Wh all the tert duck sex the days, a lecture by the scientist who disvered gay mallard necrophilia seems timely.
Contents:
- “DEAD DUCK DAY” MARKS THAT TIME A SCIENTIST WNSED GAY DUCK NECROPHILIA
- Q&A: DISVERER OF DEAD GAY DUCK SEX
- HOW GAY DEAD DUCK SEX WAS DISVERED
“DEAD DUCK DAY” MARKS THAT TIME A SCIENTIST WNSED GAY DUCK NECROPHILIA
Opponents of homosexualy sometim argue that if homosexual sex is morally permissible then so are btialy and necrophilia. A variant of this argument claims that if gay marriage should be permted then humans should be permted to marry non-human animals.... * homosexual necrophilia *
A “Queer” ArgumentIn some parts of the world, homosexuals are now enjoyg much more social acceptance than they did even until very recently.
Wh a relatively short perd, homosexual sex has been crimalized, same-sex marriage has been regnized, and other forms of discrimatn on the basis of sexual orientatn have been prohibed. There are plac where homosexual men n still be put to ath for engagg sexual activy wh other men. Even where much progrs has been ma there ntue to be people who see at least some of the progrs as regrs or who, while acceptg of the progrs already ma, do not thk that any further social acceptance is who are cril of homosexualy offer a wi range of arguments for their view.
Q&A: DISVERER OF DEAD GAY DUCK SEX
Instead, I propose to foc on one argument that opponents of homosexualy sometim raise and that fenrs of homosexualy quickly dismiss as ridiculo. My view is that is an argument that should be taken much ls serly by many of those who propose but much more serly by many of those who reject argument is sometim advanced agast homosexualy self and sometim agast allowg or regnizg same-sex marriage. If there is nothg morally wrong wh homosexualy, then there is also nothg morally wrong wh btialy and necrophilia.
Therefore, there is somethg morally wrong wh homosexualy. An argument directed agast homosexual marriage is not obvly an argument agast homosexual sex, unls one thks that sex is permissible only wh the nf of marriage.
One reason for this is that many of those who fend homosexualy do not want to fend btialy and necrophilia too. If approval of homosexualy were said to m one to approvg of apple pie, the argument would be void of any force.
HOW GAY DEAD DUCK SEX WAS DISVERED
It is bee so many fenrs of homosexualy do not accept that btialy and necrophilia are acceptable that we should shift our foc to the first premise. )One rponse to the first premise is that there is an important difference between homosexualy, on the one hand, and btialy and necrophilia, on the other. In other words, we nnot fer the acceptabily of btialy and necrophilia om the acceptabily of homosexualy.
Perhaps the most obv crern for separatg homosexualy om btialy and necrophilia is that homosexual sex n be the exprsn of mutual romantic love between two people, jt as heterosexual sex n. Not only n there be no mutual love exprsed through the sex, there nnot even be mutual way of differentiatg homosexualy om btialy and necrophilia implicly appeals to a particular view of sexual ethics.
Other ndns might also need to be, but certaly not all, homosexual sex is the exprsn of mutual romantic love and th meets the requirement imposed by the signifince view.