Hear the audio version here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)
Back during the debate over repealing the military's ban on homosexuality in the military (and that's what it was, despite all the emotionally driven drivel about it being a ban discriminating against people who wanted to serve their country - otherwise any person who likes to engage in behavior the military bans could claim the same), I asked the question whether anyone actually believed it was going to stop here. For years, liberals have been pursuing their sexual revolution that is intent on breaking down any barriers of traditional morality that have been historically placed on human sexuality. They have preached that such barriers are discriminatory and wrong.
The end result of that, of course, would be and will be sexual anarchy. It's maddening to watch liberals say things like, "Oh, that's a slippery slope argument" or a "floodgates argument" and attempt to dismiss it as such. How far down the slope do we have to be before we acknowledge what we're on?
I've asked the question of homosexuality advocates repeatedly, and not a single one can give me a coherent answer: if you are going to accept the argument that we have to learn to love people for "who they are," and "let people love who they want to love," how do you deny that same principle when the polygamists argue it? Or if you accept the belief that what a person does sexually is their own private decision and the government has no business interfering or prohibiting it, how do you reverse course when someone who engages in bestiality makes the same case? The reason I get no answer from these activists is because you can't. If you accept the logic, you are bound by it.
And as our slide down the slope continues, we have this story emerge, right on cue:
The Senate this evening is poised to vote on a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, but also repeals the military ban on sex with animals--or bestiality.
On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.
It states: "(a) 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. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the effort to remove sodomy from military law stems from liberal Senate Democrats' and President Obama's support for removing the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.
"It's all about using the military to advance this administration's radical social agenda," Perkins told CNSNews.com. "Not only did they overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell, but they had another problem, and that is, under military law sodomy is illegal, just as adultery is illegal, so they had to remove that prohibition against sodomy."
This brings up an interesting question, doesn't it? Isn't that ban on adultery discriminatory against heterosexuals? Why are we discriminating against people for being who they are? Just because you or I may not want to have an extramarital affair, who are we to tell those people who do that they can't? Isn't it time we let the proud adulterers among us serve their country with pride? What a blow for civil rights and social justice that would be!
See how dumb all this is? See how warped our thinking has become? See how weak the positions are that the left attempts to put forward?
Suppose the Democrats in Congress that are pushing this repeal came back and said, "Well, we didn't really mean to repeal the ban on bestiality...just the one on sodomy." And I can totally see them saying that right now when they are embarrassed by what they're doing. So here should be the question they are forced to answer when they do: "What is your basis, your standard, for declaring that kind of sexual behavior to be inappropriate and wrong? And do you not see yourself discriminating against those who merely have a different sexual preference than you? Who are you to tell these people that they are less worthy to serve their country just because they don't have the same sexual inclinations, attractions, and preferences as you?
They will have no answer to these questions because this is the consequence of removing the moral guideposts for human sexuality in your culture. Once they've been uprooted, you can't throw them back down in the ground whenever you find it convenient. The truth of that statement is reflected in each new social experiment the left enacts on us. And those of us who resist it are not the dangerous ones.