Greetings Trey,
Thanks for taking the time to enter this counterintuitive blog. I believe this is a more simple subject than you or muddle might realize. Pedophilia, incestuous behavior, and "rights of rats and animals versus rights of people issues (???)" do not even apply here. We are not talking about situations like incest or pedophilia which produce victims. We aren't talking about beast or beastiality. Here is what we are speaking of: The rights of adult human beings, created in His image, as codified by The Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The right of ALL human beings to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have no claim to anyone else's happiness. True, they cannot violate our rights, but we are given no claim to Mary Cheny's pursuit of happiness.

Hermaphrodites DO exist. We cannot wish them away. People with ambiguous genitalia do exist, in astonishingly large numbers. We have no right to force them into gender reassignment surgeries. If you have free time, look at the success rates of these gender reassignments. They typically occur in infancy prior to the child's sexual identity being formed. The resultant rate of "homosexual" feelings and behavior is very high among this group. Another group with a very low success rate is the interventionist group run by James Dobson to change the behavior of homosexuals. They admit that the rate of successful transformation is low, but they are obligated to try.
My overall point is this: amending the Constitution to define marraige as union between XX and XY requires you to confirm XX and XY. You open a can of worms requiring the differentiation between hermaphrodites, transsexuals, pre-operative, post-operative, and everything in between. you can't say "not many of them exist so we just won't address it." When you open this can of worms, it must be addressed. But if you view marraige or civil unions as a contract between two consenting adults, it becomes a non issue.
Mary Cheny was born with an attraction to the same sex. It is not her parents' fault. It was not her upbringing. I can see no harm to my wonderful marraige caused by her buying a house with the love of her life, filing a joint tax return with her, or having her as the sole beneficiary in her Last Will and Testament. It is not my concern. It does not change what my wife and I vowed before God or the State of Oklahoma.
I am very conservative in my own life, but I stake no claim to the intimate contact or relationship between other consenting adults.

"...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Take care Trey and Muddle, and thanks again for your opinions!

Kevin Hack King

The timing is uncanny.

Today I am working on an article that takes its cue from philosopher Peter Singer's defense of bestiality, or "zoophilia"--sex with animals. I argue that if homosexuality is defensible, then so is every variety of sexual "alternative."

Some time back, I posted a version here of an earlier published thing on this. A second, up-and-coming magazine has asked me to take the argument further than I did in the earlier article. The editor has this version (below) but I fully expect some significant changes. I post it here in reply to the question at hand.

--------------

Peter Singer is probably the only philosopher ever to be interviewed by Dan Rather. Philosophers don’t typically make headlines. One is not likely to open the morning paper to read: “EXTERNAL WORLD, OTHER MINDS REALLY THERE, PHILOSOPHER CONCLUDES.” But Rather sought out Singer for his controversial—some would say outrageous—views. He is perhaps best known for his 1975 book, Animal Liberation, in which he argues that the interests of individual animals count equally with those of individual humans.

In one essay, Singer balances the interests of children living in a slum against those of rats who occasionally bite those children. Would it be permissible to exterminate the rats for the sake of the children’s health and well-being? For Singer, this is a genuine moral dilemma, because the rats enjoy a moral standing equal to that of the children. (Philosopher Donald VanDeVeer regards Singer’s position here as a reductio ad absurdum—a sufficient reason for rejecting Singer’s principles and premises.)

The dilemma might be relaxed—in favor of the rats—if the waifs are below a certain age. According to Singer, there is no good sense in which we may say that infants have any rights, such as a right to life. “Killing a disabled infant is sometimes not wrong, given that the infant like any infant is not a person as I see it," he told Rather in the February, 2002 60 Minutes interview. "I think that it's ethically defensible to say we do not have to continue its life. It does not have a right to life. And we can choose to end its life on the grounds that the future otherwise will be very bleak for that child.” Actually, Singer’s talk of “rights” for anyone or anything is misleading since, given his utilitarianism, he subscribes to Jeremy Bentham’s view that the notion of rights is “nonsense on stilts.” But even if there is some extended sense in which he is entitled to employ the term, we may observe that, if, as he suggests, no infant is a person and thus has no rights, then killing even the healthiest of infants is never murder. Presumably, if it is wrong at all, its wrongness would be derived from the interests of actual persons whose “rights” are somehow infringed. Another reductio?

But the newly installed Princeton professor was just getting warmed up. He suggested that advances in medicine might be had by performing dangerous experiments on living—but irreversibly comatose—patients, with the permission of their families, of course. “I think there perhaps are some things which could be done with people who are no longer conscious at all, and will never recover consciousness," he said. “It would be ethically justifiable to approach the relatives and to say, ‘Look, we want to find out whether certain drugs produce adverse reactions in human beings. Do you have any objections to us doing this test on your relative, who can no longer suffer from it because he or she can no longer feel anything at all?” Rather, who as a veteran reporter had seen and heard just about everything, recoiled at the suggestion. "Professor, I want to be candid with you. I find this astonishing. The very concept of doing something that might take a human life when you could run the experiment on an animal is abhorrent to me."

Astonishing? Abhorrent? Yes, indeed. One might have thought that there is little else that the distinguished philosopher might say that would shock. But apparently Singer is one for pushing the envelope. Hence, his essay, “Heavy Petting,” which was published on the pornographic website, nerve.com. Here, Singer discusses an entirely different sort of “experimentation” on animals. He defends the moral permissibility of bestiality—sex with animals.

He begins by noting that many sexual taboos—from the use of contraceptives to sodomy (the latter, he suggests, is “part of the joy of sex”)--have been broken down. But he observes, “not every taboo has crumbled.” “Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog? Probably not. Sex with animals is still definitely taboo.”

Warming to his topic, Singer does not shrink from employing language that would redden the cheeks of the scurviest pirate. The “F-bomb” is dropped frequently, for example. The obscenities that one might read in a public restroom are used to describe both genitalia and their suggested uses. About the only thing the article omits is, “For a good time, call (number for the local animal shelter?).”

Why the lingering opposition when it comes to bestiality? Singer suggests that it stems, in part, from the view that all non-reproductive sex is immoral (and, of course, “heavy petters” are probably not knitting baby stockings). Beyond this, Christians think that only humans have been created in God’s image, and that this sets them apart. To the contrary, he asserts, “we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes.” And because this is so, bestiality “ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.” Indeed, by Singer’s lights, bestiality is morally objectionable only when it entails cruelty to the animal. “But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty,” he suggests. These premises yield his conclusion as ineluctably as Aristotle’s famous premises regarding the way of all flesh guarantee the mortality of Socrates.

The website that features Singer’s piece hosts a “feedback” section where readers may express their thoughts. The reactions to the article are diverse, ranging from outright disgust to praise for the professor’s “courage” in “tackling” such a controversial issue. Several readers confess to the practice—some with more graphic detail than one might desire. One “widowed” gentleman attests that, were it not for the attentions of his Labrador retriever, he would have no sex life at all. (After all, “If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.”) Another male reader, a self-described scuba diver, tells of a satisfying sexual encounter with a male dolphin—at the dolphin’s insistence. He adds, nobly, “It was a small price to pay for being protected against sharks.” (At this, one might note that credulity does have its limits.) There is a post by Princeton Students Against Infanticide, who are opposed to Singer’s appointment at their university, an open letter from a Rutgers law professor encouraging colleagues to voice their protest to Singer’s views, and not a few posts from animal rights advocates who insist that, despite Singer’s assurances to the contrary, bestiality constitutes animal abuse. Another reader posted an article penned by philosopher Tom Regan, a formidable defender of animal rights and one-time Singer collaborator, who condemns Singer’s view. One young lady posted her term paper written for an introductory philosophy course at UCLA. In a discussion ripe for parody, she concerns herself with the means of knowing whether the act is consensual. (After all, “No” means NO!—whether bleated or barked.) She thinks that both religious considerations and the claim that bestiality (“zoophilia”) is a perversion are problematic, and brushes such discussions aside. Her conclusion: “any rational person should recognize that bestiality as a practice is not intrinsically immoral.” Another post, while lacking such erudition, cuts to the chase with that ubiquitous sophomoric question, “Who’s to say it’s wrong?”

My standard reply to this latter question is that it is wrongheaded. The question is not whether anyone occupies the role of final moral arbiter, but whether there are, in fact, any tenable moral principles that would either condemn or condone. But given certain background assumptions regarding human nature and origins, the question takes on a new significance. I take it that Singer himself would agree with Carl Sagan’s assessment that “the Cosmos is all that is, was, and ever will be”—a deliberate mimicry of the Gloria Patri. Sagan was not the first to sing an atheistic doxology. Before him, Bertrand Russell penned his “A Free Man’s Worship,” a sort of Naturalist Creed in which he confessed his belief that “man is a product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving.” It is only on the “firm foundation of unyielding despair” that the “soul’s habitation” can “henceforth be safely built.” If we begin with the naturalistic assumptions of a Sagan, Russell or Singer, then we might ask indeed, “Who’s to say it’s wrong?”

Dostoevsky famously suggested that “if God does not exist everything is permitted,” and Jean-Paul Sartre, with Dostoevsky’s work at his elbow, wrote that when God disappears he takes with Him the entire “heaven of ideas”—which would have included true moral principles. “Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is that we are on a plane where there are only men,” he lamented. Presumably, the point of reminding us that we are on a level where there are only humans is to note that “men” disagree on moral matters. And, given such disagreement where there is no higher Moral Authority, “Who’s to say?”

Sartre described his own philosophy as nothing more or less than “an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position.” The most fundamental consequence is that, if man is a product of Russell’s blind causes, then, for him, “existence is prior to essence.” For those who believe in God, just the reverse is true: essence is prior to existence. And this is to say that there is an essence or nature of humanity that resided in the mind of God prior to creating. God created us with a purpose or function. We were made for something, and we live well or flourish insofar as we live in accordance with that design plan, function properly, or, to use Sartre’s language, bring our existence into harmony with our essence.

But if there is no God, then “first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself.” The moral import of Sartre’s claim is that in a universe bereft of God, the Good Life is up for grabs. If we do not exist for something, Sartre thought, then there is no blueprint for us to follow, and our lives have no discoverable meaning. It is up each individual to determine what is meaningful for her. “If I’ve discarded God the Father, there has to be someone to invent values. You’ve got to take things as they are.”

All of this has a direct bearing on our assessment of Singer’s discussion. If we “take things as they are”—or the way that Peter Singer supposes them to be—then there can be no serious talk of sexual perversion of any kind. A thing is “perverted” in the event that it is “twisted” away from its intended use, and misused to ill purpose. But the very concept of “misuse” makes sense only within a certain context, and that context is design. Guitars are made for playing music, not for paddling canoes or hitting tennis balls. Rocks, on the other hand, are not for anything, and are not “misused” as hammers, paperweights or weapons.

From a theistic perspective one may find the resources for arguing that there is such a thing as a properly functioning libido, so that we may distinguish between desires that are natural and normal (and thus normative), and those that are deviant or perverse.
Arguably, we have been created to be heterosexual and monogamous, and, all other things being equal, we flourish insofar as we cultivate such a relationship. It is no coincidence that sexual intimacy, which, properly understood is the purest expression of devoted romantic love, is also the means whereby families are formed. It is thus at once the expression of such love and the means of reproduction, and its proper function is reducible to neither to the exclusion of the other.

In a naturalistic universe, however, human nature—and, in particular, human sexual nature—is more like rocks than guitars. It has not been designed for aparticular purpose or function, and so the notion of its “misuse” is a non-starter. Sexual existence precedes sexual essence. We find ourselves on a plane where there are only men, and they, in turn, are found to have multifarious desires clamoring for fulfillment. Some are heterosexual and monogamous; others can claim only the former. Still others are drawn to various “alternatives,” including, of course, those in the gay community, but also the pedophiles, polyamorics, sadomasochists, necrophiles and Singer’s “zoophiles.” Witness the existence of the “North American Man/Boy Love Association,” Their goal is “to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships.” Their logo—“NAMbLA”—features the upper case “M” bent over the lower case “b”—thus indicating that unlike, say, Big Brothers of America, members aim to teach youth more than how to throw a good knuckleball.

Singer himself uses the words “natural” and “normal” with trepidation (“whatever those much-misused words may mean”), and well he might. Given his background assumptions regarding human nature, it is difficult to see how the term “normal” can retain its normative connotations. All that is left is the statistical average sense of the word, in which we merely compare a practice to the behavior of some percentage of the population. And this, of course, invites the sorts of inferences that have been drawn from Alfred Kinsey’s controversial research.

Surprisingly many people reported experiencing—and acting upon—desires that deviate from the heterosexual and monogamous standard. 69% of white males reported having had sex with a prostitute at least once; 37% of males and 13% of females reported at least one same-sex experience that was taken to “fruition”; some 10% of males between the ages of 16 and 55 reported being predominantly homosexual, and 8% were exclusively so; some 50% of men reported having extramarital sex at some time during their married lives, and 26% of females confessed. Singer cites Kinsey on bestiality: “Kinsey…found that 8 percent of males and 3.5 percent of females…had, at some time, had a sexual encounter with an animal. Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent” (A potential answer to the question, “How ya gonna keep ‘em down on the farm?”). The inference often drawn—certainly encouraged by Kinsey himself—is that there just is not any good sense in which we may speak of a sexual desire or behavior as unnatural, abnormal or perverse. It is hard to resist this conclusion if we are closer to the bonobos than the angels, as Singer insists.

To be sure, some desires, if fulfilled, involve harm to others and might on that basis be squelched. But the statistical average sense of “normal” is, by itself, hardly sufficient for censuring certain desires or behaviors. (Were we to think otherwise, then, in the event that we found ourselves in a society in which lifelong marital fidelity was the rare exception, we might shun the faithful husband as a social deviant.) The very presence of such desires among humans indicates that they are included within the sexual repertoire of the collective species, and, if we are the mere animals that Singer takes us to be, it is hard to see how they can be eschewed as “unnatural” any more than any observed bonobo sexual behavior may be deemed such. “One by one the taboos have fallen,” Singer has told us. Perhaps we have discovered the reason why: given naturalism there was never anything to hold them up.

In Singer’s world, members of the “Ten Percent Society”—whose name is drawn from Kinsey’s claim that ten percent of males are homosexuals—are on solid ground in arguing that there is no good sense in which homosexuality is a perversion. And the standard argument for the validity of the gay lifestyle moves from premises reporting the presence of incorrigible homosexual desires to a conclusion regarding their validity. But if we think that this is sound reasoning, then on what principled ground may we preclude the pedophile, the zoophile or the necrophile? They, too, are driven by their own respective and intransigent desires. The necrophile, is by definition, harming no one. And the zoophile need only be gentle. The guy who offered the dubious report of an “enjoyable” submarine liaison with a dolphin went on to say, “for any man to have sex with hens and small birds is plain sick.” Is it any less arbitrary to justify sodomy on the grounds that there are sodomites, but to reject the parallel argument offered by the polyamoric or the zoophile?

Members of NAMbLA may take heart in the fact that they have some academics on their side. Gayle Rubin, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, has argued that the government’s crackdown on child molesters is “a savage and undeserved witch hunt.” She describes pedophiles as belonging to a “stigmatized sexual minority” and pleads, “We must not reject all sexual contact between adults and young people as inherently oppressive.” The popular Dateline series, “To Catch a Predator” is thus the contemporary counterpart to Colonial America’s stocks, where adulterers and other offenders were humiliated in the town square. (Rubin is also founder of Samois, a “woman-on-woman sadomasochism group,” as well as The Outcasts, a spin-off group that “takes pride in proud and principled perversions”). Gayle Rubin has come as close as anyone to saying that all sexual desires are equally valid—and she is likely to gain tenure for saying it

Jeremy Bentham, Singer’s utilitarian forebear, once said, “Quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry.” His point: some derive pleasure from simpleminded games; others from the life of the mind. But all that matters is the quantity of pleasure—not its source. Singer seems to have backed himself into the sexual version of Bentham’s “pushpin” view: “Whatever gets your rocks off.” And this is an extension of his worldview, which precludes a Creator and sees us as little more than hairless apes.
They say that philosophy makes for strange bedfellows. Singer’s philosophy seems to have invited even stranger company into the bedroom. Haven’t we yet another reductio?

I see no reason in your argument to ban it.

Where did the number "2" come from and why?

I'm just stirring your pot with a boat motor.

Although the topic is transgendered marriages and civil unions between TWO people (gay or otherwise)(Hack set that topic - not me) I will take a bite at reiteration.

Since 'TWO' people is (or should be) 'TWO' people and since gender/race/disability etc. is NOT mentioned in most states (thus the deluge of law suits)my argument and logic stay in tact.

We have a history of denying a litney of people rights for a multitude of reasons in this country(race, gender, disability, etc.); therefore, we either should allow TWO people regardless or race, gender, religion, disabilities, etc. to marry or we should not. I say we should.

Now, if you want to talk about polygamy I'll give you the short version of my opinion - aside from the fact that it is currently illegal for MORE than two for all, it's fair and consistant but why? In other words, why not polygamy?

Always stirring the pot -

MainFrame

"Question for those opposing gay civil unions"

As per Mr. King in a follow-up post, "And laws by their nature cannot be valid if not uniformly applicable. There are a small number of quadriplegics among us, but we can't write laws that effect them directly, but don' address their existence."

Therefore I can assume that his intention was to not lock the topic solely on the topic of "hermaphrodites".

As for your statement, "Although the topic is transgendered marriages and civil unions between TWO people (gay or otherwise)(Hack set that topic - not me) I will take a bite at reiteration."

Again I invite you to read one of Mr. Kings follow-up posts, "Now you're catching on. If you're gonna stir the pot, stir the @#$I() pot!

Please show me where Mr. King ever mentioned the limitation of "TWO" people in his original post.

HAck"

It is my impression that he agrees with me.

As to the "Real Numbers", Mr King claimed that 1 in 100 were categorized as being "hermaphrodites".

The Two articles I provided clearly show that the number Mr. King supplied was inaccurate. The link to the "Source" says:

"The following statistics are drawn from the work of Dr. Fausto-Sterling's and her colleagues (2). Note that the frequency of some of these conditions, such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia, differs for different populations. These statistics are approximations.

"Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female 1 in 100".

The number of "True Hermaphrodites, XX/XY 1 in 70,000". As you quoted 1:14,000 or .007% your numbers do not appear to be accurate.

Where is you source material for you numbers?

As Mr. King didn't distinguish between "True", "Female Pseudo" or "Male Pseudo", I quoted the number that is attributed to "True Hermaphrodites" as provided by the Intersex Society of North America, estimates provided by Dr. Fausto-Sterling.

As I have zero first hand knowledge of this subject I will have to take their word that the data is accurate.

If you think you have a more knowledgeable source, please share it with us.

I prefer to stir the pot with facts as provided by experts.

Your statistics were already clarified by me three hours prior to your post. Look down at my post at 4:56 and you will see that I already made those same points you posted at 7:34pm. I also posted numbers at 8-9ish am that still stand.

We both agree that 'Hack' is off on the numbers. Again, I posted numbers twice First from here- and both were consistant with current medical information.

Polygamy, which YOU introduced as a "red-herring", was never the topic since 'Hack' only introduced 'civil unions' or gay marriages which are held between TWO patricipants.

Polygamy is therefore not germaine to this discussion.

Regardless, 'Hack' asked for opinions and he got yours and mine. I'm not sure we are keeping score but according to you you and Hack agree and so I guess I'm down 2-1.

Stirring, stirring, stirring the pot-
MainFrame

I took Mr. Kings post to infer different "types" of marriages. Gay marriages and "civil unions" being just two of the many "some" people subscribe to.

Perhaps I misinterpreted his intentions.

Neither link will work.

I left the hyper transfer text protocol string in so it has two. Crap- anyway- you know how to get there = look at the link it attempts to connect to and take oput the first (or second) http://

I'm going to bed-
Night all

MainFrame

I caught it.

Just trying to help stir.

Now you're catching on. If you're gonna stir the pot, stir the @#$I() pot!

HAck

The problem with minimizing the number of the questionably gendered is this: We can't wish them into nonexistence. And laws by their nature cannot be valid if not uniformly applicable. There are a small number of quadraplegics among us, but we can't write laws that effect them directly, but don' address their existence. Just a thought. Thanks for taking the time to contribute.

Hack

Actually, true "Hermaphrodites" only constitute about .007% of the population.

There are however many more (perhaps as many as .1% to .2%) born in need of medical attention at birth to complete the female to male (or visa versa)transformation.

Still others suffer from a collection of syndroms such as Turner syndrome XO, Triple X syndrome XXX, Klinefelter syndrome XXY, XYY syndrome XYY, Mosaicism XO/XY, de la Chapelle syndrome XX male, Swyer syndrome XY female, and there are many other individuals who do not follow the typical patterns (such as individuals with four or even more sex chromosomes).

What was the question again?

Stirring the pot-
MainFrame

Thanks for being brave enough to "go there." This is incredibly appropriate because the constitutional amendment question is popping up on ballots all over the country. I'm trying to wrap my head around how this will account for the 1 in 100 or 1% oddities. Will there be genital checks? I shudder at the thought. Hang on, I need a couple more shots of scotch before I type more.

"Ms. Toynbee was reviewing a programme about an intersexed child and, as the programme pointed out, the condition may affect around 1 in 1000, not one in fifteen thousand people. Transsexuals are not always clinically intersexed, and intersexed people do not always see themselves as transgendered.

We have quoted some statistics from Bancroft in previous sections, and we have gleaned some more from the Intersex Society of North America, estimates provided by Dr. Fausto-Sterling.(1)
True Hermaphrodites,
XX/XY 1 in 70,000
(Characterised as having either fused ovo-testes or ovary plus testis)

Okay - if you count medically altered it's 1/1000 that's .1% if you don't and only count genetically intersexed (the non-politically correct name) which list XX/XY herms as 1/70000 - so- as always, I stand by my initial numbers.

What say you?

MainFrame

So it wasn't my druken imagination on that night many years ago in that bar in New Orleans. Yeeesh....excuse me. I've got to go scrub my hands. And take a shower. And maybe I really do need that drink of tequila afterall. Arrrrgghhh!