Today I will play the role of an atheist who subscribes to humanism and the relative nature of morality.
(Hey, this is a realistic role-play… See After Homosexuality, Sexual Revolutionary Frank Kameny Moves on to Making Bestiality ‘Normal’ for details)
Shall we begin?
THESE ARE MY TWO CORE BELIEFS:
1) I believe that certain nonproductive members of society – i.e. the terminally and painfully sick, unemployed and alcohol-addicted street vagrants, serial criminals, and those too old to contribute anything meaningful - should be euthanized for the greater of good of society and mankind.
Resources that they consume can find much better use in advancing civilization and the happiness of other (and more) people. The good and survival of the human species takes precedence over selfish and petty individual needs.
2) I believe that bestiality as a sexual choice should be given the same legal rights and social respect as heterosexual and homosexual human-human relationships.
I am a practising zoophile who regularly engages in group sex with my fully-mature rottweilers (both male and female) who willingly and often actively reciprocate the intimate eroticity.
We all enjoy it immensely, so what’s wrong with it? For some reason, most people – even the supposedly enlightened individuals at PFLAG - think my sexual choice is disgusting, morally repugnant and unnatural. To me it’s incomprehensible and inexplicable why.
Now please tell me why my stand is MORALLY WRONG from a atheistic, humanist point of view.
Quotes from the Bible or other holy scriptures will not be accepted. Arguments that some god or another forbids it will similarly be ignored. As a atheist, I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY RELIGION OR PHILOSOPHY BASED ARGUMENTS.
I welcome and eagerly await comments which attempt to persuade me that somehow, my beliefs and practices are fundamentally wrong from a relativistic, humanist, liberal and pluralistic point of view.
UPDATE: The Dutch ban bestiality, and a liberal makes the case for why it shouldn’t be banned. Nuff said?