Thursday, March 22, 2007

Logical questions about societal acceptance of behavior

I came across this shocking article today on Yahoo News. The level of depravity is certainly alarming:

Wed Mar 21, 6:15 PM ET

SUPERIOR, Wis. - A 20-year-old man received probation after he was convicted of having sexual contact with a dead deer. The sentence also requires Bryan James Hathaway to be evaluated as a sex offender and treated at the Institute for Psychological and Sexual Health in Duluth, Minn. "The state believes that particular place is the best to provide treatment for the individual," Assistant District Attorney Jim Boughner said. Hathaway's probation will be served at the same time as a nine-month jail sentence he received in February for violating his extended supervision. He was found guilty in April 2005 of felony mistreatment of an animal after he killed a horse with the intention of having sex with it. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail and two years of extended supervision on that charge as well as six years of probation for taking and driving a vehicle without the owner's consent. Hathaway pleaded no contest earlier this month to misdemeanor mistreatment of an animal for the incident involving the deer. He was sentenced Tuesday in Douglas County Circuit Court. "The type of behavior is disturbing," Judge Michael Lucci said. "It's disturbing to the public. It's disturbing to the court."

There is a twofold reason for deeming such behavior as depraved. First, it is clear from nature that man is not to have sexual relations with animals. Second, and more importantly- since "natural law" is incomplete, the bible condemns all forms of bestiality (Leviticus 18:23). Unfortunately, natural law and biblical authority have been disregarded when answering questions of sexual morality today. Could not the accused man simply argue he was born preferring bestiality?

I apologize if this subject offends, to some degree, it should. The current acceptability of various forms of sexual behavior and practice is only a few steps removed from a process that legitimizes even this kind of sexual practice.

As it relates to homosexual practice, people have basically been given practical "minority" status for the kind of sexual practice they engage in. It doesn't matter the practice is both unnatural and unbiblical, since enough people agree that it's O.K., then it must be O.K. Further, if enough people agree with the acceptability of certain behavior, it should be accepted as legitimate by all. How many have to agree for a people group to be considered a "minority"? This is what I don't get. The definition of "minority" is less than the majority, but how much less? Since natural law and biblical authority is not the standard, how many people have to accept accept something to grant a certain group minority status?

In my opinion, minority status should be given to racial groups that are in the minority and have a demonstrable need for equal rights. Racism and discrimination are sinful realities and identifying minority status in the case of race makes sense for the sake of equal rights. Minority status should not be given based on gender or the way a person or people practice sexuality. Slowly, but surely, homosexual rights advocates have been pushing minority status for homosexuals so they might somehow be seen as co-strugglers with the civil rights movement. This is certainly crafty, but ought to be rejected, especially by those who have fought for the civil rights of various racial minorities.

I'm glad the state of Wisconsin met the above episode with outrage, however, in light of trends, many questions come to mind, here's a few-

1. If multiple people came forward, after reading this article, and said they thought bestiality is acceptable, would the state grant "minority" status to those who practice bestiality?
2. How many people have to admit to preferring or accepting such a practice to make a new minority group?
3. Why couldn't the accused simply argue he was born preferring this kind of sexual practice then point to other people who practice bestiality?
4. How many other confessing adherents to bestiality would it take to make bestialitists a new minority group?
5. If we no longer consider nature as providing certain self-evident truths, and the bible has largely been rejected, why is this behavior illegal?
6. Despite what nature reveals about the obvious unnaturalness of homosexuality (the body parts don't compliment), it's "legal" in our society, why not bestiality also?

7. Why can't a person insist they were born preferring children (there have been several movements to legitimize pedophilia)?
8. Why not all manner of sexual "preferences" since natural law or biblical authority are not considered but rather only the desire of two "consenting" adults?
9. Maybe "consenting" is the problem in the above story? In the case of the deer, it was dead. What does consent have to do with that?

The questions go on...

Obviously this episode rages against all natural and biblical sensibilities, yet, if we are honest, the current legalities in our country are not based on natural or biblical reasoning at all and will eventually allow for all manner of perversion to become acceptable and possibly even protected.
We desperately need the authoritative direction God's Word provides. Natural law is important and revelatory, however, in light of our sinfulness individually and collectively, it is possible for something to feel natural, and actually be sinful. Despite what seems to be an obvious, natural, mismatch of body parts, same-sex "couples" will say they feel their relationship is natural. Feelings do not determine what is natural. This is why we need Scripture to guide us. God's Word reveals there is a natural order, however, ultimately, Scripture's great value is in differentiating between what is sinful and not sinful.

Back to what I guess is my main point framed in a question-for a society that has largely rejected natural law and biblical authority (as the wide-spread acceptance of homosexual practice reveals), why is the behavior exposed in the above article illegal?


Kampfgruppe Hoppa said...

Did you know that on Tuesday Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) reintroduced the "Hate Crimes" Bill. Naturally, some groups are applauding this, calling it an "appropriate and measured response to the unrelenting and under-addressed problem of violent hate crimes committed against individuals based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability." Is there a difference between violent crimes and violent "hate" crimes? Is it more heinous to murder a homosexual over a heterosexual? I always assumed that violent crime was inherently hateful regardless of who was the victim.

AJF said...

You are right on here. What violence is committed in love or indifference? All violent crime is hateful.

Such "hate crimes" legislation is only a few steps removed from "hate speech" legislation...

rgmann said...

"for a society that has largely rejected natural law and biblical authority (as the wide-spread acceptance of homosexual practice reveals), why is the behavior exposed in the above article illegal?"

There certainly isn't a logically coherent reason is there? It’s sort of like asking why it’s illegal for a mother to murder her one-day-old baby and throw it into a dumpster, but perfectly legal for her to murder her baby while it’s still in the womb (and then have it thrown into a dumpster)?

I suppose it’s because we have not yet reached the level of depravity where a “social consensus” has concluded that bestiality is morally acceptable, as it has with homosexuality. What many otherwise intelligent people seem unable to grasp is that “social consensus” can never determine what is right or wrong. The social consensus of the Spartans in antiquity and of at least some Indian tribes in North America condoned theft and even praised it. Before the Belgians took over the Congo a century or so ago, social consensus approved of cannibalism.

The fact that various societies have considered theft and cannibalism to be right, does not prove that theft and cannibalism are right - nor the murder of babies, either. We can perhaps with relative ease discover what certain groups of people feel is right; but “social consensus” does not and can not make anything right or wrong. Let’s just hope and pray that we never sink to such a level of “social consensus” regarding bestiality!

AJF said...

Excellent points. Well said.

Frontier Forest said...

Hard to find words that adequately describe the knot in my stomach? But if we formed a committee to examine this situation, or took the issue before congress, or allowed the “Via-Media” or the “emerging church” to decide the cause and the solution, I bet the cry for tolerance would be answered much like this: “All of mankind is basically good! It is environment, or how we are raised or lack of education that causes man to think evil thoughts. Society needs to think positive, be more tolerant, and allow everyone to do his or her own thing. The church pews are filled with nothing but a bunch of hypocrites! Preachers must focus only on the good that mankind has done. After all, who are we to judge someone else’s morals?”
Will this kind of “new-age” thinking prevail? Only if those who stand for truth don’t stand up for truth! Lord Jesus have mercy upon us!