The bigotry of numberism and speciesism

David Bernstein at the Volohk Conspiracy writes:

One of the fun, albeit somewhat disheartening, things about having written a book about the encroachment of antidiscrimination laws on all aspects of civil society is watching hypotheticals your critics dismissed as “absurd” or “ridiculous hyperbole” turn into real cases. For example, while the Boy Scouts of America were sued for refusing to allow homosexual scoutmasters, what if a gay group was sued for discriminating against bisexuals? Shouldn’t organizations for gays and lesbians have the right to determine their membership policies? Come on, Professor Bernstein, enough with the ridiculous hyperbole!

I have found it fascinating to watch supposedly intelligent people dance around subjects which seem to be connected but which people are trying desperately to disassociate. Take the Catholic Church problem with pedophile priests and the Boy Scouts of American and their stand on gay members.

It seems that the Catholic Church finds itself the home of men who like to have sexual relations with young boys. For which the church is rightly criticized. Perhaps the answer to this problem would be to remove from its priestly ranks men who are like sex with young boys. But no. The preferred answer – from people who deign to advise the church from the Left – is to allow priests to marry. It seems that marriage would stop men who prefer to fondle young boys and transform them into men who instead fondle their wives. But then there is the insistence that homosexuality is not something that can, or should be “cured.” I’m getting confused!

Further comment (added 4/25/2010):

I realize that the prior paragraph is not fair to the critics. It is also a fact that it is more fair than the current standards of fairness employed by the media who are now freely allowed to misrepresent and lie about the acts and objectives of their victims. But in the interests of actual, not "media," fairness, let me add a few points. Let me state first of all that I am a proud Protestant, in fact a Calvinist. But I am also an admirer of tradition and theology. The fact is that for millennia the Catholic Church has as one of its canons that priests should be men and unmarried. Their “bride” is the Church. Even secular organizations have job descriptions, and that is one of the Catholic Church’s basic job descriptions. If you want to be a Catholic priest you must be male.  If you are female and join the Catholic Church organization you can become a nun.The problem with the Catholic Church is that it allowed a homosexual cadre to be established that attracted and recruited people like themselves while driving out people who are not homosexual.

From Religious Tolerance

With the church's current requirement of priestly chastity, seminaries are having difficulty recruiting heterosexuals to the priesthood.
Father Donald Cozzens wrote that several studies have concluded that about 50% of priests and seminarians are gay.

David France of Newsweek, referring to St. John's Seminary in Camarillo, CA, wrote: "Depending on whom you ask, gay and bisexual men make up anywhere from 30 percent to 70 percent of the student body at the college and graduate levels."

Rt. Rev. Helmut Hefner, rector of St. Johns Seminary "accepts that his gay enrollment may be as high as 50 percent."

Gay journalist Rex Wockner commented: "When I was in the Catholic seminary in my early 20s (St. Meinrad College, St. Meinrad, Ind., 1982-1983; University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein, Ill., 1983-1984), at least 50 percent of the students were gay....At St. Mary of the Lake, the straight students felt like a minority and felt excluded from some aspects of campus life to such an extent that the administration staged a seminar at which we discussed the problem of the straight students feeling left out of things..."

Author and sociologist James G. Wolfe estimated that 55.1% of seminarians were gay.


Bishop Jerome Listecki is an auxiliary bishop of Chicago, rejects some estimates that as many as 50% of seminarians have a homosexual orientation.

If these statistics are anywhere near accurate, the issue of priests sexually interacting with the boys who come under their sway is not surprising. And while I am familiar with the argument that homosexuals and pedophiles are two distinct and separate classes of people and never the twain shall meet, I am totally un-persuaded. Why?  Because I am also told by homosexuals that their sexual orientation - and initiation - took place at a very early age. Somehow these facts seem in conflict.

Turning now from the Catholic Church to the Boy Scouts of America.  The Boy Scouts who are committing the gravest of political sins by refusing to allow openly gay men and boys into their membership. It seems that they would like to avoid the problem that the Catholic Church is facing. They are not, of course, because an organization that provides access to boys is also a hunting ground for sexual predators.  Oh, and there is one other unforgivable sin and that is that the Scouts don’t approve of homosexuality. It seems that sex outside of marriage is not considered “clean” and does not fulfill the Scout’s duty to God.

So if I’m getting it right, the answer to gays in the Catholic Church is to turn them into straights. The answer to straights in the Boy Scouts is to introduce gays. The resulting problem with sexual predators in the scouts will then be handled by … turning them into priests?

But back to the issue of the “ridiculous hyperbole.” I have written a number of posts and commented on other sites about the fact that once the definition of marriage is expanded from one man and one woman to ‘two people that love each other” that is simply not the end of the matter.  What is the moral, legal or logical reason for ending the re-definition sweepstakes once homosexuals are satisfied? 


In the nineteenth century, homosexuality was considered a crime in most Western countries. To have suggested that in 100 years homosexuals could get legally married would be considered "ridiculous hyperbole" by those who wanted to decriminalize homosexuality.  As time went on, and society became more open to alternative lifestyles, criminal penalties were eliminated but there was still a social disapproval in, say 1950. To have suggested that in 50 years homosexuals would get legally married would be considered "ridiculous hyperbole" by those who wanted remove the social stigma from open homosexuality.The sense of sin, in the traditional view of these things still prevailed. But just as “sin” is considered archaic and judgmental, it is now considered benighted not voice full approval of homosexuality and all that its practitioners demand. To voice disapproval of same-sex marriage is more than a social gaffe, it puts you in the same league as Nazis and Ayatollahs (not that we’re saying anything bad about Muslims, we don’t want to end up like Theo van Gogh).

But to take Bernstein’s theme to heart, why can’t we use the rhetorical weapons of Progressives to view the limitations that they seem to have placed on the institution of marriage? What is this completely artificial restriction of marriage to 2? Polygamy and polyandry has a long and storied history. It is practiced in many parts of the world and some parts of the United States, although sub-rosa with the authorities turning a blind eye, as they did for most homosexual couples in days gone by.  Why should we seek to maintain what proponents of multiple partners would call a "bigoted cultural bias" that defines marriage to a two-person relationship?

When homosexuals were being prosecuted for their actions, Mormons were trekking to Utah to practice their faith which included polygamy without being jailed. Why do we retain legal bans on that Mormon religious and cultural practice while celebrating homosexual unions? Is it because of the superior logic of homosexuals or is it because of their superior position in the press, the arts and the opinion agenda setting sectors of our culture?

For some reason, I get ridiculed for raising the question. Why? Is there anything but the barnacles of Western culture (Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ Has Got To Go! Remember?) that keeps this number two (2) in place. Is the Jon Stewart response (ridicule and the "F" bomb) to my question some kind of intelligent response or simply a failure to want to deal with a serious subject seriously? Intelligent it’s not. Reasoned it’s not. Turning “ridiculous hyperbole” into accepted wisdom is the reality of 20 years of “progress.”

And what’s with this “people” part of the definition of marriage? If we can overthrow millennia of cultural norms with a “whiff of bullshit” to paraphrase Napoleon, what’s with this species-centric definition of marriage as a bond between people? There are places where animals are given full human rights. 

Great apes should have the right to life and freedom, according to a resolution passed in the Spanish parliament, in what could become landmark legislation to enshrine human rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos.

Today gorillas, chimps, orangutangs and bobonos.  Tomorrow your cat and dog, and, if Ingrid Newkirk has her way the rat, and pig.  PETA is a very serious organization with a budget in excess of $34 million dollars and cannot be dismissed as merely a bunch of cranks. Their campaign against wearing fur has been very effective; they are working to shut down the circus for its alleged abuse of its animals.  So the concept that one day the law will view animals on an equal footing with humans is all to easy to imagine.  How would the campaign be waged?    How about: "All you species-phobes out there are not realizing that species centric bigotry is nevertheless bigotry." 

“A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”


— Ingrid Newkirk, President, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

So why not look to the Progressive Future, as it's helping to be defined by PETA's Ingrid Newkirk? 

"Why the totally artificial limitation of the bond of marriage to two people that love each other? Does a man or woman not love his or her dog or cat? What kind of moral monster would prevent the one we love –no matter the number of feet – from receiving visitation rights in hospitals or nursing facilities?"

For the lawyers and accountants out there who want to use the financial equity argument, how about something like this?

"There are also important legal and tax rights that species and number discrimination deprive us of. I recently filed my taxes and though I am happily married to the one marriage partner I was allowed to claim, I was not able to claim the deductions that ought rightfully be mine by the oppressive species and numbers phobic society. I was forced to give up thousands of dollars in depended deductions simply because this benighted society will not allow me to marry the dogs, cats and birds that I love and that share my home."

The reason I raise the issue is because of the original essay by David Bernstein mentioning the "ridiculous hyperbole" wave-off.  Today's ridiculous hyperbole is tomorrow's cultural imperative.  Ask anyone who's old enough.