Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (44)
We share 98% of our DNA with our closest related species, the chimpanzee, but the differences that make us human are quite profound. The biggest is our energy-hungry brains. Most of the other differences are as a consequence of the energy demand from our big brains. For starters, to be able to get that brain out of uterus, human babies are effectively born nine months premature. From birth, it takes human babies nine months to get to where all the other mammals start from. And the brain’s demands just keep increasing. The brains of human three to five years have 40% more energy demand than adult brains. And the energy supply has to be constant otherwise the infant brain might suffer permanent damage.
In chimpanzee family life, well there isn’t any. The male does not provide food to the female or the fruit of their loins conjoined. The mother provides for herself and the infant learns to forage very early in life. It is a different story in humans. The mother by herself cannot provide the large and constant food supply that the infant requires, so human pair bonding was invented so that the male would contribute to the pool from his efforts at hunting. Non-procreational sex was invented as part of the glue for the pair bond. Even that wasn’t enough because hunting success is patchy and the infant needs food every day. In northern regions where the ground was frozen for months, male hunting success was the only source of food for a good part of the year. To overcome the problem of hunting’s patchiness, group food pooling behaviour developed, and to some extent became likely encoded in our genes. That was a big problem because it was also the invention of socialism and kept us back for hundreds of thousands of years.
Genes can only take human development so far, though. Further progress requires culture. Culture is the continuation of evolution by non-physical means. Some cultures are better than others and that is quite evident when we look at human progress around the world. Common to all cultures, and none miss out on this, is the concept of marriage. The marriage ceremony told the couple, and especially the male, that the purpose of their union was for the provision of their offspring. There is no other reason for their union, a serious undertaking. In fact, in the Middle East of Jesus’ time, marriage as a social institution was reinforced in part by stoning to death women who became pregnant outside of marriage. Otherwise, if the bastard survived to term, the tribe would be burdened with feeding mother and child. The miracle of Mary’s virgin birth has been explained as an act of charity by Joseph in taking in a pregnant woman who otherwise would have been stoned to death.
So, as Cicero said, marriage is the founding bond of society. It evolved very early on in our differentiation from the rest of the ape family, it allowed us to develop the brains that are basis of being human. A good cultural overlay reinforces that so that everyone takes the institution of marriage very seriously indeed, and partners just don’t run off at the drop of a hat after three kids and a tough patch.
Well, that was the case at least until recently and the notion that some people should be allowed to get married just because they would like to join the club of married people. That can only lead to a bitter harvest of broken marriages and abandoned children if the notion of marriage is cheapened and lessened and broadened by including people who are not entering into the state of married bliss in order to produce offspring. The proponents of homosexual marriage know that, and that is why they are promoting it. It is not about a pair of homosexuals being able to look gooey-eyed at each other, it is about undermining civilisation and making our culture more like African-American culture with its 70% illegitimacy rate.
Cultures that reinforce the evolutionary pressures that made us a gracile, intelligent species of ape produce a high standard of living. Cultures that are at cross purposes to those pressures go to hell in a hand basket.
What of homosexuals themselves, the 1.5% of the population who according to basic theory should be bred out of the population pretty quickly? Contrary to current US presidential hopeful Dr Ben Carson, who thinks that homosexuality is a learned condition because some heterosexual males in prison engage in sexual activity with other males, there are homosexuals born that way. Homosexual males tend to have a longer index finger than middle finger, with the opposite in lesbians. Birth order affects the incidence of homosexuality with it increasing with the number of males born to a woman.
All this suggests that the womb reacts to cumulative testosterone exposure. It is possible that the incidence of homosexuality is an acceptable loss, in evolutionary terms, so that the rest of the males can be more male-like. Viewed in that way, homosexuality is part of the human condition. But so is marriage – it is more than just a social construct. A successful culture wouldn’t mix the two. A degenerate culture might.
David Archibald’s next book is Australia’s Defence 2016 and Beyond (Connor Court).
I prefer the term “decadent” to “degenerate” because I know so many wonderful homosexual people. And not everybody marries to produce offspring; look at the number of elderly people who choose to marry after the death of a spouse.
This whole issue, really, is about the dominance of the Left and its deliberate program to ‘rob’ the conservative, establishment culture of the very ideologies it sees as promulgating success for that societal group. A strategy as old as time itself.
The answer from the Right and conservatives generally should be to allow the same-sex marriage proposal through the parliament so that the legal establishment can derive an increased share of the income pie through the inevitable consequences – and, in so doing, exploit the rich irony inherent in all this!! Counter intuitive for the Left; economic gain for conservatives.
Yet there seems to be a considerable proportion of the legal ‘establishment (…and the psychiatric establishment) who are homosexual right wing conservatives?
These are generally not the noisy people advocating for their “rights”!! This is coming from the Left, together with the usual suppression of any contrary voice. And I would seriously question your “considerable proportion”.
David,
There are a number of unsupportable statements in this article. For instance, I know several couples who married with the express joint agreement that they would NOT have children. Curiously, after decades, none ever divorced and now they are heading into their terminal years.
Secondly, there are a number of societies that allow polygamy, so how are they classified in “… human pair bonding was invented so that the male would contribute to the pool from his efforts at hunting.” In this case we have one male feeding several females and their offspring, which appears to invalidate your contention as to how and why monogamous and group societies developed.
As a personal view, not based on any special science or logic, I think traditional marriage is fine as it is, with all other variations being something else. However, should the people vote for this change then I look forward to the full weight of the Law of Unintended Consequences befalling the ‘Gay’ community, with wretched divorce wrangles, property disputes over who gets the 60%, alimony, child support (for Poodle the poodle), etc, not to mention the ATO applying income tax to joint earnings and investments. This is when winning a battle may suddenly seem not such a good idea at all with many reverting to cohabitation to avoid tax and legal problems.
Interestingly, there are many (many, many) existing polygamous cases currently being quietly overlooked by Social Services and Centrelink as bringing them to light would be considered an attack on religious faith (but don’t try it as a Mormon).
First, why bother marrying if you are totally against having children? People like these are at least partially responsible for the abomination of “gay marriage”. Second, why does society have a stake in promoting marriage? Clearly the procreative view, and the idea that both parents will stay together and take proper responsibility for their offspring is the clear and obvious answer. Gay marriage was always really about an attempt to force acceptance of homosexuality. As a pure “rights” issue, civil partnerships would have solved them. No one has a “right” for their personal preferences and choices to be explicitly endorsed by society.
Because government bestows benefits on those who marry. Those benefits aren’t conditional on having kids.
Private industry does too. It’s easier to get a mortgage if you are married as one example.
What is the official figure? … I thought 6% (you say 1.5% ?) of the Australian population ‘identified as homosexual? what would that be including those who do not identify?… i.e. .. what % of the Australian population is homosexual?
Does it really matter what the percentages are since only a minority are responsible for the very vocal, shrill, well organized and demanding cries for their ‘rights’. The rest of us can go jump.
A very small minority. Far more people attend church every week, but we’re constantly told their numbers are too small to matter in public policy.
Yup you can go jump. We should not allow the tyranny on the majority to rule with an iron fist. We should allow maximum freedom and personal choice to the extent that it doesn’t impact on others.
Either prove that homosexual marriages are inferior or go jump. Study after study has shown that they aren’t. The divorce rate is similarly poor in both and children in both perform about the same, perhaps with a slight advantage to the homosexual.
Mr Archibald in this article has to reach for some pretty abstract “evidence” in this article and fails to make a coherent case in the face of the overwhelmingly poor statistical performance of straight marriage.
“The tyranny of the majority”. Old style Marxism at its very best. I love Australia, but I can do without the tyranny.
“What mighty contests rise from trivial things” (Alexander Pope)
The overwhelmingly poor statistical performance of straight marriage is a consequence of the post 1960s culture war, which continues to be fought, e.g. the ridiculous push for homosexual marriage.
Look at humans how they are, not how they “ought” to be. Homosexual marriage never appeared in human history. If there were instances of societies where is was present at some point, they died because they were evolutionary failures. There’s your biological proof. And that’s the fate of our civilisation, as it’s a certainty that being in a state sans morality we are weak and we will be conquered by Islam.
Survival of the fittest.
If homosexuals become defined as a disadvantaged group with special benefits, perhaps the percentage will suddenly become 100% who thus identify.
The most reliable data (untainted by biased ‘researchers’) is that less than 2% of adult males are homosexual. The figure for lesbian activity is less than that. That is substantially less than the trumpeted double-digit homosexual activity posited by Kinsey who drew their statistics from deviant prison inmates and also participated in paedophilia. What we are now experiencing is an extremely vocal 2% of the population, completely anti-democratically, overthrowing of civilised society. History does not support so-called ‘homosexual marriage’; biology does not support so-called ‘gay marriage’; and certainly theology does not support homosexuality, fornication nor adultery. Clearly we have Federal politicians who have a death wish at the next election. What it does say is that the time for completely retraining the ABC is long overdue!
You are witnessing 2% of the population demand the same rights as the other 98%. This 2% isn’t an overthrow of society, it’s barely worth mentioning. Gay Marriage could be legal tomorrow and no one should even notice it’s such a relatively rare occurrence.
This 2% are sick of you telling them they are inferior without any evidence. Produce some evidence that supports your view or be quiet. Using hyperbole like overthrow of society makes you sound stupid. No nation that has legalised gay marriage has resulted in a societal overthrow. Grow up.
Hilarious. It’s such a new phenomenon with no parallel in recorded history, which should tell you a hell of a lot because marriage evolved in every society on the planet. Gay marriage isn’t amongst the historical record. But to hell with what our ancestors discovered and went through. They’re all bigots and racists anyway.
“Homosexuality” is a term that was unknown little more than 100 years ago. In English the word homosexual was first used in 1892 in the English translation of Krafft-Ebing’s “Psychopathia sexualis” a German reference work on sexual perversions. Before that the term sodomy was used. It is my contention that “homosexual” behaviour is purely cultural in origin and has become much more popular in our decadent post-christian culture over the last 50 years or so and is gaining popularity.
I think the article above demonstrates the power of the theory of “evolution” to influence one’s beliefs, in this case that “homosexuality” is somehow caused by “evolution” and is genetically determined. There is no evidence for this and that the only evidence provided by the writer is from a popular psychology site relating finger length to “homosexuality” reinforces my contention. The rest of the article is based on pure speculation.
There is a great deal of evidence that sodomy is a cultural phenomenon (ancient Greece and Rome in their decadent stage, gaols, sailors and English boarding schools). From a medical viewpoint sodomy is very harmful and for those who persist in that lifestyle it is associated with a 20-30 year reduction in life expectancy.
I find it appalling that it is now being taught to our children in schools as being relatively harmless.
I really enjoyed the 3 times in my life i was sodomised. I don’t have any medical issues so far.
I have sodomised my wife a few times, when we were younger, and with her eager consent of course.
We are both concerned now about these medical issues you speak of. What should we look out for? Are you medically trained? Or just taking out of your unsodomised part?
Seriously now, you know the majority of sodomy in austrlian statistically is being done by heterosexuals right? The statistics are unarguable. So few people are gay males in the population that their sodomy is overshadowed by your neighbours twice a week. Nice visual image huh?
No doubt sodomy is enjoyable for some people otherwise they wouldn’t do it of course.
Sodomy has deleterious health effects whether it is male/male or male/female
HIV/AIDS, anal carcinoma, syphilis and suicide. There are others.
So why not campaign for heterosexual people to stop doing it? They are the ones who do it most after all. Why pick on the queers?
Holy crap I missed suicide. You really think sodomy causes suicide? Where are the married couples killing themselves in droves?
Mark, welcome to the world of “all care, no responsibility” in our schools. The doctrine of political correctness has also robbed young people of the opportunity to actually think for themselves, sadly. And Hollywood hegemony depicts homosexuality as “the new normal”.
“Insight” on Tuesday night was about women who did not want children, and some of these women were married and had their husbands with them. I felt particularly embarrassed for one of these men when his wife revealed her psycho-sexual hangups about procreation. It would have been an ideal opportunity for the moderator to raise the issue of ‘why get married if you don’t want children?”.
As an aside, an ‘evolutionary biologist’ on that same program – when asked about possible instances in the animal world of females that did not want children – claimed that he knew of no cases in the animal world. Here’s a scoop: I lived on a farm and sometimes saw cows reject their newborn calves and I’ve seen the same on animal programs. Just because I cow can’t say “I don’t want to be a mother” doesn’t mean it cannot express that in a physical way which threatens the existence of the newborn. You’ve got to wonder about academics and their remoteness from the real world!!
How do you explain the fact that studies have found that children raised by gay couples seem to have slightly better life outcomes than straight couples?
You know lesbians can have kids right? Hopefully I don’t have to draw a picture of how this is possible. Once they are blessed with a child one of the women can work and one can raise the child if they choose that traditional style of family life.
Gay men can adopt, of course. I know a gay male couple raising kids from a previous marriage that didn’t work out (because the husband way gay obviously!) and they are normal, happy, spoilt rotten.
Gay people don’t have accidental children. They don’t have unwanted children. It makes sense that when they choose to raise kids they are going to raise them better than people who didn’t want the child they are now forced to raise. Family planning is far more deliberate in a gay household.
Gay people have the lowest abortion rate. Abortion is very morally problematic for me, I want to see it minimised. Supporting stable gay couples achieves this end too. Stoning to death a pregnant woman to avoid bastards seems an odd thing to mention in 2015.
The heterosexual community is divorcing at a massive rate, and yet you don’t write articles for quadrant condemning straight people who divorce or campaigning for the outlawing of divorce to protect children. Why? You move straight from Cicero to condemning the idea of gay marriage. Totally swerving around heterosexual divorce. Nice attempt at slight of hand.
Marriage has evolved beyond the tribal and the reproductive. It now is a path to a whole bunch of rights and responsibilities that are sanctioned or bestowed by the government. (Right or wrong). If you want to deny these rights to gay people you need more evidence from the here and now that the gay couple is inferior socially and this article simply doesn’t have any. It’s not a surprise that someone advocating the socially engineering of Australia in 2015 quoting biblical stoning as lynch pin of our evolution produces this sort of irrational and unsupportable article.
The best ideals may be hard to live up to. That doesn’t make them wrong.
I submit to you that longitudinal studies are not yet available about the impact of children raised in same-sex relationships, since this is a relatively new phenomenon. So, it is not possible to suggest they have ‘better life outcomes’ than children from heterosexual relationships – apart from the fact that the statement itself is actually cant.
That’s just rubbish. Same sex couples raising children is not new. There are studies going back 30 years. Have you even looked? Try google!
You could argue the studies are products of the progressive soft left etc etc but there just aren’t enough showing relative negative outcomes to support your view. To say they’re haven’t been studies is either ignorant or a deliberate lie.
A lot of the negatives for kids raised by gays are caused by straight people’s prejudice!
30 years is NOT a longitudinal study – not by ANY stretch of the imagination – not to mention the EXTREMELY SMALL demographic.
Also using your logic it’s also not possible to say they have worse life outcomes. You are still holding an empty cup here. You have nothing to support your view other than your preconceptions of relationships and society. You need facts, plenty of them, to continue this oppression and call it moral.
I didn’t say they had “worse life outcomes” but I sure am glad I’m not in a school playground having to describe my two mums or two dads to kids who bully just because you have your hair parted on the wrong side. Give kids a break!! Don’t make it any HARDER for then than it already is!! BTW, I guess you haven’t read the latest statistics about unhappy, depressed kids – there’d be some same-sex reared kids in that poll too.
But what will you do or become when the creeping Islamisation of Western Society begins to really take hold. Londonistan now has some 400 plus new Mosques for example.
Best keep quiet about your orientation under Sharia
Unlike Australia, UK has civil partnerships which gave people in them, of any sexual orientation, the same rights in law as a civil marriage. Although the stated aims of the campaign for gay marriage in UK were equality in law, which was unnecessary as it already existed, and societies recognition and celebration of the loyalty to and love of each other of the parties to a gay marriage. there was nothing to stop gays and lesbians enjoying a public ceremony and party in the same way as heterosexual couples. The campaigners could have chosen a name for their long term relationships other than marriage but chose not to. Nothing was enough to satisfy them. Clearly their aim was to destroy what they could not ever have, a relationship that is unique to heterosexuals. The legislation was rammed through parliament despite public support never being more than just over 50%. The origin of this legalisation process was a committee or working group within the EU in which it was agreed to introduce national legislation by a certain date. It was not included in any Queen’s speech. It is one of the more sleazy acts of David Cameron’s premiership.
The unique and essential nature of heterosexual marriage that pre-dates Christianity merits its own unique name and special celebration. All the arguments for gay marriage can be satisfied without destroying heterosexual marriage and without calling gay unions marriage. The motivation to do so is undeclared because it is ignoble. It is envy, spite, anger or jealousy. It is not benign and should be resisted.
Historian Niall Ferguson in his Reith lectures, now in book form as ‘The Great Degeneration’ studied the causes of the failure of civilisations down the ages. His conclusion was always the same: degeneration of the civil institutions of society. Marriage is one of them.
The degeneration of marriage has being led by heterosexual people for the last 300 years or so. Heterosexual people have redefined marriage as something that’s now about love, something that’s no longer chosen by parents and something that is no longer primarily about managing inheritances and property. If you go further back in time you can see that marriage was mostly about the control of women and their reproduction ensuing that property was passed to the genetic offspring of the father not an illegitimate son. This isn’t particularly noble, quite base actually.
Heterosexual people have also conclusively demonstrated that marriage doesn’t work about half of the time.
If you went back to the 1600s and looked at marriage you wouldn’t recognise it. The concept that the woman isn’t the property of the husband is only a few centuries old.
So if you want to protest the degeneration of marriage why aren’t you protesting the woeful divorce rate? Why aren’t you campaigning for the return of betrothal? Surely a father can pick a husband for his daughter? Arranged marriages actually have a lower divorce rate.
As for Civil unions well, Pfffft. This is like saying to gay people “you can ride the bus, you just have to sit at the back and not associate with us normal people”. There is simply no evidence that homosexual relationships are any different for heterosexual ones. They are both based on love these days, not children or property. They are both mostly temporary, partnerships that last for life are in the minority for gay and straight people alike. Some straight marriages involve children, as do some gay ones. It’s just not clear that there are any differences any more.
Heterosexual people changed the rules of marriage slowly over a couple of centuries. Gay marriage is a logical outcome of that change because marriage has been changed to the point where can be applied to all relationships, not just those based on controlling women, property or offspring.
Your argument is simply that SSM is a continuation of the moral decline of Western society – the always denied slippery slope. I agree. The question you should be considering is what comes next?
How exactly would you define an SSM for the purposes of the law? If we are to accept a continuum of gender, or at least variable two-state gender, then why should SSM be limited in law to two people? I see no reason to limit it to two.
Have you any suggestions for changes to divorce law to accommodate SSM? If the law is to define what SSM is and when it starts, it must also define when and what determines its end. If you care to answer at all, please make disagreement between the two or more partners in the SSM your starting point. And then proceed to disposal of the assets, settlement of debts, provisions for maintenance including future pension rights and inheritances. Then proceed to consider responsibilities for any children involved, which wold of course include a biological parent or, perhaps two, (as has been provided for on birth certificates in Canada(?).
MickL does seem to have a “them” and “us” mentality. And he tries to invoke “studies” which show that children of same-sex couples have “slightly better life outcomes” than children from heterosexual marriages or defacto relationships. This is just cant, as I’ve stated before in my previous comments.
Frankly, I don’t care whether same-sex marriage is enacted as law in this country or not because I don’t think marriage is worth defending. With so few people going to the altar, as it were, these days and with such a high rate of divorce the only real active advocates for it nowadays are homosexual couples. (The legal profession must be rubbing its hands in anticipation of that next step – same-sex divorce.) But what I DO care about is that, as a democracy, we have a right to hear the opinions of the majority on this matter; not some sleight-of-hand act of undemocratic judicial activism as occurred in the USA – which actually overturned the majoritarian wishes of some of the US states (as discussed recently by Professor James Allan). That’s when we got onto the real slippery slope.
And as far as children are concerned; sure, there are huge numbers of dysfunctional families out there but I don’t think being in a same-sex relationship is any kind of indemnity either for dysfunction. It’s simply a part of being “us” rather than “them”.
I am happily married and straight and not one of “them”. I just don’t believe we should be able to vote on human rights. We shouldn’t be able to vote to enslave people for example. The concept of democracy has its limits.
If the government is going to legislatively endorse marriage and bestow benefits and priveledges on married people then this needs to be extended to everyone. Not just the people we agree with. This is a basic concept of Liberty. Equal before the law.
There are plenty of studies if you take the time to read them. But you won’t because they challenge your world view. You are effectively advocating perpetuating an endless loop. Gay people can’t get married because there aren’t enough studies showing that gay peope raising kids isn’t bad for them. But there aren’t enough gay parents raising kids because they can’t get married and the social stigma this creates.
Those so-called “studies” are entirely risible. No longitudinal studies are available and those that are were probably a tiny control group. And I’d love to take a look at the impartial (cough) line of enquiry!!
“Gifts and benefits”. So, this is about socialism after all. The Emperor has no clothes.
There’s no such thing as human rights. They’re a legal construct and will vanish as soon as this current socio-political order disintegrates.
Marriage, as defined by our ancestors, was a contract for continuing the people, so of course it bestowed benefits and incentives. If you for whatever reason cannot participate, tough luck.
The fact that marriage today has a huge rate of failure says nothing about the institution of marriage. It says everything about the failure of a selfish and weak society.
it also bestowed responsibilities on the partners to each other and to any children that may continue after the marriage has ended. I don’t hear the SSM protagonists clamouring for these responsibilities and costs.
Your reasoning is fundamentally wrong. the special provisions in law for married couples are there to encourage and support marriage on the basis that the vast majority of people who marry do so in order to have children, a costly, stressful and risky enterprise that, if successful, benefits all of society. Part of that provision is to place responsibilities on the couple as parents or custodians of any children which continue at least until any child becomes an adult. It is not the intention of the law to grant privileges. one can argue whether the law has the balance right, but one cannot argue against that principle.
The case for SSM having special provision in law does not pass scrutiny. the proportion of homosexuals wanting to marry in order to raise children is tiny, that of lesbians is larger but still a minority. Society as a whole has no obvious need for same sex couples to raise children. There is simply no justification for SSM couples to be given any special provision in law unless the purpose of the union is to raise children.
Equality is not an issue that bears a moment’s scrutiny either. Same sex relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships. if the law is to say anything it should recognise the difference. Therefore if the purpose of a SSM is to raise a child, one or two additional partners to the union are necessary. The law should provide for all to take part equally in this risky, stressful and costly endeavour.
then you should provide in law for the ending of such arrangements in cases where one partner disagrees that the relationship has ended, provisions for disposal of assets, ongoing maintenance, continuing obligations and responsibilities, to each other and any children involved.
I do not believe there is any justification for SSM in law.
I do believe that if the law can be changed in a way that removes prejudice, or that relieves stress or cost on same-sex couples arising out of existing law, there is a case for changing the law. But i also do not believe that changing the law necessarily changes prejudice and in this case I believe it is likely that the proposed change, being ill considered, will increase prejudice rather than diminish it.
There was a time when being English meant in law that you were born free. You did not need any rights. that ended with Norman rule from 1066. but still survives to an extent sufficient to make England incomprehensible to continental Europeans, the inheritors of Napoleonic law by which people had freedoms only to the extent that he or the state decreed. this is exactly the principle of EU law. Competences, as it calls powers to legislate, belong to the Eu, member states or they are shared. the general division of these competences is decided by the European Council of heads of government, the detail is decided by the wholly unelected commission. Only the commission has the power to initiate legislation. The principle of ‘ever closer union’ written into the EU treaties means that any change can be in one direction only: toward the EU. the EU Parliament has no power to alter that. Therefore citizens of the EU require rights in order to protect them from oppression by the state. the more the state does, the more rights are required by the citizens. National democratically elected parliaments are subordinate to all EU law, even if they were to vote 100% against it. No member state has a veto on the exercise of any EU competence.
By claiming rights you accept that you have none other than those granted by the state. it is the path totalitarianism.
I think marriage will decline further to the point that no special provisions are required in law at all. The only special provision required will be for children. At that point, the blood relationships will become more important. Thereafter society might get back, if it has not collapsed altogether, to the idea that a stable society and the normal processes of evolution need genetically based families. This was the original concept which predates religion. Religions adopted it, embraced it, celebrated it, solemnised it, and supported it because it’s worth was a self-evident truth while also recognising that conducting a successful marriage is difficult, stressful and costly.
It does not seem to me to be very sensible to respond to the decline of marriage by killing it off. Why not instead do something to revive it?
Explain Bonobo chimp then and its sexual proclivities.
Ruination of Angloshere in 4 steps.
1. Define and legalise SSM
2. Polygamy legalised using step 1 as precedent.
3. Pedophilia legalised using step 1 or 2 as precedent.
4. Beastiality legalised citing false evolution theory that people are mammals not humans and step 1 above.