[WARNING: SOME READERS MAY FIND THIS CONTENT OFFENSIVE. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.]
I’ve held off on this article for well over a year because the Supreme Court’s sodomite/catamite marriage ruling hadn’t come down, and further held off for most of this July to ponder the matter, because it required a great deal of thought. As I wrote in my previous post, A Conflicted Libertarian, my faith and my viscera abhor male homosexuality, but my libertarian principles require that I refrain from initiation of force against it or its practitioners. (Political correctness fans please note: rhetoric is not force. You score no points by stifling speech from people who refuse to affirm your moral choices, thereby evolving from the oppressed into the oppressor.) Well, the Justices (including two who demonstrated clear bias, should have recused themselves, and may have opened themselves up to impeachment should enough congressmen and senators have the guts), have spoken, and this is now the law of the land.
Some years ago, in a dissent from the Supreme Court decision that legalized sodomy, Justice Scalia predicted that the Court had just opened the door for all kinds of non-hetero-normative (a fancy word for perverted) behavior. He foreshadowed the Court’s 2015 decision, but also predicted that polygamy and bestiality would be normalized. Indeed, some polygamists have already challenged the prohibition against multiple marriages, with a good probability of success. As for bestiality, we have the immortal, immoral words of Alabama Democratic Representative Alvin Holmes, http://yellowhammernews.com/statepolitics/ala-rep-alvin-holmes-says-men-allowed-marry-mules-audio/, otherwise known as the infamous ‘little mule’ quote.
Alvin Holmes, seemingly ignorant of Levitical law, is like a stopped mechanical clock: right twice a day, but not by intention. An even more unusual sexual event occurred before I reached what they used to call Junior High, here in Florida: a man had what he claims was consensual sex with a bottle-nose dolphin. (Since Florida did not outlaw interspecies sex until 2011, this was not illegal at the time.) This was not general knowledge until recently, when the man, Malcolm Brenner, published a fictionalized(names have been changed for legal reasons) account of his experience, titled Wet Goddess. His story has been made into a short documentary film: it won an award at a recent film festival.
I’ve read the self-published book; the writing is good, as behooves the product of a former print journalist, good enough that a major house should have picked it up but probably wouldn’t touch it because the subject is off-putting to most people. That noted, if you’ve ever slogged through much of what homosexual activist Dan Savage has written, then you know true grossness; Mr. Brenner writes better, although explicitly, and with more sensitivity.
Mr. Brenner has also made history by having the first known sexual relationship with a non-human sapient being, a milepost which may not seem like an event of great magnitude in light of Star Trek, (where Tripp went there first, Kirk did it almost every episode, and even Data scored) except that this star-crossed love occurred on Earth before man even sent a lander to Mars. (If you believe Von Daniken and Sitchin, then Mr. Brenner wasn’t the first human to have sex with a nonhuman intelligent being, not by thousands of years, but he still would potentially be the first to have sex with a non-humanoid sapient. In Star Trek terms, Captain Archer came close with the Wraith.)
To temporarily divert back to the subject of the Obergefell vs. Hodges decision, I’d like to make the case that Mr. Brenner has a higher moral standing than Mr. Savage and his fellow-travelers in the sexual realm, as foreshadowed by the title of this post.
1) Mr. Brenner’s relationship with the dolphin was consensual: The consummation took place in the water, and if a dolphin in its element does not want attention of whatever kind from a human, it can–and some have done so–express its displeasure with fatal results to the human. At one point in their romance, the dolphin got jealous of Mr. Brenner’s human date and inflicted corporal punishment on both humans. I suspect that most homosexual relationships in correctional facilities are not consensual, and President Bush (Jr.) must have felt the same way when he signed a federal law designed to address that situation.
2) The dolphin, Dolly, was a female, so the relationship was heterosexual. Although the Obergefell decision imposed the legal recognition of homosexual marriage, most societies throughout history, whether ‘tolerant’ or otherwise, have held same-sex relations not to be equivalent to heterosexual ones. Even backward societies held male + female marriage as superior (the incident in Africa where a man was forced to marry the goat he was caught shtupping comes to mind) to other models of relationship.
3) Mr. Brenner, in his book, maintains that the dolphin could sense his thoughts (and he hers when he was stoned), establishing a somewhat superior-to-verbal form of communication; Dolly complained that he could not hear her high-frequency vocalizations, and that she could barely hear his lower-frequency speech. (Mr. Brenner has said that his book was fictionalized, so I cannot be sure if the telepathy was real or was part of the fiction.) What is evident is that they communicated information, ideas, and affection. This point is not central to my argument of the moral superiority of their relationship, but it does establish at least an equivalence in the area of communication. Most animals, discounting parrots, mynah birds, and crows, can’t communicate in human language (although if you’ve watched Misha the husky dog on YouTube, you’d probably have to say that Misha’s vocalizations are intelligible and in context.), and hence cannot consent, although some barnyard aficionados have maintained that horses (and presumably Alvin Holmes’ hypothetical mule) can kick a human suitor to death if they don’t like the tilt of his kilt.
4) Her brain was larger than his. This is relevant only because it addresses the issue of sapience. Most who condemn bestiality rightly presume it equivalent to pederasty in that it involves an abuse of power by a superior over an inferior, which points to issues of consent that I have previously established. Dolly, on the other hand, was a sexually mature female of an intelligent species who propositioned a sexually mature male of another sapient species.
In summation: they were both sexually mature sapient beings, they communicated in a higher-than-verbal format, they were male and female, and she consented to penis-in-vagina sex, yet no court in the world, even today, would issue, or would have then issued them a marriage license because Dolly was chattel property, and her sapience was not recognized: a legal disability that didn’t stop horny slave-owners from siring half-caste children on their chattel property! Indeed the relationship between human and dolphin had little possibility of offspring, (for which traditionalists might condemn it) yet two males applying for a marriage license for a joining from which there is even less possibility of issue than from Malcolm and Dolly’s coupling cannot be denied one.
I won’t spoil the ending for anyone who might want to read Wet Goddess, (it does possess artistic and literary merit, probably more than Madame Bovary, Lolita, and everything by Kurt Vonnegut all put together) except to say that the romance between Malcolm and Dolly was not happily ever after (which, ironically, gives it part of its artistic and literary merit to the extent that popular prejudice among critics tends to assign greater gravitas to tragedy). I also won’t recommend anyone to try dolphin dating at home, although it probably will happen again and, should the Lord tarry, human-dolphin communication, if not marriage, will become a reality. At that point, the Church will have to face this challenge: do non-human sapient beings require salvation and, if so, do they accept it through Jesus’ blood and righteousness as humans do? And if, the answer to these questions is yes, can a Christian dolphin and a Christian human marry if they are one male and one female?
As a Christian, I am confident that the answer to the first two questions is yes, and that the third follows the others. As a libertarian, I look forward to having this conversation with a dolphin. As a straight, I look forward to watching the radical homosexual activists struggle with accepting the right of nonhuman sapient beings tomarry humans and if, as some researchers maintain, some dolphins practice homosexuality, with a proposition from an intelligent life-form whose penis is as much as fifteen inches long.
P.S. As a courtesy to Mr. Brenner, I have refrained from linking to his website without permission. Anyone interested can find it with a search engine. I will, however, recommend the purchase and perusal of his excellently-crafted book about his interspecies romance.