According to AZCentral.com, students in an Arizona high school performed  

The Goat, or Who Is Sylvia? by Edward Albee, an absurdist play in which one of the characters falls in love with a goat. It includes the use of several vulgar sexual terms. . . .

In the play, a middle-aged man leads an ideal life with his wife and teenage son, until he admits that he is also in love with a goat named Sylvia, with whom he has had sex. The play explores themes of tolerance, morality and revenge, and includes scenes of homosexuality and incest.  

I remember this play well -- I wrote about it in Total Truth. But at the time, I did not anticipate that it would filter down to the high school level. Here's what I said there to explain the worldview backdrop: 

In the past, it was Christians who warned that Darwinian evolution would ultimately destroy morality, by reducing it to behavioral patterns selected only for their survival value. Back then, evolutionists would often respond with soothing reassurances that getting rid of God would not jeopardize morality -- that “we can be good without God.” But in recent years, evolutionists themselves have begun bluntly declaring that the theory undercuts the basis of ­morality.

For example, biologist William Provine of Cornell travels the lecture circuit telling university students that the Darwinian revolution is still incomplete, because we have not yet embraced all its moral and religious implications. What are those implications? Provine lists them: “There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will.” Thus evolutionary psychologists are simply completing the Darwinian revolution by drawing out its full implications. They are connecting the dots, by showing what consistent Darwinism means for morality.

The results can be quite abhorrent. A few years ago, conservative commentators around the country gave a collective gasp when an article appeared by a Princeton University professor supporting -- of all things -- sexual relations between humans and animals. The professor was Peter Singer, already notorious for his support of animal rights. (Apparently we ­didn’t realize what kind of rights he meant . . . ­)

The article was titled “Heavy Petting,” and in it Singer makes it clear that his real target is biblical morality. In the West, he writes, we have a “Judeo-Christian tradition” that teaches that “humans alone are made in the image of God.” “In Genesis, God gives humans dominion over the animals.” But evolution has thoroughly refuted the biblical account, Singer maintains: Evolution teaches us that “We are animals” -- and the result is that “sex across the species barrier [isn’t that a scientific-sounding euphemism?] ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human ­beings.”

These sentiments do not remain carefully contained within academia, but trickle down into popular culture -- where they have a much greater impact on the public. In 2002 a play opened on Broadway to rave reviews called The Goat, or, Who Is Sylvia? featuring a successful architect who confesses to his wife that he has fallen in love with someone else. The object of his affection turns out to be a goat named Sylvia. Apparently, playwrights no longer feel that they can get enough dramatic tension out of an ordinary affair; to really create drama, they must probe the theme of ­bestiality.

A culture is driven by a kind of logic: It will eventually begin to express the logical consequences of the dominant worldview. If evolution is true -- if there really is an unbroken continuity between humans and animals -- then Singer is absolutely right about what he calls “sex across the species ­barrier.”

Once again, all the dots connect back to your view of ­origins.

Related
Dawkins: Nazi Eugenics "May Not Be Bad"?
Paging Nancy Pearcey: Evolution in Pop Culture