The silliest controversy of the past six millennia, the argument over same sex marriage in religious premises, gets sillier. After wearing out the "people should have an equal right to express their love for each other meme (easily hit for six when you reminds the lefties supporting this cause that not so long ago they were equally vehemently arguing that people did not need a bit of paper to express their love for each other) the waily - ganshy - teethy brigade started citing a pseudo - science report that claims homosexual beaviour is found in 1500 species of animals. Animals do not marry so what this has to do with same sex mariage we are not permitted to know.

1500 species out of more than a million is hardly a deal clencher and the case gets even weaker when we understand that the report defines homosexual behaviour as mutual grooming, sharing food and hanging out together. In human terms this would class men going for a couple of beers with a mate as homosexual behaviour. The heterosexual equivalent would be saying you had had sex with a woman because you held hands with her.

Obviously holding hands, while nice, is nothing like having sex and equally subjective interpretations are placed on cetrain kinds of animal behaviour.

I recently had shitloads of lefty hate thrown at me on a left wing web site for suggesting it is all a question of consciousness. You always know when you've landed a scoring punch on the intellectually bankrupt lefties because the hate starts flowing. And then they can't stop it.

Animals are not conscious in the way we are, their behaviour is instinctual therefore if they don't know that what they are doing is homosexual they can't be homosexual. Do animals go in for deviant sexual behaviour like S & M, bondage, cross - dressing, covering each others' wedding tackle in chocolate or fetishism? I think not.

An example is the www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Z5k1_LgkE ">shoe humping tortoie featured on The Graham Norton show (narrated by David Attenborough). Did the tortoise know it was shagging a shoe? It's expressions suggest it thought it had pulled a real reptillian hottie. Therefore it is not a shoe fetishist as a human might be but simply a confused crustacean.

And it is bonking a ladies shoe. So does this prove shoe fetishists shpould be allowed to marry shoes?

Thus the same sex marriage lobby's animal argument is as demolished. All they have left is the equal rights argument. But religious marriage has never been a right for anyone and the left are supposed to be against privileged elites that have rights not extended to the rest of us.

RELATED POSTS:
Three more shades of grey
In The Future Your Fuck Buddy Will Be A Robot
Hypocrites
Backs To The Wall Chaps
HMS Politically Correct - the new Navy
Equalities Bill
There's A Lot Of It About