Germans Can’t Say Having ‘Relations’ with Animals is Wrong

I’m no longer shocked by what I read in the news these days. What would have turned people’s stomachs 30 or 40 years ago, now these stories are met with a dismissive “Whatever.” The latest once-thought-to-be moral atrocity has to do with “zoophilia” (from the Greek zōion, meaning “animal,” from which our words zoology and zodiac are derived, and philia, “friendship” or “love,” as in Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love) — the practice of sexual activity between humans and animals (bestiality).

I’ve always maintain that a sexual slippery slope follows when the biblical account of marital and sexual relationships is dismissed as primitive, religious, “unscientific,” politically incorrect, and an attempt to “define deviancy down.” Since the Bible condemns bestiality (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21), it must now be morally acceptable. Whatever is right in the Bible is actually wrong, and what is wrong is now right.

Then there’s the claim that we are animals that have evolved from other animals. Here’s Wikipedia’s definition of “Zoophilia”: “the practice of sexual activity between humans and non-human animals.”1 In evolutionary terms, humans are animals. We’re part of an animal continuum. This makes us brothers and sisters with non-human animals. One day, they will be human animals like us, so we need to embrace them as our DNA kin.

So it’s not surprising that Michael Kiok, chairman of ZETA (Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information), argues that a new German law was unfair to the group’s specific sexual proclivities since, as he puts it, “We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification. We don’t force them to do anything.”

Where did Mr. Kiok get the idea that humans and animals are partners? It’s science. It’s what we’ve been taught since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. Science tells us that we are animals not that distant from the apes. Consider the evolutionary claim that the match between chimpanzees and humans is said to be around 97 percent.

Here’s something that surprised me. “Zoophilia was legalized in Germany in 1969. . . .” It’s been animal rights groups that have been fighting for anti-bestiality laws to protect the animals!

“Now the center-right government wants to outlaw using animals ‘for personal sexual activities or making them available to third parties for sexual activities and thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species,’ said Hans-Michael Goldmann, chairman of the parliament’s Agricultural Committee.”

What’s the response from the folks at the Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information? It’s about consensual love and the claim that other people’s morality should not be imposed on people with a different moral worldview. “Mere concepts of morality have no business being law,” Mr. Kiok argued. Homosexual and pedophilia groups have argued the same way. With God out of the picture or redefined, anything goes.

A similar argument was used when Nazi war criminals were put on trial. Germany had a different way of looking at morality. Who were these non-German nations to impose their view of morality on them? John Warwick Montgomery writes:

“The most telling defense offered by the accused was that they had simply followed orders or made decisions within the framework of their own legal system, in complete consistency with it, and that they therefore could not rightly be condemned because they deviated from the alien value system of their conquerors.”2

Germany had a similar problem defining deviant behavior as immoral when it learned that Armin Meiwes ate Bernd Jürgen Brandes. Brandes had responded to the following advertisement that had been posted by Meiwes:

Looking for a well-built 18 to 30-year-old to be slaughtered and then consumed.”

This was described as a “tricky case . . . because Cannibalism is not a recognised offence under German law” and the defense argued that “since the victim volunteered,” it was not murder.

There is no foundational way to say that anything is wrong in a world where we are repeatedly told that there is no God and we “evolved out of the earliest primordial sludge.”3

  1. Emphasis added. []
  2. John Warwick Montgomery, The Law Above the Law (Minneapolis, MN: Dimension Books/Bethany Fellowship, 1975), 24–25. []
  3. “The beginning of life on Earth is a hotly contested area of science (not to mention religion); with current theories focusing on how RNA (ribonucleic acid)-like molecules developed into a more complex form of RNA-based life, which then transformed into cellular life based on DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and proteins. Now, an accelerated in vitro experiment shows how an RNA enzyme develops into a DNA enzyme without losing its original function. The experiment, described as an ‘evolutionary conversion,’ is considered a breakthrough, as it presents scientists with a contemporary understanding of how complex life may have evolved out of the earliest primordial sludge.” Kate Melville, “Primordial Soup-In-A-Cup,” Science-A-Go, (March 28, 2006). []



  • Shawn Smith

    Of course, the normalization of homosexuality has *no-o-othing* to do with the current attempt at normalizing bestiality or pedophilia. Just as the normalization of pre- and extra-marital sex had nothing to do with the normalization of homosexuality. These events bear no relation whatsoever to one another and it would be bigoted and hateful to make a connection between them.

    • Gary DeMar

      There is a direct correlation since the behaviors are biologically abnormal and immoral given biblical standards. They arguments used to justify all three sexual acts are identical: you can't impose your morality on me; who are you to judge?; what two consenting people do together can't be a immoral; it's all about love.

      • Shawn Smith

        Please tell me you recognize sarcasm. I'd hoped the overemphasis on "nothing" would make that clear.

      • GetOutOfTheBubble

        "They arguments used to justify all three sexual acts are identical"

        "what two consenting people do together can't be immoral"

        Who in the world is arguing that pedophilia is consensual?

        Who in the world is arguing that an animal is a person who has given consent?

        The arguments are not identical. You'd have to argue in the case of both pedophilia and bestiality that consent is irrelevant.

    • GetOutOfTheBubble

      Exactly right it has nothing to do with it.

      Only a bigot would equate homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia.

      • Shawn Smith

        This story sounds exactly as ridiculous today as people talking about men "marrying" men would have sounded as little as fifteen years ago.

        This article about pedophilia sounds strikingly like the language used about homosexuality thirty years ago or so: . It's all coming from the same people, too: Hollywood and liberal academics.

        It's called pattern recognition, and yes, it's the same people making the same argument. Don't worry, in 20 years, if you don't change your mind, you'll be a "pedophobe". If you don't believe me, ask Whoopi Goldberg and friends about Roman Polanski.

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          Not exactly as ridiculous at all, for the reason that always eludes you:

          Homosexuality is consensual.

          Pedophilia is not.

          Bestiality is not.

          The fact that the gawker article advocates sympathy for pedophiles does not mean there's some kind of slippery slope where we'll start accepting the behavior, because it implies a slippery slope wherein we stop caring about children being raped, which is an absurd notion.

        • Shawn Smith

          I repeat, it sounds exactly as absurd today as the notion of a man "marrying" a man would have sounded 20 years ago. And frankly nothing you've said shows me any different.

          30 or 40 years ago, the same kind of people were arguing for the normalization of homosexuality. There are several movies in the past 5 years or so putting a soft edge on pedophilia, most recently Adam Sandler's "That's My Boy." The same kind of liberal academics (including the utter moral sinkhole that is Peter Singer) are presenting the same kinds of arguments. History repeats itself, and you have yet to offer any evidence that it won't.

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          What I've said shows that your argument is flawed. You say they're making the same arguments, but they're not the same arguments and it's obvious that they're not. It seems in your world "homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality" are linked no matter what I say, so it's pointless for me to try and clear up how they're actually different.

        • CARLjr

          The notion of a white man marrying a black woman was absurd to some people 30 years ago. The notion of an American girl marrying an Irish man was ridiculous 90 years ago. The idea of women even having a say in who they married was preposterous 300 years ago. History repeats itself - people cannot get past their prejudices.

          Person=Person samey, samey.

          Pedophilia and Bestiality are not in the same arena at all. It is all about consent. Children and animals cannot make these kinds of choices and we as a society have to protect them. Pedophiles are just below "Senator" as the lowest rung on the social ladder. No one is fighting for these people or their rights. These are the guys that get killed in prison because even the meth-head rapists feel they don't deserve to live.

        • DontTreadOnMe11

          No one fighting for these people or their rights? Really? Have you ever heard of NAMBLA?

        • Shawn Smith

          Hollywood doesn't care about children being raped if it's Roman Polanski doing the rape. Obama's buddies in ACORN didn't care about children being forced into prostitution. Of course, if it's a religious figure committing the crime then it's horrible and an indictment of organized religion as a whole, but it's obvious they don't care about children on principle.

          The Democratic party doesn't care about rape if it's Bill Clinton doing the rape. Don't tell me "consensual" is the line, because these people have no standards and no lines.

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          If you want to pretend that the argument you should argue against is a bad one that doesn't include the notion of consent, then go ahead. You're not arguing with me, and you're not arguing with anyone in particular. Pretty easy to win those kinds of arguments.

        • Lily Roberts

          France age of sexual consent is 13. (Which by the way used to be the age of consent in some states such as Alabama and Hawaii

        • Lily Roberts

          When women and girls were being routinely raped in the swim with the dolphin encounters so popular up until 10 to 15 years ago, is this the true Obama scenario of "A rape is a rape" and the legally capable of volitional action, human women and girls, the evil perpetrator and by that unswerving definition, criminally liable for sexual relations with the dolphin?

        • oleinwi

          Sorry, but that's not what the pro-pedophile folks say, they say it IS consensual, and bestiality folks are saying it IS consensual. So much for your theory. It's the same crap rehashed. They will keep saying "it's just how they are, they can't help it." until enough folks buy it. All great civilizations in the past have embraced deviant sexual behavior...right before each of them collapsed...

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          Right, and we know it's not, so we know they have no argument, as opposed to homosexuals who do have an argument.

      • Shawn Smith

        Would you care to explain to me how they're different? The trend looks exactly the same and the exact same arguments can be produced for them. Other than that you personally find one repugnant and the other not, what's the difference?

        See, I have a standard outside myself. I have a standard that judges my own actions, and guess what, I fail that standard pretty badly sometimes. But the standard is independent of me or my failures. As far as I can tell, your standard is *you* . . . I suppose you and the current political climate, which isn't really much more meaningful or reliable.

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          Since you asked multiple times, I'll answer multiple times.

          "The trend looks exactly the same and the exact same arguments can be produced for them." Wrong. Consent is not present in pedophilia and bestiality by definition. There's no more wrong with consensual homosexual sex than with consensual heterosexual sex, which is to say nothing.

      • Shawn Smith

        They can't help feeling that way and we shouldn't judge them for it, right? What right do you have to dictate what that person does with his life, right? What goes on in the bedroom is their business and no one else's, right?

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          That the issue of consent completely eludes you is quite baffling to me.

          There is absolutely no comparison to two adult men or women choosing to have sex with each other, and an adult raping a child or an animal. No valid comparison.

      • Coda

        well the homosexuals say you cant help who you love right? Well what if you love a child, an animal, what of you love multiple wives. One day people are gonna be child molesting homosexual polygamist and it will be morally and legally correct to have seven all goat sister wives who are actually all boys while married to several women men and children. The blood is on liberal hands. One day the world will be so tolerant(corrupt) the devil himself could live among us and be accepted. That's exactly what he'll do.

  • GetOutOfTheBubble

    "Germans Can’t Say Having ‘Relations’ with Animals is Wrong"

    godfatherpolitics can't avoid generalizing in their headlines. If they didn't, it'd be obvious what a small fraction of people they're complaining about.

  • Screeminmeeme

    I'm not shocked anymore either, Gary. This is just sick and twisted.

  • Lily Roberts

    German vanguard society has always enjoyed a good pig romp

  • CARLjr

    This is the type of story "the media" loves. A "news of the weird" story with a sex or drug angle. These stories are so tantalizing - that no investigation is necessary. They just get picked up and forwarded on. Does it even matter if it's true? Is there really a person named Michael Kiok or an organization called Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information? Not before last week. Who is going to bother to look? (not journalists)

    This whole thing reads like an Onion article - or like the bath-salts-zombie-face-eater from last year (who turned out to be completely sober) The actual story doesn't matter - if you can slip the word "zombie" into your headline - it's gold! You can't even find an article that mentions that attack without using the word "zombie".

    And that's just how Internet journalism works. Internet reporting is so completely page-view-driven that it doesn't really matter if your EXCITING HEADLINE is bulls hit. You'll get more hits if you say something crazy, so who cares if it's incorrect, or journalistically irresponsible, or just plain stupid?! Who cares? In online journalism, you go where the traffic goes. Gary DeMar is a master at this technique.