Tuesday, April 27, 2004

I now pronounce you man & beast!

Although liberal courts and liberal churches are presently deliberating over same-sex marriage, it is time for moral pioneers to conquer the next ethical frontier. I refer, of course, to the moral imperative of interspecies wedlock.

After all, many dog-lovers and pet-owners are far more committed to Fido than they are to their spouse: divorce is rampant, but when have you every read of a man walking out on his own dog, or a women leaving her pet dog for another man? Why, it's unheard of, I tell you. And, of course, man's best friend is famously devoted in return.

So, should it not be in the compelling interest of church and state alike to sanction such faithful and monogamous partners?

No nation calling itself civilized can long endure the persecution of man's best friend, the relegation of Fido to the status of a second-class citizen. This is a fundamental question of civil and Constitutional rights. In an age when dogs serve bravely in fire departments, the police force, and the armed forces, their conjugal equality is a well-earned entitlement.

Needless to say, we cannot allow those antiquated old Mosaic no-nos against bestiality to put a crimp in our post-Darwinian lifestyle.

Some critics complain that dogs are notoriously promiscuous, and would therefore debase the coinage of holy matrimony. But, if so, is this not an argument for, rather than against, interspecies wedlock? How can you expect dogs to act as responsible citizens unless responsible conduct is recognized and rewarded by society? The nuptial bond would domesticate their roving-eyed instincts.

Since bestiality has always existed, is it not better to channel this behavior instead of stigmatize it? Safe interspecies sex education should be incorporated into the core curriculum of public schools, and canine condoms should be supplied by all heath care providers.

To deny the bond of holy matrimony to loving and committed masters and dogs is a throwback to medieval morality, like the old miscegenation laws. How can we abolish separate, but equal for intraspecies romance, but retain Jim Crow for interspecies romance?

And it should go without saying that a committed conjugal bond between man and beast ought to be no bar to holy orders or ecclesiastical preferment. To say otherwise would affront the high dignity and solemn equality of interspecies intercourse.

No comments:

Post a Comment