Lib Tracy Clark-Flory asks: should bestiality be illegal?
The lawyers aren’t arguing that Romero necessarily has a right to sex with donkeys, or any other farm animals for that matter. They’re specifically targeting the language of Florida’s anti-bestiality law, which does not require proof that an animal has been harmed or “of the sexual activity being non-consensual,” or even of penetrative sexual contact.
The attorneys write, “Therefore, the only possible rational basis for the statute is a moral objection to sexual acts considered deviant or downright ‘disgusting.’” And that, they argue, is unconstitutional: “The personal morals of the majority, whether based on religion or traditions, cannot be used as a reason to deprive a person of their personal liberties.”
If, however, “the statute were to require sexual conduct with animals to be nonconsensual or to cause injury in order to be a crime, then perhaps the State would have a rational basis and legitimate state interest in enforcement,” they write.
It may be an opportunistic defense, sure, but it also brings up some interesting, if squirm-worthy, questions: Why should bestiality be illegal? Is it because it’s socially unacceptable or because it causes harm to animals? If it’s the latter, is it OK for people to have sexual contact with animals in cases where the animal isn’t harmed?
Right. In Lib-land, the Constitution prohibits law based on morality. The actual basis for this view is obscure-- an emanation from a penumbra presumably.
This new Constitutional right is unlike all those silly Constitutional rights that conservatives make up, like the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Bestial marriage is on the horizon. Marriage equality.
Civil marriage is a civil right.ReplyDelete
Equal love, equal rights.
Love makes a family.
When do we get to vote on your marriage?
This doesn't effect you!
Interspecies couples should have the same rights as intaspecies couples.
Don't impose your morality on me.
You're just like the people who opposed interracial marriage.
Yeah. They all fit.
You forgot one. If bestiality were a choice, who would choose it knowing that it would mean being hated in society, disowned by your family, and treated as a second class citizen under the law? So it can't be a choice. It must be genetic. We'll find the gene alter.Delete
That's apparently how science is done these days. First we formulate a theory (homosexuality is a genetic trait) then we demand that everyone believe the theory while scientists search for the evidence. No "gay gene" has yet been found but we're all supposed to believe that it exists because surely--surely!--it will be found someday, because everyone knows the theory is true.Delete
And they wonder why I call them the true science haters.
Absolutely they're science haters. Science to them means pushing a political agenda. They do not follow the evidence wherever it takes them.Delete
Their science flows from their politics. Their politics do not flow from their science.
I forgot: we're for love and you're for hate.Delete
A preference for animals is a sexual orientation. Laws protecting sexual orientation would necessarily cover these people, no?Delete
Clearly there’s here’s no point in worshiping Jesus unless you can control perverts, because if somebody has sex with a donkey, it’s like we all had sex with a donkey.ReplyDelete
Looks like KW got a new batch of meth, folks.Delete
Looks like it may be strong stuff so he doesn't make much sense in English.
I got this translation from google 'tweakhead to English'.
"Yeah, bestiality is a disgusting breach of natural law as well as an abusive and cruel betrayal of the bond of trust between man and beast. If you love an animal, you don't do something like that to, any more than you would to a child. It's just wrong all around."
"Clearly there’s here’s no point in worshiping Jesus unless you can control perverts, because if somebody has sex with a donkey, it’s like we all had sex with a donkey."Delete
You people are so intellectually dishonest, it curdles milk.
Apparently you want to control other people's sex lives too, unless you're going to go on record giving bestiality the thumbs up.Delete
"Bestial marriage is on the horizon. Marriage equality."ReplyDelete
Oh, pshaw! You're just making a "slippery-slope" argument, and everyone knows those are invalid ... when leftists need them to be!
Meanwhile, in the real world, there are slippery-slopes, and they are best avoided *before* the descent.
Slipper slope arguments are off limits precisely because they are valid. Liberals know we won't accept their end goals in one step so they lead us there slowly, accepting the unacceptable so gradually that we hardly notice that we're doing it. Meanwhile they tell us to quit being paranoid. They never fall for the same trick they expect us to.Delete
"Slipper slope arguments are off limits precisely because they are valid. ..."Delete
"... Meanwhile they tell us to quit being paranoid. They never fall for the same trick they expect us to."
Just another aspect of their intellectual dishonesty, their hypocrisy with respect to reason.
Occasionally they will admit where they are going. In other words, from time to time they will spell out where the bottom of the slippery slope is.Delete
Lesbian activist Masha Gessen spoke in 2012 about the topic of same-sex marriage. Her points included:
Gay marriage is a lie.
Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.
It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. (This statement is met with very loud applause.)
She also wants her children to be able to claim five birth parents in very complex relationships.
Do not shy away from the slippery slope argument. It's like kryptonite to a liberal.
"The personal morals of the majority, whether based on religion or traditions, cannot be used as a reason to deprive a person of their personal liberties.”ReplyDelete
That's absolutely insane. I'm afraid that's where we're going. All laws impose morality. I defy anyone to tell me where this supposed bedrock principle of constitutional law is written. Where does it say that laws can't be based on the morals of the majority?
It's people like this who made me leave the Democratic Party.
The usual argument about bestiality goes that there is simply no comparison between it and homosexuality because bestiality does not involve consent.ReplyDelete
That one just doesn't hold water. Bestiality is wrong but that's not why. Leftists are stuck with only that rationale because they know they can't say what they really mean, which is that it's sick and unnatural. People who want to have sex with animals ought to get their heads checked. They can't say those things because they've already declared those perfectly legitimate arguments to be off limits to their opponents in the homosexuality debate. Those are pure prejudice, they contend, tyranny of the majority, and so forth.
They need a "rational" reason, and the consent talking point is what they've settled on. (I still think "that's sick" is perfectly rational.) When we talk about animals consenting we're imputing to them human traits, which is absurd. Do they consent to having sex with each other? No, I didn't think so.
No one cares about the consent of animals except maybe a few true-blue animal rights activists who are a very small portion of the population. Animals do not consent to being our food or our clothing, and no one (except PETA) cares. Animals do not consent to being our objects of laboratory experimentation, to give us their wool or their eggs. Animals do not consent to plowing our fields as they still do in many poor countries. If we really cared out the "consent" of animals, we'd have an emancipation proclamation freeing all the animals "slaves" pulling plows in Bangladesh.
In short, the "consent" of animals is wholly irrelevant in all contexts except the sexual one. That's because it's a red herring used to conceal the true reason--because it's immoral, unnatural, and disgusting.
I wonder what the suicide rate is among beast lovers? Perhaps a few sob stories about beast lovers killing themselves would spur wide-ranging speech restrictions intended to squelch criticism about bestiality.ReplyDelete
It's so un-Christian of you to hate and judge. If Jesus were here today, he'd tell you that to your face.
And who can forget that poor young man who was executed in Puritan colonial New England for beastiality? Ol' What's His Name, the Martyr.Delete
I have mixed thoughts on this -- that is, on the execution of that unfortunate young man, so long ago.Delete
On the one hand, not everything that is a gross (in multiple senses of the word) sin -- fully meriting death -- is necessarily something *we humans* should be executing people for doing. Most of this can be, and ought to be, left in God's hands.
Furthermore, not *every sin* that the Old Covenant commands the Israelites to execute people for committing is one that we, under the Covenant of Grace, ought to execute people for doing.
On the other hand, the fact that we, as a society, *don't* execute those who commit beastiality -- and, in fact, under the "liberal" corruption of Grace, we, as a society, do our best to pretend that nothing noteworthy is being done (until, of course, the leftists demand we celebrate it) -- goes far to explain why the "beastlovers" are emboldened, and why they will soon be demanding access to our children.
The same applies to, for instance, "out and proud" homosexuality -- goes far to explain why such are emboldened, and why they are currently demanding, and getting, access to our children.
Well, I'm opposed to the death penalty. Small prison cells are appropriate for some crimes but not death.Delete
"Well, I'm opposed to the death penalty."ReplyDelete
What you've said is that you're opposed to all laws. Period.
"Small prison cells are appropriate for some crimes but not death."
So, execution is out, but cruel and unusual pinishment is in?