The second cartoon likens men who have sex with men to men to animals. Not to people who have sex with animals, but to actual animals. It makes us out to be less than human. The gender of the horse has absolutely nothing to do with it.

As to being a “predictable” bleeding heart liberal who will dismiss any argument that touches on the Bible, I’m a little flummoxed. It’s funny, you know — you make an argument that makes no sense at all, and then you say it’s my fault for dismissing you, because I’m a liberal, and because your argument uses the Bible. But I’m not a liberal, and your argument nowhere actually invokes the Bible. (I’m not a conservative either, but I figure you’ve already guessed that.)

I tried hard not to be dismissive, but I have to admit, it wasn’t easy.

Here, I’ll give it another try:

I’m assuming from the ranting of Jason that he is strongly against anyone critiquing other people’s relationships.

I wonder though if he would rush to the rescue of practitioners of bestiality if they found it offensive for their “relationships”?

Your assumption is wrong. Critique my relationship, and I will critique your critique. That’s called free speech, and I support it.

Your wondering is also misguided. I consider bestiality to be a form of presumptive cruelty to animals. I know that people who are into bestiality may not see it that way, but I believe that they are wrong.

I think they are wrong, but whether the state should have the power to stop various forms of animal cruelty is another question entirely. The average meat processing plant is far more cruel than all the bestiality enthusiasts in the country combined, yet the bestialists get all the bad press. (I’m inclined to think ill of them, but also to let them alone. Punishing it thoroughly and effectively would be far too difficult, and we’d also have to give up all of the other forms of animal cruelty — like eating meat — that we all enjoy.)

There is a dark and “precipitating hierarchy” of what is going to be considered socially acceptable with passing of the years into the epoch of”everyone has their own sense of truth & “rightness.”

Should we go back to the days when women couldn’t vote? When they couldn’t divorce an abusive husband? When they couldn’t own property in their own name? When they were property?

I’m not a moral relativist. I just think that our society has been steadily improving. It’s not been moving away from morality — but moving toward it. Yes, there have been some missteps, but the trend seems clear to me, and it’s a good one.

There is another element though to this cartoon (the latter of the 2 I mean) which seems to suggest the idea that certain things which have been considered taboo usually have to wait for something mainstream & commercial (aka Hollywood) to “out” them for public critique (whether you find that a good thing or no…and I’m assuming from the ranting of Jason that he is strongly against anyone critiquing other people’s relationships).

I wonder though if he would rush to the rescue of practitioners of bestiality if they found it offensive for their “relationships”? Pedophiles? “Oh well those are OBVIOUSLY wrong” you scream with eyes rolling in disbelief at such an ignorant and close minded idea.

Observe children, as the ticking years go by and the waning of morality grates upon the human & spiritual fabric of us all. There is a dark and “precipitating hierarchy” of what is going to be considered socially acceptable with passing of the years into the epoch of”everyone has their own sense of truth & “rightness.” Society has become looser and looser in what is considered “wrong.” The fear that Jason has is the Hitleresque 3rd Reich leanings of what he believes he sees in the second cartoon, but then where draw the line? Where do legitimate practices and relationships slip into an eventual legalized/accepted moral suicide with hedonism & depravity at its’ core?

Now, if I dared utter the filthy “B” word, you know, that “blight” on the free-thinkers psyche which usually puts forth another groan of intolerance on THEIR side, “THE BIBLE”, then I’m certain your cyber ears would immediately seal up and I would be dismissed as a Bible thumping fire and brimstone lunatic Christian? Yes? Have you dismissed me at this point? How predictable you bleeding hearts are. The problem is that almost all the commercialized Christians who have the television shows (ALA Televangelists) as well as the general secular populace have got the Bible SO wrong that they polarize each other into camps. There is happiness and hardship found within the confines of its pages, not hatred….but I’m sorry Jason, there are some things that ARE going to be decreed as wrong when the time of reckoning comes…..racism (as in comic #1 and a perversion of that which proliferates God’s idea of creation and rebirth) will also be wrong. On the other hand, hatred and violence towards ANY people, that is the people and not their wrong actions is also equally as repugnant and immoral. Haha, wow, you opened a floodgate with your simple analysis of these cartoons. That’s the way the world works though man, every issue and thing, be it material/psychological/or theological is connected. Choices are yours, just be prepared for any consequences my armpitted friend…..(I’m assuming you have armpits)?

John Jellybean Plasticene III, the 4th duke of the magnificent Radish Garden in your neighbors back yard.

Bestiality itself may be pleasurable for both the human and the animal. And I am hesitant to say that, unlike killing animals for meat, bestiality serves no useful purpose to broader society. It may be that it provides an outlet for the mentally unstable. Just as research has suggested a link between greater access to pornography and reduced incidence of rape, so too bestiality might reduce violent crime towards humans. Or bestiality could be a stage before violent crime. Whatever the case, as soon as a person harms another human being the full penalty of law should apply, and there is no dispute from my side about that.

With humor especially, I think context and intent is all-important. To be honest, when I first saw the first cartoon, I thought it was a recent cartoon making a statement about some type of law in Australia that the cartoonist viewed as racist (I have read that Sydney recently has had problems with some kind of race riots, but I don’t think it involves black people). After following the link to the other racist cartoons from early 20th century, the context was provided and it was obvious that this was offensive. But does that mean that there are certain depictions that are off-limits in all circumstances? Can the ‘Sambo’ representation for example ever be used again by anyone to make any kind of statement? There are tons of comedians today who make jokes that would be offensive if they came out of someone else’s mouth. Redneck jokes are fine coming from Foxworthy, but I think that changes if Farrakhan is saying them, or even black comedians in most contexts. Black comedians are given very wide latitude when making jokes about their own race and even about white people (many of which I do find very funny), but those exact same jokes coming out of the mouth of a white comedian would most likely be offensive. Similarly, I looked back at a couple of Danziger’s other cartoons, and didn’t see anything derisive about gays, but did seem some criticizing commercialism; if I had seen a pattern of obvious anti-gay cartoons, then yes, I would probably find this cartoon also offensive.

The other question it raises for me is must a group have been persecuted to make jokes or depictions of them potentially offensive? Jason mentions the danger of comparing humans to animals, and I understand his point, but for example, do Bugs Bunny cartoons make offensive comments about hunters, that they’re all bumbling dangerous idiots like Elmer Fudd? Does it matter that hunters have not been persecuted because of who they are? With attempts at humor, I guess I give a wide berth, and I guess I don’t see that the point of the second cartoon is *obviously* to make a derogatory comparison between homosexuality and bestiality.

I actually wrote Mr. Danzinger and, surprizingly, he answered. He explained it was a ‘joke’ based on Santorum’s comments from a while back. I’m not sure I accept that explanation as a satisfactory reason to continue such a disgusting analogy.

But maybe my ‘humor’ doesn’t reach such levels as others.