Sliding Down the Slippery Slope

In an article worth a full reading, Nathan Winograd gives chapter-and-verse on the lengthy BLM/CRT support for, not just bestiality/"zoophilia", but all manner of animal abuse (at least when committed by BIPOCs). He writes:

In addition to trying to normalize bestiality by controlling the language we use to discuss it, [North Dakota State University professor Anastassiya] Andrianova, like [Duke University professor Kathy] Rudy before her, is trying to coopt the social movement for marriage equality, even though the latter represents a difference of kind, not degree. Andrianova and Rudy, as well as [Ph.D. candidate Jess] Ison, conflate criticism of bestiality with homophobia and patriarchy, with Ison claiming in The Zoo Closet: On Whether Bestiality is a Queer Liberation Ethic, that “fears about bestiality arose from controlling both women’s sex and same-sex relations” and Andrianova complaining that laws against bestiality were passed at the same time and for the same reasons as those proscribing “non-procreative sex” between consenting adult humans.

Given that “the vast majority of discussions around bestiality existed [historically] in the twinned realms of moral theology and juridical practices” that had their roots in “the book of Leviticus,” Rudy further wonders why,

Humans can kill animals, force them to breed with each other, eat them… hunt them, nail them down and cut them open for science, and for the most part, the humans who perform those acts can be thought of as normal, functioning members of society. Yet having sex with animals remains an almost unspeakable anathema.

. . . But offering countervailing arguments about when and why animals go into heat or their level of sentience does not feel commensurate with what is being advocated. It puts me at a loss. Responding with incredulity and denouncing the claims without the restraint of civility seems more appropriate, but doing so runs the risk of embracing a logical fallacy, such as an appeal to force or ad hominem. Responding dispassionately and measuredly, however, risks reducing the rape of animals to an academic exercise that (falsely) suggests reasonable people can differ. They cannot and it pains me that anyone would need to be convinced of this.

Quite simply, there is no atrocity against animals that CRT/queer theory professors will not defend. And not only do they embrace abuse, they do so by disparaging gay people and people of color, turning the fight for equality into the promotion of disparity and the struggle for the right to live with dignity into an appeal to depravity.

Indeed, without pre-existing theological commitments, I too would view the issue as an academic exercise. And in the politics of the day, the conflict between the interests of zoophiles/pedophiles on the one hand and animals/children on the other will be decided in the same way that the conflict between interests of pregnant women and their unwanted fetuses has been resolved: only one side of these conflicts can vote Democrat.

As it happens, I do have pre-existing theological commitments, and they do come straight from Leviticus (and every other part of the Bible, while we're at it). As he makes clear, Winograd is happy to abandon Leviticus as a source of moral instruction, understanding it correctly as inconvenient to his and the Left's other political commitments. He is now having to grapple how thin his remaining defenses actually are now that the Left is coming for Fido. His remaining choices are to either go on about "sentience" or point-and-sputter. The future does not bode well for Fido.