Last November German authorities said they were planning to reinstate an old law forbidding sex with animals after a sharp rise in incidents of bestiality along with websites promoting it....
Hans-Michael Goldmann, chairman of the agriculture committee, said the government aimed to forbid using an animal 'for individual sexual acts and to outlaw people 'pimping' creatures to others for sexual use.'
German 'zoophile' group ZETA has announced it will mount a legal challenge should a ban on bestiality become law. 'Mere concepts of morality have no business being law,' said ZETA chairman Michael Kiok.
July 2, 2013
"Bestiality brothels are spreading through Germany faster than ever thanks to a law that makes animal porn illegal..."
"... but sex with animals legal, a livestock protection officer has warned."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
127 comments:
Thank God it's not America. The Repubs would be in high drudgeon (my misspelling made a funny) warning about wedding bells in the near future. Oh, they already are? My bad.
Surfed said...
Thank God it's not America
Luckily we have Ginsberg to interpret the Constitution in accordance with international law.
While I do think Republicans need to shut up about bestiality (of the possible next steps from gay marriage, it's the furthest one. Stick to polygamy, which has a much better argument and is harder to mock), I do have to note that the only people I have ever seen take a principled stand in favor of bestiality were extreme left-wingers. Those folks also tended to oppose age of consent laws.
Just add horses to the stables.
"Mere concepts of morality have no business being law",
Sounds an awful lot like
"You can't legislate morality"
Further, I think the evil Christians had something bad to say about bestiality:
Leviticus - "'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion."
So, since Chrisitian morality is bigoted, and you can't legislate morality, I guess the Germans can't pass a law making sex between humans and animals illegal?
what it's really saying is society can't pass laws that in effect judge behavior as bad.
Maybe Germany is on the wrong side of history on the whole beastiality debate, and liberals should be condemning Germany for being old fuddy duddies.
All we like sheep.
Isaiah 53:6
Hey, we have a right to privacy... and if Clyde's relationship with his sheep doesn't hurt anyone, why should you object?
As long as the sheep's owner is OK with it, does the state really have an interest in this behavior?
Better to tax the Sheep-Sex.
Actually, I have a legitimate question- If we can't legislate morality, why are US Liquor taxes so high??? In Europe you can get GOOD beer for cheaper than we get cheep beer!
Japan is the epicenter for 78.3% of the weird shit in the world. Germany covers the other 21.7%
Now...what do those two countries have in common?
Suddenly Adolf doesn't look so bad.
If we can't legislate morality, does that mean we should get rid of all laws justified on utilitarian or egalitarian grounds too?
"Japan is the epicenter for 78.3% of the weird shit in the world. Germany covers the other 21.7%
Now...what do those two countries have in common?"
Maybe this influx of Mexicans isn't such a bad idea.
I think the ZETA folks need to be put in a large sea water tank with a pod of male dolphins. Let the experience the true beauty of animal sexuality up close and personal.
Now that's just gross. I note, however that they never really even get close to quantifying this problem. They talk of one case where they get some guys on CCTV in a barn, but don't even say how many. "Faster than ever" may mean at the rate of two every ten years for all we know.
Still too many. That's just gross.
My main response to this story is ewwwwwwwhhhh! But hey, at least they're not trying to conquer the world. Compared to that, screwing (or being screwed by) animals isn't so bad.
2012 Big News: Politician driving around with a dog on top of his car.
2016 Not Big News: Politician having sex with her dog.
Scott M said...
Now...what do those two countries have in common?
Perverts?
Old MacDonald had a farm,
E I E I Oh.
And on the farm he had a duck,
E I E I Oh,
With a quack, quack here,
And a fuck, fuck there,
Old MacDonald had a farm,
E I E I oh.
I'm guessing that this kind of thing has gone on for what? Millennia?
The terms bestiality and zoophilia are the formal names for having sex with animals for pleasure.
I take that disclaimer as a sign that something has progressed beyond a certain point where advising what those words mean is no longer a mere option.
@Scott M - Gives new meaning to the old saw "The Germans are either at your throat or at your feet."
Taking the concept of animal husbandry just a little too literally.
I'll never find another ewe.
In other words...
The Mail seems to be saying... don't blame us for using those words, we can only use the words we got.
Can we all agree its wrong? Are we too afraid of judging someone's actions or too willing to draw it into various comparisions or contrasts. There's no PC here is there?
Deirdre Mundy said...
Actually, I have a legitimate question- If we can't legislate morality, why are US Liquor taxes so high??? In Europe you can get GOOD beer for cheaper than we get cheep beer!
No, you don't get it.
WE can't legislate morality.
The Lefties can.
Another of those, "What's this 'we', white man?", things.
Mosaic Law is a revelation by God to man of how God sees man and sets standards of how a man should live out his life. Of course keeping Mosaic Law is more than we can do and we need a better way of relating to God that came in grace and truth in Jesus' atonement.
But the standards of God remain the same forever. Good luck winning that morality battle by saying God is the immoral one and we are noble perverts.
An animal cannot consent....and if it could, I think its safe to assume it wouldn't.
Would you want to have sex with some fucked up German animal raper? I wouldn't even want to play fetch or go for a walk with one.
Using animal rapers for medical experiments....OK maybe.
Legalize hunting them? Sure. Why not?
Iconoclasm wrote:
While I do think Republicans need to shut up about bestiality (of the possible next steps from gay marriage, it's the furthest one. Stick to polygamy, which has a much better argument and is harder to mock),
how likely it is to occur is not the issue. The issue is, on what basis would you argue that society could restrict it as a form of marriage
Since i think society can restrict marriage any way it wants I have no problem with saying you can't marry a dog, simply because society deems it wrong.
But I'm not saying "marriage" is only about love, and society has no right to make judgements about relationships. Nor am I saying marriage is a right and society must redefine it so that people can marry who they love, whatever that means.
Because depending on what that means society shouldn't do it.
Another distinction - I'm comparing bestiality to gay marriage only in the context of arguing against the case made by gay marriage advocates as to why gay marriage must be allowed or you're a bigot. It would be the same if up up were to argue that polygamy must be allowed or you're a bigot. Or incest must be allowed, or you're a bigot.
The assumption is pretty close to "you can't legislate morality when it comes to marriage". Or society cant restrict marriage be ause its discrimination. And if you really believe that and you really think, that merely because you are denied marriage you are being discriminated against and therefore society is wrong to prevent you from marrying for love, then you have to question all restricted marriages. Because those another restricted marriages are being denied rights now, too.
Does that mean that I think being gay is harmful like bestiality? No. (Though I'll grant that some do). I know plenty of gays, and have no problem with them having whatever relationships they want. I don't know any people fucking cows, and if I did, I probably wouldn't be their friend anymore.
The issue is whether society is allowed to restrict marriage. Can it promote one marriage structure over another? My answer would be yes. But if that's so,then those who fall under the restriction can't marry.
Traditional marriage is legislating morality, but its not saying that gayness is bad, its saying that society wants to promote a man woman family structure as the ideal relationship to promote (because that's who make the kids and we don't want society to be raising kids instead of parents. But its neutral on gays marrying.
So when gays say, we want that, I say you can't have that. Not because I hate you, but because you don't fit the criterion, which is beneficial to,society as set.
So what do I think are gays options? Civil unions. Don't redefine marriage, create a structure for gays that fits the gay relationship. Marriage requires a man and a woman, a bride and a groom. Gay marriage doesn't have that. So create and codify a relationship that does that doesn't redefine marriage as well.
Many states were already accommodating gays on this front.
It is possible to be moral without religion.
But when you begin to compromise morality, or your principles, in order to obtain something you want, you erode your moral sense, and your moral compass deviates.
It isn't possible to maintain a moral direction when you begin to justify yourself by the goal rather than the means.
The despicable tactics used to obtain SSM, as well as the preference to abandon logic/reason in favor of purely emotional appeals to justify the despicable tactics, has brought about the moral corruption of pretty much everyone involved.
You are either honest, or not. You either have integrity, or not.
Once you compromise your integrity for a goal, your moral vessel is no longer whole. It can be patched...but if one has the moral commitment to patch their personal integrity, they wouldn't have compromised their integrity in the first place. It can only be patched through sincere repentance.
There are similar threads running through the Progressive responses and actions related to the Scott Walker recall, the George Zimmerman trial/lynching, the abortion situation (including Planned Parenthood's bullying, Gosnell's trial, the TX filibuster), Obamacare's passage in Congress, the Benghazi/F&F/IRS/EPA/DoJ stonewalls, and SSM's Long March through society.
Ignore and/or embrace those common threads at peril to your integrity and moral sense.
Iconochasm:
Actually, that is the issue. After normalizing some dysfunctional (i.e. no redeeming value to society or humanity) behaviors (e.g. homosexual, elective abortion), what is the principled defense to deny others equal protection in equal measure?
It cannot be that it is antithetical to evolutionary fitness, since that objective principle was previously rejected as inconvenient. It can only be a selective rejection of rights based on feelings (e.g. clump of cells, extortion) or political expediency (e.g. democratic leverage).
If anything, polygamy, while not perfectly engendered by the natural order, actually demonstrates greater compatibility with evolutionary principles than does homosexual behavior and elective abortion/choice.
It's curious that the effort to normalize dysfunctional behavior began at the end (i.e. elective abortion) and has progressed back (e.g. homosexual).
All questions of legality aside....
Ew.
Ick.
I wish I could have un-read that.
Now...what do those two countries have in common?
Um, we bombed the fuckers flat a few decades back?
Now...what do those two countries have in common?
Perverts?
LMAO!
Deirdre --
We are not amused.
No sheep here, babe.
Gay marriage is trying to stick a square peg into a round hole. Whatever the benefit of gay marriage might be it doesn't fit the hole. And you can't argue equality because square does not equal round and never will.
So, like polygamy gay marriage would be a separate class of marriage that would cater to a group outside the norm. Must it be accommodated? No. Should it be accommodated? Maybe.
P.S. And no, you may not touch my snake!
If you want a good German name, I'd suggest Fritz or Adolf.
I think it's a Baaaaaaa-d idea.
Don't all the laws (in the US) regarding sex require that parties be consulting adults?
So, as someone else asked, do the animals consent to have sex? Or do they need to be tied up or held against their will? Seems more like "rape" than sex to me if they do.
If the animals truly consent, do they occasionally initiate the sex?
Are they adults and how do we measure? Has a 4 year old dog reached the age of consent in dog years?
And to echo someone else's comments "Ick!"
OTOH, if we can get gay men to fuck dogs instead of each other, it may cut down the rate of AIDS.
John Henry
And I'm sure it is total coincidence that garage announced the other day he plans to move to Germany
This is the section of the Scalia dissent in Lawrence v Texas where he mentions "bestiality." It is the shortest section of the dissenting opinion. As Scalia writes, it hardly needs to be expanded upon -- the Lawrence (and Windsor) majority's overlooking/ignorance of the rational basis test for determining whether a statute violates something that may be a "fundamental right." The Lawrence and Windsor majorities also punted on the nature of whether they were willing to declare homosexual conduct a "fundamental right." The Scalia dissent, Part IV:
****
I turn now to the ground on which the Court squarely rests its holding: the contention that there is no rational basis for the law here under attack. This proposition is so out of accord with our jurisprudence–indeed, with the jurisprudence of any society we know–that it requires little discussion.
The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are “immoral and unacceptable,” Bowers, supra, at 196–the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion. The Texas statute, it says, “furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,” ante, at 18 (emphasis addded). The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens’ declaration in his Bowers dissent, that “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,” ante, at 17. This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html
Something I have not seen addressed anywhere else is polygamous gay marriage.
Should a guy be allowed to marry more than one other man?
John Henry
Nathan wrote:
It is possible to be moral without religion.
there needs to be objective morality, or there is only subjective morality. And if there is only subjective morality, then bestiality would only be wrong... To you.
What if a person who makes his own morality says bestiality is right?
Ted Bundy made this point a long time ago. All moral values are just value judgements and who's to say which is right or wrong, other than him. Why should he care what you think of his choices or actions. You'd only be applying a value judgement and he doesn't care what you think.
So, would killing women be objectively wrong. I would think so, but he wouldn't.
jr565 said...
I was thinking in terms of optics and the DOMA decision. The DOMA decision obviously opens the door to polygamy. People who supported the decision will be able to make strong cases that bestiality, child sex, and to a lesser extent incest, can be forbidden for compelling reasons outside the scope of Kennedy's decision.
Bill(ly goat).
I love you so,
I always will
I look at you and see the passion eyes of May
Oh, but am I ever gonna see my wedding day...
And in your baaaa, baaaa I hear a choir of carousels
Oh, but am I ever gonna hear my wedding bells
I was the one came running when you were lonely
I haven't lived one day not loving you only
But kisses and love won't carry me 'til you marry me
Bill, I love you so
I always will
And though devotion rules my heart
I take no bows
But Bill, you know I'm gonna take my wedding vows
Come on, Bill
So come on, Bill
Come on and marry me
Bill, I love you so
I always will
Wedding Bell Blues.
John said...
Something I have not seen addressed anywhere else is polygamous gay marriage.
Should a guy be allowed to marry more than one other man?
That's the next step, along with adopting your "partner" for tax purposes, etc.
Iconochasm said...
I was thinking in terms of optics and the DOMA decision. The DOMA decision obviously opens the door to polygamy. People who supported the decision will be able to make strong cases that bestiality, child sex, and to a lesser extent incest, can be forbidden for compelling reasons outside the scope of Kennedy's decision.
Wanna bet?
Thanks for posting that Chuck.
Lets apply Kennedy's reasoning to bestiality and cite Scalia's dissent:
"The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens’ declaration in his Bowers dissent, that “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,”
The state has traditionally viewed bestiality as immoral and wrong (and gross). Is there no sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice?
John said... Something I have not seen addressed anywhere else is polygamous gay marriage.
Should a guy be allowed to marry more than one other man?
John Henry
7/2/13, 9:08 AM
No. Gay marriage by definition is one man and one man. You can have more than one partner but that's not gay marriage so call it something else. The term "gay marriage" has had one definition for hours and days and any other arrangements fly in the face of tradition and human experience going back seconds and seconds.
So is this the opening salvo for the next front in the left's endless culture wars?
edutcher said...
Wanna bet?
Bet what? I saw lefties taking a stand for bestiality and child sex a decade ago. That's no reason to make it easy to ridicule your opposition to the DOMA decision, particularly when you have a perfectly good opportunity to flip the debate and make them uncomfortable about their anti-Mormon bigotry.
What two consenting adults, a young child, and a farm animal choose to do in the privacy of a public rest stop is really none of our business.
Iconoclasm wrote:
People who supported the decision will be able to make strong cases that bestiality, child sex, and to a lesser extent incest, can be forbidden for compelling reasons outside the scope of Kennedy's decision.
the fact that the governing majority in a State has "traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,”
NAMBLA would argue, that the only reason the state is banning them from having sex with minors is because of morality. What other reason would they ban the practice? yes, having sex with kids is wrong, but that's a value judgement codified into law. Yes it's harmful to children but that's because we've defined what a child is based on our morality, and then made a law about it.
But does everyone view children the same way as the law does? Not NAMBLA.
"mere concepts of morality have no basis being law" saysth the guy who wants to fuck a sheep. his argument isn't to far off from Kennedy's (or Revenant's).
Bob Boyd said...
An animal cannot consent....
You've never had a dog try to hump your leg, have you?
Bill wrote:
No. Gay marriage by definition is one man and one man. You can have more than one partner but that's not gay marriage so call it something else. The term "gay marriage" has had one definition for hours and days and any other arrangements fly in the face of tradition and human experience going back seconds and seconds.
very funny, and very true.
But I would argue, if you could have polygamy there's no reason why you couldn't have gay polygamy. Or incestual polygamy. And why can't you have polygamy? Bigotry. Form people like Ann Althouse, the hater of polygamists (and progress and fairness) and serial violator of fundamental rights.
Ah dear old Deutschland. Where the men are men and the ducks are nervous.
Iconochasm said...
Wanna bet?
Bet what? I saw lefties taking a stand for bestiality and child sex a decade ago.
Yes, but damned few and out of the limelight.
First they had to make homosexuality palatable (no pun). They're just getting around to incest, so NAMBLA will have to wait another year until Kennedy's dementia progresses.
Germans. Do they have any GOOD habits?
there needs to be objective morality, or there is only subjective morality. And if there is only subjective morality, then bestiality would only be wrong... To you.
What if a person who makes his own morality says bestiality is right?
Ted Bundy made this point a long time ago. All moral values are just value judgements and who's to say which is right or wrong, other than him. Why should he care what you think of his choices or actions. You'd only be applying a value judgement and he doesn't care what you think.
So, would killing women be objectively wrong. I would think so, but he wouldn't.
I mostly agree.
Where I disagree is mostly on the word "objective".
I would substitute it with "traditionally accepted".
The reason I would is that if you claim "objective", you have to clarify which "objective" morality is correct, and an atheist, Protestant, Mormon, Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, and Ted Bundy would never agree on what is an objective morality.
I do think traditionally accepted morality dovetails almost exactly with Judeo-Christian morality.
I, myself, am not Christian, but I was raised as one. I take great care to maintain my integrity and uphold morality in my vicinity (teaching my children) despite not being a Christian. But I have to be honest that I might not be as strongly committed to morality and integrity if I hadn't been raised in a strong Christian environment.
For me, it comes down to:
Humans have been on this planet for millennia, and nearly every combination of getting along has been tried. Failures disappear, successes thrive. While small variations are possible, we can and should look at the results and keep what works.
US society and traditional morality isn't perfect, but it clearly works better for the overall happiness of all people much better than pretty much anything else in the history of humans.
So fucking with it because some people feel stifled is hubris and the height of stupidity.
...which goes a long way to explaining the inadequacy of liberals' debating skills.
(the biggest problem facing the US is that Democrats replaced Jim Crow laws with what is, in effect, neo-slavery: welfare = systemic poverty* = slavery**)
*It is a basic human urge to have a better life in the future than in the past; if one can't get a merit promotion, and you can't on welfare, then people turn to other ways to improve their life: fraud, theft, drugs...
**in this case, rather than cotton, what is being harvested is votes for political power that provides access to and control of taxpayer funds.
**
Actually, I have a legitimate question- If we can't legislate morality, why are US Liquor taxes so high??? In Europe you can get GOOD beer for cheaper than we get cheep beer!
Actually, my British friend comes to visit me in Texas in part to stock up on whisky distilled in Scotland and beer from Ireland . . .
Iconochasm said...
That's no reason to make it easy to ridicule your opposition to the DOMA decision, particularly when you have a perfectly good opportunity to flip the debate and make them uncomfortable about their anti-Mormon bigotry.
This really isn't the point. The court's requiring gay marriage but treating polygamy, incest, etc differently demonstrates the court is making policy choices - legislating - rather than interpreting the law.
Usually I leave it up to Garage and Ritmo to create the straw men.
I just watched Oz The Great And Powerful the other day. This thread looks just like the invasion of the poppy field with and army slowly walking across the field...
Because this topic totally has something to do with gay marriage. It has to!
Marshal wrote:
This really isn't the point. The court's requiring gay marriage but treating polygamy, incest, etc differently demonstrates the court is making policy choices - legislating - rather than interpreting the law.
while at the same time saying that legislators cant make those decisions (but only when it comes to gay marriage, because somehow that is a special case devoid of all context to marriage in general, and marriage restrictions in specific).
Where is the evidence that this is actually happening, that these "brothels" actually exist, let alone find enough customers to remain profitable? About 30 years ago there was a panic about supposed widespread Satanic ritual abuse -- and almost all of it turned out to be delusion and urban legend.
Thank God it's not America. The Repubs would be
"Hey, a news story about Europeans sexually molesting animals - this is the perfect time for me to take a pot shot at the Republican Party!"
This is an inevitable step after society began declaring that no one should be discriminated against for their "sexual orientation". Although those laws have always been pitched as protecting gays, they are never limited to that. I have been using this example as a hypothetical for years usually by incorporating it into a "ok, you're not bothered about your kids having openly gay teachers but how about...". It always produces a shocked response but it is what it is. Once all orientations are equal, all must be allowed.
richard mcenroe said...
Germans. Do they have any GOOD habits?
They're good at killing Communists.
Here is Princeton bioethicist Prof. Peter Singer's famous 2001 article on sex with animals. Takeaways: Girls riding horses or dogs humping legs can be consensual sexual activity; fucking a chicken is not significantly more cruel than anything else it experiences in a chicken farm; being raped by an orangutan isn't so bad because it has a small penis.
You're welcome.
"We bombed the fuckers flat."
Maybe it's PTSD.
It's okay to oppose bestiality now.However,if you don't evolve your opinion, in ten years you will probably be labeled a bigot.
"Gay marriage is trying to stick a square peg into a round hole."
Fabulous use of double entendre.
One could see this as a problem of making mistakes in proportion/priority.
To the best of my understanding, most adults have sexual and/or romantic urges during their most fertile years (which, itself, is a clue to human sexuality, but never mind that now).
Unless there is a sexual disfunction present, everyone can experience sexual pleasure and romantic happiness.
The method by which one satisfies those urges is peripheral to the crucial point.
What liberals have done is elevate the mode of satisfaction to a central position of identity, and then further elevated the satisfaction of those urges to the level of a fundamental right.
Hilarity* ensues.
*"Hilarity" being used facetiously, or in a form of "I'm laughing through my tears so to stave off despair"
"It is possible to be moral without religion."
You've just summarized the basis of all Leftist thought.
"They're good at killing Communists."
Yes, but not quite good enough.
If the Germans can coalesce around bestiality and rise above the moral turpitude that bestiality engenders in us all, then why not let them do what they want? I mean, after all, it's not like bestiality brothels or the idea that people want to have sex or marry their pets isn't a possibility. Not after this. Oh no.
Scott M said...
Japan is the epicenter for 78.3% of the weird shit in the world. Germany covers the other 21.7%
Now...what do those two countries have in common?
Axis powers poop.
edutcher said...
richard mcenroe said...
Germans. Do they have any GOOD habits?
They're good at killing Communists.
The other side of the same tyrannical coin.
Iconochasm said...
While I do think Republicans need to shut up about bestiality (of the possible next steps from gay marriage, it's the furthest one. Stick to polygamy, which has a much better argument and is harder to mock), I do have to note that the only people I have ever seen take a principled stand in favor of bestiality were extreme left-wingers. Those folks also tended to oppose age of consent laws.
And yet you want republicans silent while leftist can spew their nonsense?
But then the real question is, is why would Althouse make a blog post about this? Oh, gosh, I don't know it certainly isn't for the photography.
'Mere concepts of morality have no business being law,' said ZETA chairman Michael Kiok.
Pretty much sums it up. This is how we end up traversing the short distance between where we are now and that hand basket destination. And we pretty up the argument by hiding behind misapplied notions of equal protection and 'not your business what goes on in my bedroom....er........barn.'
- Krumhorn
"Mere concepts of morality have no business being law,' said ZETA chairman Michael Kiok."
Murder is immoral. Its immorality is the basis for laws prohibiting its practice. If this is not so, then why should it be illegal?
The terms bestiality and zoophilia are the formal names for having sex with animals for pleasure.
I love that they added "for pleasure." I guess you'd use a different word for people who do it for religious reasons, or are hired to do it.
Methadras said...
And yet you want republicans silent while leftist can spew their nonsense?
Yes, that is exactly what I said. Not giving the Democrats cheap soundbites to exploit when you could be focusing on stronger arguments is exactly the same as not saying anything at all. The bestiality argument can be made well, but not on TV, where it will definitely be chopped up into a 3 second clip on the Daily Show.
Did you know that if you Google "gay" or "gay marriage you get a spiffy rainbow version of Google. And if you then click on "images" you find out that Speedos are totally in.
Strelnikov said...
They're good at killing Communists.
Yes, but not quite good enough.
Depends on your viewpoint.
Statistically, every Kraut killed on the Eastern Front took 3 Russkies with him.
"Thank God it's not America. The Repubs would be in high drudgeon (my misspelling made a funny) warning about wedding bells in the near future. Oh, they already are? My bad."
One of the big argument surrounding SSM involves whether or not peoples are permitted to have laws that reflect their moral judgments. And there are any number of activities - bestiality and consenual incest, for example, in which the ONLY real argument against them is that they offend our sense of decency. After all, people EAT animals. What difference does it make if you also scr*w one, or purchase one for the specific purpose of having sex with it. Prohibiting such behaviors is simply "high handed moral judgment," right? The same reasoning that says we are not permitted to have laws that reflect our moral judgments in the relm of SSM also applies to laws prohibiting bestiality, absolutely.
Return to biblical marriage...one man, 700 wives.
Would this be a bad time to request more pictures of Abby?
Sterling Rachwal visits der Vaterland
Ignorance is Bliss said:
"You've never had a dog try to hump your leg, have you?"
Actually I have and I kicked the little bastard, but I didn't hump him back.
If a dog starts humping my leg the last thing I want to do is deepen the relationship.
Well, that's totally, like, a surprise.
Iconoclasm, what IS a principled stand in favor?
Skipper:
Which religion? The biblical standard is marriage between one woman and one man, and, as I recall, it is for life.
I said...
You've never had a dog try to hump your leg, have you?
Bob Boyd replied...
Actually I have...
And you were still unclear if the dog consented to sex? Or were you only unclear if the dog consented to the sexual activities in which you wished to engage?
Bestial pride. I wonder how many people will welcome their coming out of the pen.
Anyway, according to Professor Volokh, the principled defense for selective principles is "feelings"-based, which is rather unprincipled or, ostensibly, arbitrary.
How many people will empathize with the love between animals, of which which one is incidentally named "human"?
Perhaps a simian relative would be more appealing to their incongruous sensibilities.
In the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, in the 50s, to be a Mau Mau, the initiation involved having sex with a goat. Women had trouble because male goats would not cooperate. They must have been bigots. The Mau Maus would cut off a goat's penis and insert it manually.
"The legal term for sexual activity between a human and a non-human animal is zoophilia."
"Zoophilia is legal in the following states: Alabama, Hawaii, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, and DC."
"Zoophilia is a misdemeanor is the following states: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin."
"Zoophilia is a felony in the following states: Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington."
traditionalguy:
We won't know the truth until, perhaps, our post-mortem, or earlier, if there is a direct intervention.
In the meantime, embrace diversity; embrace the rainbow; embrace LBGTZ; I guess.
The Left continues to defeat itself with selective standards. I wonder how they will manage to escape strict scrutiny of this practice now that they have lost their claim to a principled defense. How many people will voluntarily follow them into the abyss, for money, for pleasure, or for self-esteem?
viator-
You are presenting text inside quotes. It would be nice if you could tell us what source you are quoting. A link would be even better.
The discussion of allowing a man to marry his dog is about where SSM was about fifty years ago.
So in fifty years the Supreme Court will find the right for people to marry pooches somewhere in the Constitution.
It is only a matter of time.
Rabel wins.
Viator wrote:
"Zoophilia is legal in the following states: Alabama, Hawaii, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, and DC."
"Zoophilia is a misdemeanor is the following states: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin."
"Zoophilia is a felony in the following states: Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington."
Sounds like some states are a bunch of judgemental bigots.Kennedy should have a talk with them about how they can't pass laws against fucking dogs.
Advances in selective breeding are certain to produce a superior lay.
Odd that people talk about the consent of the animal (that it cannot give) to have sex with it, but we don't require they give consent to be killed and eaten.
Isn't it just a matter of an individual's choice?
Anthony wrote:
Odd that people talk about the consent of the animal (that it cannot give) to have sex with it, but we don't require they give consent to be killed and eaten.
Good point.
So if we were talking about legalizing sex with animals, and no consent is needed (because animals can't actually give consent) then it's not really a good argument to say that we wouldn't allow someone to marry an animal because, duh, animals can't give consent to be married. It wouldn't stop you from fucking the animal, according to the same logic. So then why pretend that somehow consent would be required to "marry" your pet.
It is just plain discrimination to stop the love of a man and his dog from being consummated and celebrated. To prevent them from being married.
It is just discrimination in the sense that you choose to discriminate against that love that dare not bleat it's name.
Someday the Supreme Court will find a penumbra or a underlying desire of Thomas Jefferson to start fucking his collie instead of his slaves or something.
It is only a matter of time.
Could society restrict a marriage to your pet because an animal can't give consent? Would you argue that you couldn't get a cat as a pet because it didn't give consent? The idea is ludicrous.
IF there was a restriction on marriage to animals it would be not be based on the ability for animals to give consent, but because there was a moral issue with marrying your pet. The state would discriminate against that marriage on moral grounds.
The question is, is society allowed to do that when it comes to marriage, ever?
This is welcome news to many K-Staters.
Well, better to keep this out of the shadows. In a legal bestial brothel the animals can be well cared for and regularly vaccinated and dewormed.
Yes, that was snark.
The irrelevance of consent is a valid point with regard to legality of bestiality but not with regard to marriage. An animal can't consent to sex but doesn't really have to (it doesn't have the right to be protected against nonconsensual acts.) But since it can't give consent, it can't be one party to a contract.
What about Necrophiliac Zoophillia? Do they have a web based group yet?
Perhaps this is the unintended consequence of German girls who started shaving their legs. Some German men have a need for furry legs that German women are no longer willing to satisfy. If German women allow their legs to look natural again, I'm sure this phenomenon would cease.
ZETA meet NAMBLA.
In case anyone missed it, here's edumbshit's contribution to this thread:
"Suddenly Adolf doesn't look so bad."
Yes, it's true: edumbshit is really that stupid.
If sex with an animal is rape because it can't consent, what is killing or eating an animal? It can't consent to those either.
It's a tragic irony that we are even having this conversation. Unfortunately, in a rush to marginalize their competing interests, people with nearsighted ambitions equated human and animal dignity. They must now bear responsibility for that effort and normalizing dysfunctional behaviors, including homosexual, including premeditated murder of wholly innocent human lives without cause and without due process.
"You are presenting text inside quotes. It would be nice if you could tell us what source you are quoting. A link would be even better."
I agree, suppress BS.
My only excuse is it takes time to type in the html code and I thought people might be tired of links.
wike.answers.con
A quote lifted from the text I posted leads to to the second Google search item:
Wikipedia
ake Diamond"In case anyone missed it, here's edumbshit's contribution to this thread:
"Suddenly Adolf doesn't look so bad."
Yes, it's true: edumbshit is really that stupid"
Hey, how do you know that "Adolph" is not edutchers pet Llama?
And you know what they say about Llama's, don't you?
Once you go domesticated pack animal (Lama glama) of the camel family found in the Andes, valued for its soft woolly fleece, you never go back....
What is bizarre about this story is that in the hyper-regulated EU they haven't outlawed animal bonking. Maybe there's an animal bonking lobby or the lawmakers have an interest in keeping this option open.
All we like sheep have gone astray each to his own way
And so now the stupid people that let the gays out of the closet are beset by the next round of perverts trying to get out.
Three words (two for those of you liberal dim bulbs)...
Toldjya so...
"All we like sheep have gone astray each to his own way"
Given the topic I'd choose a different simile, you never know what might happen to you when you are a sheep.
Liberals think they have a constitutional right to fuck anything they want, in the privacy of their own bedroom.
Logically that includes willing 14 year old boys and sheep.
To believe otherwise is just imposing your morality on other people. And hateful.
You can't balme everything on Germany!
Berlin recently hosted the world's first bestialty-rights demonstration: http://www.equalityforall.net/en/news/worlds-first-zoophile-rights-demonstration-in-berlin-february-1-2013
But here's the American film taht started it all: http://www.comingsoon.cz
'Sheep lie.'
Something is definitely wrong if they try to legalized sexual relationships with animals. I mean they are animals, they are not supposed to mate with humans. Nothing is wrong with increasing
Sydney brothels.
Post a Comment