It’s time for participants in bestiality to come out of the closet.  They have been the victims of discrimination too long.  I suggest that Christians support them in their fight for liberty and respect.  Not only should we support the rights of these people to practice bestiality, but we should recognize their right to marry horses, too, if they wish.  They should have access to all of the government benefits as do people who practice heterosexual marriage.

When I was a young teenager, several of my male acquaintances with sexual hormones racing in their bodies would often pay a visit to the local horse farm.  It was called bestiality.  It is still practiced today.

It’s time for participants in bestiality to come out of the closet.  They have been the victims of discrimination too long.  I suggest that Christians support them in their fight for liberty and respect.  Not only should we support the rights of these people to practice bestiality, but we should recognize their right to marry horses, too, if they wish.  They should have access to all of the government benefits as do people who practice heterosexual marriage. We should support this for the following reasons.

First, what they do does not hurt anyone else.  It does not hurt the horse and it does not hurt the man.  It is a private act and what a man or a woman do in their own bedroom (or their own barn) should be their own business.

Secondly, even though the Bible condemns bestiality, it is a civil matter and ultimately its legalization falls under the jurisdiction of the state.  God created the world with two separate kingdoms.  The kingdom of the church deals with spiritual matters and the kingdom of the civil magistrate deals with civil law.  There is one king but two kingdoms. The kingdom of the church is bound by the law of God, but the kingdom of the civil magistrate is not. We must not interject religion into this debate.

Thirdly, the issue is a first amendment right whereby the majority may not impose their will on the minority, but permit the minority the same due exercise as the majority enjoys.  The legalization of a man marrying a horse is not a religious decision; it is a civil decision, which the state determines according to its own interests.

Fourthly, the act of bestiality is a right and not a privilege.  There is no constitutional prohibition or legal decision by a federal court against it.  There is no federal legislation that protects or prohibits bestiality.  Proponents who support the marriage of a man and his horse should argue their case based on rights and not privileges. To argue from the perspective of rights denies the very rights they already have.

Fifthly, someone needs to do a cost-benefit analysis of recognizing the marriage of a man with a horse.  I suspect that the recognition of such a marriage would reduce economic dependence on both federal and state governments.  There would be no welfare babies and this would help reduce the federal deficit.

Lastly, we must avoid the politics of resentment.  The entanglement of emotion, passion, and personal attack will not contribute toward the resolution of this debate.

My position may sound shocking to most of the readers, but like your former bias and emotional response (the “yuck factor”) against homosexuality, with time these emotions will dissipate. God bless America!

Larry E. Ball is a retired Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and a CPA. He lives in Fleming Island, Florida.