Bill Donohue comments on the controversy over Dr. Benjamin
Carson:
Last week, Dr. Ben Carson defended marriage as it has been understood since
time immemorial. He added, “It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of
society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe
in bestiality—it doesn’t matter what they are—they don’t get to change the
definition.” For this he has been vilified, even though he has made it clear
that he wasn’t equating bestiality with homosexuality. But the attacks have not
ceased.
Also last week, U.S. Supreme Court Judge Sandra Sotomayor asked attorney Ted
Olson whether incest might be permitted if there were no state restrictions on
marriage. No one condemned her.
Carson and Sotomayor were simply trying to find out whether those who support
gay marriage recognize any limits to their redefinition of this basic social
institution. This is a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry.
Moreover, it is a little late in the game for liberals to get exercised about
bestiality. In 1948, Kinsey and his associates concluded that “sexual contacts
between the human and animals of other species are at no point basically
different from those that are involved in erotic responses to human
situations.” Today, college textbooks on human sexuality speak of bestiality as
nothing more than “atypical behavior.”
Princeton professor Peter Singer wants us to
keep an open mind about Fred having sex with Fido. He says, “sex with animals
does not always involve cruelty,” and that “mutually satisfying activities” of
a sexual nature should be respected. Last month, Yale hosted a “sensitivity
training” exercise where Dr. Jill McDevitt touted the merits of bestiality. Her
goal is to “increase compassion for people who may engage in activities that
are not what you would personally consider normal.”
Dr. Carson is a good man who was framed. It’s the sexologists and the Ivy
Leaguers who need to explain themselves.