "I don't have any comment on that...let's get to something more serious."
Shock value aside, it's a reasonable question given that the liberal Democrats in the United States Senate managed to tuck an amendment into the recent defense appropriations bill that would repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which states, "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy." If Jay Carney finds the issue to be unserious, he should have taken the opportunity to harpoon members of the president's own party who authored the repeal rather than the reporter who merely asked about it.
It's fair to assume that the intended purpose of those seeking the repeal of Article 125 was far more about legalizing human sodomy than it was about giving the green light to bestiality. Repealing the ban on intimate sexual contact between practicing homosexuals is merely the next logical step after having opened the military door to them. The President made repealing the ban on open homosexuality his major order of business regarding the American armed forces. His rationale was that it was discriminatory to prohibit those with different sexual preferences, inclinations and attractions from serving their country with pride. But if that's the case, then what is the logical distinction that can be drawn by those same "civil rights champions" to deny such an opportunity to those who are sexually attracted to animals? Why make them "lie about who they are?"
Typically when this question is posed to liberals, they offer the same "you've got to be kidding" reaction that Kingsolving received. But noticeably absent from their snickering, jeering and scoffing dismissals is any form of a coherent response to the question. If the answer is so obvious, let's hear it. What makes a liberal who sits in moral judgment of another person's sexual attraction to animals any less bigoted and discriminatory than a conservative who sits in moral judgment of a person's attraction to members of the same sex? What is the standard that is used?
A similar philosophical challenge can be made in the realm of pedophilia. Around the same time the bestiality story broke, disgraced former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky granted an on-camera interview to the New York Times where he acknowledged to the reporter that he was, "attracted to [young] boys and girls." As socially unacceptable as it may be, that doesn't change the fact that it's his preferred sexual experience. And Sandusky is far from alone.
For years, pedophiles have testified to the fact that they are sexually aroused by young children in a way that they just don't find elsewhere. Given the left's prohibition on "judging," where does that leave us with men like Sandusky?
Let me clarify this point: I am not suggesting that homosexuality and pedophilia are equivalent. They are not. Nor do I believe that they should be treated identically under the criminal law. Homosexual participants are typically consenting adults, while pedophilia usually involves an unwilling and victimized child. Therefore, child molesting involves a degree of sexual abuse that homosexuality does not encompass.
That stipulated, the left must explain how they can consider it ethical to sit in judgment of the sexual predilections of a self-described MAP (minor-attracted person) while they piously forbid others to sit in judgment of those of an LGBT. Liberals have preached for decades that one does not "choose" their sexual appetite or preference. They have told us that it is bigoted and hateful to delegitimize or discriminate against another's natural sexual penchants, whether or not we personally share their urges.
So Jay Carney's arrogance notwithstanding, Kingsolving's question was not an outrageous one after all. For the sake of clarity and sanity, it is time that the left be required to declare the standard by which they seek to define our society's sexual norms. What of a military man who wants to copulate with an animal, or of a pedophile who is attracted to young children? Are those feelings natural? Must they be respected? Were they born that way? If not, does that not contradict everything the left has been preaching? Or if so, how can liberal progressives possibly condemn them without violating the very standard of bigotry they have been beating conservatives up with for a generation?
No wonder Carney took a pass.