The next fight on the hill. Repealing bestiality laws?

posted at 8:25 pm on December 9, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

The defense spending authorization bill has many a slip twixt the cup and the lip, as they say, but there’s one piece in there which is raising a few eyebrows. It involves a long standing statue in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which states… and I’m just quoting here… “unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy.”

Alright then. So how did this get in the bill?

As the final Defense authorization bill gets hammered out in conference committee, one surprising issue is riling both social conservatives and animal rights activists: the repeal of a ban on sodomy and bestiality…

But the article is still included in the House bill, and House Republicans want it to remain in the final bill.

News of the bestiality repeal has sparked conservative groups like the Family Research Council to warn of a “campaign to radicalize the country from the Pentagon out,” even if the intent to repeal bestiality wasn’t there. The group likened the repeal to last year’s end of the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” rule on gays serving openly in the military.

“In its rush to accommodate the Left, Congress may have inadvertently opened the door to even more perversion,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said in a statement. “In its haste to make gay sex an official part of military life, the Left could be unintentionally repealing the ban on bestiality too.”

Before we get too carried away, this doesn’t seem to be a case of the military suddenly endorsing the idea of marrying your horse. But given recent changes to the rules, they may have made an overly broad deletion to long standing rules. Plus, such offenses would still be covered elsewhere.

The Pentagon, however, says that even if the article in the military code was repealed, having sex with animals would still be covered under different statutes.

“It is difficult to envision a situation where a service member engages in sexual conduct with an animal that would not be conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting,” said Defense spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale.

This was never the intent of the changes to the code, but clearly we’ll have to drag it out of the barn and into the public courtyard of scrutiny. Closing question: How much would you like to bet that this gets picked up on Letterman and Jon Stewart by Monday night?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

says things like this:

Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so conversion of young males to their acts is the only way to propagate them.
It would be incredibly foolish of me to think that I would be able to sway you in any way, shape, or form. Even more foolish of me to try. But, as the saying goes, ignorance is bliss.

theoddmanout on December 9, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Hmmm.. let me think….

the old saying of nambla was

“sex by eight or it’s too late”

WryTrvllr on December 9, 2011 at 11:36 PM

That’s quite a purty mouth on the nannie (or possibly billie) goat.

molonlabe28 on December 9, 2011 at 11:48 PM

Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so conversion of young males to their acts is the only way to propagate them.

So the tens of millions of LGBT people in this country were all tapped to join the club by a recruiter early in life. Each and every one of them? But they al deny it. So I guess being gay is like Skull and Crossbones or Fight Club. First rule about gay recruit club, don’t talk about gay recruit club. To call it laughable serves insult to bull farts.

libfreeordie on December 10, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Was this article linked from hotair? I don’t remember. 35% of the rural Brazilian group studied for cancer risk factors had engaged in bestiality at some point in their lives. What social conservatives think of as unacceptable behavior, and what future generations think about it when the left wing keeps pushing the limits are two different things. If you don’t state it explicitly in the statute, then it doesn’t exist in the statute.

My first post, btw. Such a lovely subject.

Fenris on December 10, 2011 at 12:25 AM

kaltes on December 9, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Dude, wtf? I mean really, wtf?

hawkdriver on December 9, 2011 at 11:24 PM

That comment was for you. I don’t even know what to make of what you said.

hawkdriver on December 10, 2011 at 12:36 AM

That’s not a picture of a goat is it?
Looks like a Senator I’ve seen!
Also, I think I see a reflection of Barney Frank…in its eyes!

KOOLAID2 on December 10, 2011 at 12:54 AM

You are a walking Jihadist Recruiting Office. Also, substitute “negro slaves” for “animals” in your lovely screed and see how your comment would have sounded 150 years ago.

spiritof61 on December 9, 2011 at 10:12 PM

So taking the libertarian position makes me an al queda recruiter? okaaaaayyyy…

You can’t substitute “negro slaves” for animals in my lovely screed, genius, because I drew a clear distinction between animals and people.

A sex doll is chattel, too, and people are allowed to have sex with those without the government hunting them down.

kaltes on December 10, 2011 at 1:13 AM

When I joined the military (yes, a very long time ago) it was illegal to be homosexual; then cam along don’t ask, don’t tell; now it’s become “ok” to be openly gay in the military…I just want to retire before it becomes mandatory…just sayin’

OldWeaselKeeper on December 10, 2011 at 1:14 AM

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a story about RAPE, and AGGRESSION OR ASSAULTING someone.

But then we flash to today and have this rather silly interpretation of what “sodomy” is.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 10, 2011 at 1:30 AM

kaltes on December 9, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Dude, wtf? I mean really, wtf?

hawkdriver on December 9, 2011 at 11:24 PM

That comment was for you. I don’t even know what to make of what you said.

hawkdriver on December 10, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Simple. I said bestiality should not be a crime. If you bugger an animal that belongs to someone else, you can get in trouble for trespassing. If you hurt an animal you own, there are various animal cruelty laws for that. However, I seriously doubt that anyone could engage in sex acts with an animal that was not consenting. Animals have a habit of fighting back rather savagely, and they usually have teeth and claws. So I don’t think animals are exactly getting raped by the freaks who fetishize them. Animals defend themselves from rape a LOT better than people do, Im sure. Try to give a cat a bath, then after you fail and get mauled in the process, try to tell me that raping a cat would somehow be easier.

Gay male sex grosses me out. Bestiality grosses me out. Fat women gross me out. Even smoking weed grosses me out. A lot of things gross me out. Just because something is gross, the government shouldn’t get involved and waste taxpayer money on it.

It is legal in 18 states, a misdemeanor in 16, and a felony in 16. Generally speaking, whenever an act is not a crime in a significant number of states, IT SHOULD NOT BE A CRIME IN ANY OF THEM. Why? Because if those states get along just fine without the criminalization, obviously there is no social need justifying wasting tax dollars on it.

If you care about liberty and freedom, as many conservatives claim to (albeit not social conservatives), you have to take a “hands off” approach with government. It is hypocritical to sit there and want to criminalize acts where no one is getting hurt, and then complain when the government criminalizes gun ownership and starts hauling people off to jail because their hunting rifle counts as an “assault weapon”.

I’m sure there is a strong gender bias in bestiality prosecutions, too. I seriously doubt women get hauled off to jail when they decide to take “doggy style” too literally, yet men would get put in jail for the same acts.

It all comes down to one thing: it is none of our business. Taxpayer money and police/court resources need to be devoted to stopping people from hurting one another, not social engineering and some vain effort at stamping out icky behaviors without victims.

kaltes on December 10, 2011 at 1:37 AM

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a story about RAPE, and AGGRESSION OR ASSAULTING someone.

But then we flash to today and have this rather silly interpretation of what “sodomy” is.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 10, 2011 at 1:30 AM

Yeah, sure.
Are you a Christian?

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

sharrukin on December 10, 2011 at 1:40 AM

Yawn.

I’m hardly concerned by this at all. Anyone who would actually consider violating an animal, is not going to NOT do it, because it would break a rule or law.

KMC1 on December 10, 2011 at 1:40 AM

hawkdriver

Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn’t sure if you meant “what the” or “what to”

Libfreeordie

Read more of the posts. The argument was less with where LGBT types come from (I have a theory) so much as whether they are denied rights.

I do love the “tens of millions”. My recollection was 5%. Could have changed. I think everyone to some extent has these tendancies, but for the most part society has repressed them over time, for the good of society as a whole. People who exist only for themselves are less inclined to care about what happens in 60 years or so. (I see this CONSTANTLY, so spare me a denial, I realize it is a generalization).

Now for a quick history lesson. While I am not sure where the church (you know the one the libs would like to destroy) gets it’s anti-gay doctrine from, I know it’s anti-abortion stance was a result of the decimation of europe in the 1350′s by plague. They knew why rome fell, and I’ve seen research that Malaria might have played a part. Either way, by Julius Augustuses’ overthrow the people were mostly goth anyway. Point is, No people, new ownership. Needless to say Europe rebounded very nicely. In 1492 western civ was given a reprieve by discovery of the new world. Don’t forget that in 1453 constantinople was taken. In 1666 the ottomans almost took Vienna. After world war II, Labor/Libs gave England Socialism and voila, in less than one lifetime gave the Islamists what they could not get since San Fernando in 1250. We will live to see europe either collapse from bankruptcy, or descend into civil war. Quite probably both. The same thing can happen here. I don’t give a rats butt how you live your life. I believe in live and let live. You can be gay, I can hunt deer. But be warned, if your LGBT friends do reach the numbers you seem to believe, and you do destroy your “enemies” (you know the ones who saved all those classic texts from greece and rome, and agreed, with some heinous exceptions, allowed the renaissance to flourish) then you will have quite the pyrrhic victory when our new overlords start stoning LGBT again. Since I don’t really want to see that happen (I actually do have such friends…OMG) perhaps you L’s and G’s could eventually make a few k’s.

WryTrvllr on December 10, 2011 at 1:40 AM

The only thing wrong with what Perkins said was when he put ‘inadvertently’ in there.

I hope to God I’m wrong, but I’m not sure I won’t see, as an old man, people being derided by even self-described ‘conservatives’ for being ‘intolerant’ or ‘hateful’ for being repulsed by bestiality or pedophilia.

Already, I see one person here (kaltes) saying it doesn’t matter to him/her because ‘it is none of our business’.

I fear I’ll see that argument being used for even worse crimes in the future.

avgjo on December 10, 2011 at 1:58 AM

Something similar happened in Denmark many decades ago when homosexuality was legalized. Bestiality got legalized too (for the same reason, as it was in the same tract of law text being repealed). Not sure about the current state of affairs, but for decades bestiality was not illegal in Denmark.

NORUK on December 10, 2011 at 3:06 AM

Hey, man … whatever milks your goat.

/sarc

BarackTheSCOAMF on December 10, 2011 at 3:50 AM

Sorry Horace

I meant Romulus Augustus

WryTrvllr on December 10, 2011 at 5:05 AM

Oh Yeah, also

My humblest apologies to Emmanuel Fremiet for bringing him onto this thread

WryTrvllr on December 10, 2011 at 5:36 AM

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a story about RAPE, and AGGRESSION OR ASSAULTING someone.
fatlibertarianinokc on December 10, 2011 at 1:30 AM

That’s not what the book of Jude says – no, Jesus’ brother says the sin of Sodom was unnatural sexual desire.

tommyboy on December 10, 2011 at 6:23 AM

I say leave the rule alone, but, add the following: while in uniform, on duty, on or in military property or premises. The law of the locale once out of military jurisdiction may always apply.

kregg on December 10, 2011 at 6:30 AM

Where is PETA on this one?

BBReggie on December 10, 2011 at 7:13 AM

“It is difficult to envision a situation where a service member engages in sexual conduct with an animal that would not be conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting,” said Defense spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale.

And then there was the sailor who was cashiered out of the Navy after being caught with a chicken, (yes, a chicken) while on shore leave in Thailand. He subsequently made his way into the Federal Courts, which in turn led him to be one of my patients while a sex offender counselor.
“Oh Taaaaaaahd” as Lisa Loopner used to say.
This is one odd paraphilia that hasn’t caught on (and won’t any time soon) and shouldn’t even be an issue. It’s a battle not worth engaging at the present time. Let’s see how the Law of Unintended Consequences plays out. There are already plenty of laws on the books and Dems are trying to destroy the military in more important ways that require our attention. IMHO of course.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 10, 2011 at 7:33 AM

kaltes on December 10, 2011 at 1:37 AM

Again, I have to say that there is not a single point you make that doesn’t make me scratch my head and say, “wtf”?

How did you get to your rationale? I know you want to lower the age of legal consent, but animals, really?

hawkdriver on December 10, 2011 at 7:59 AM

It has only been in the past couple of centuries that we have legalized interracial marriage, outlawed slavery,

I know your young, but you do realize that America has only existed in the “last couple of centuries” right? Slavery still exists in the world today, and interracial marriage has happened in the last 2000 years legally.

In fact, miscegenation laws were a construct of the state much the way “gay marriage” is. Neither exist in the English Common Law, and one of the reasons that Loving v. Virginia was won was because a specific race was excluded from interracial marriage-whites. Other races could intermarry in Virginia. Legalizing interracial marriage did not change the definiton of marriage.

Allowing straight couples to marry but not gay couples is discrimination. Either the government needs to get out of marriage completely, or it must allow gay people to marry.

Not all straight couples can marry. They are regulated by the state. Sexuality is not a form you check on a state marriage. Until the state became daddy in the 60′s, marriage was about procreation and family. It was based in the English Common Law which had roots in inheritance, and making the father pay for his offspring. That is why you can annul a marriage if your partner is impotent. State marriage is not about who you love. Homosexuals have not been denied equal protections. Many homosexuals have gotten married to the partner of their choosing within state regulations(Jim McGreevy). State marriage is a contract and does not have any feelings.

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 8:03 AM

kaltes on December 10, 2011 at 1:37 AM

The Libertarian argument for Bestiality. Hogwash and Nonsense.

I can think ofmany public health reasons for why bestiality should be criminal. Where do all of flu strains come from hint “Animals”

And although the majority of humans are basically decent, there is no reason we should tolerate the nasty one’s deviant behavior, creating pandemics, and health risk that effect the health of the larger population.

Dr Evil on December 10, 2011 at 8:14 AM

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

sharrukin on December 10, 2011 at 1:40 AM

Do you really want to follow all the laws of Leviticus. Here is a list that I grabbed off the web:

1. Death penalty for using the Lord’s name in vain
2. Prohibition against eating pork
3. Mandating of animal sacrifices
4. Death penalty for spiritualists
5. Human slavery sanctioned
6. Prohibition against eating fat
7. Forbidding of hair and beard trimming
8. Prohibition against eating crab, clams, oysters
9. Death penalty for adultery
10. The profanity of disabled individuals – “For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a defect in his sights or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles; no man of the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord’s offerings by fire; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God…He shall not come near the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries…” (Lev. 21:18–23)
11. Other prohibitions – Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.” (Lev. 19:19)

SC.Charlie on December 10, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Do you really want to follow all the laws of Leviticus.

The NT condemns homosexuality every bit as harshly as the OT.

tommyboy on December 10, 2011 at 8:58 AM

The NT condemns homosexuality every bit as harshly as the OT. – tommyboy on December 10, 2011 at 8:58 AM

Really, and Jesus said what about homosexuality?

SC.Charlie on December 10, 2011 at 9:43 AM

Lets see if I get this. The bible comes from the same region that uses old testament punishments to this day … remind me again why are we fighting in the middle east today. Based on biblical neanderthal-ism we’re wrong and the radical muslims are right after all.

kregg on December 10, 2011 at 9:56 AM

The only problem I have with this particular UCMJ article is that anytime a service member gives or receives oral sex from their legal spouse, the member is in violation of that article. My husband and I used to joke about it all the time.

I will admit it is seldom used alone, but I have seen violations of this article tossed in with other ones (underage drinking, fraternization, and a few others) on different occasions, usually when they wanted to throw the book at someone, and even when it was consentual or not germane to the heavier charges. I mean, come down hard on the 19 year old for drinking underage, not for getting caught with his girlfriend in the act while at a party*.

*It was an entertaining Captain’s Mast, though.

On a humorous note, makes me think of this joke: Why does the Navy keep Marines on ships? Because sheep would be too obvious. : )

Anna on December 10, 2011 at 10:09 AM

So the tens of millions of LGBT people in this country were all tapped to join the club by a recruiter early in life. Each and every one of them? But they al deny it. So I guess being gay is like Skull and Crossbones or Fight Club. First rule about gay recruit club, don’t talk about gay recruit club. To call it laughable serves insult to bull farts.

libfreeordie on December 10, 2011 at 12:18 AM

The left’s favorite tool. Use sarcasm to shame but never actually address the issue. Jerry Sandusky was a child molester, but I’d say that the long term effects on the molested children would also make him a recruiter.

DFCtomm on December 10, 2011 at 10:36 AM

If you care about liberty and freedom, as many conservatives claim to (albeit not social conservatives), you have to take a “hands off” approach with government. It is hypocritical to sit there and want to criminalize acts where no one is getting hurt, and then complain when the government criminalizes gun ownership and starts hauling people off to jail because their hunting rifle counts as an “assault weapon”.

kaltes on December 10, 2011 at 1:37 AM

This is what Libertarians just don’t get. They can’t fit culture and society into their ideology so they simply leave it out completely. You have to give a nod to culture. You must acknowledge it.

DFCtomm on December 10, 2011 at 10:40 AM

remind me again why are we fighting in the middle east today.
kregg on December 10, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Okay, but this is the last time. We’re fighting against Radical Islam because they have declared war on the West and attacked us with cowardly contemporary terrorist attacks going on 30 years now, the most recent of which killed over 3000 of your fellow citizens.

hawkdriver on December 10, 2011 at 10:52 AM

The left’s favorite tool. Use sarcasm to shame but never actually address the issue. Jerry Sandusky was a child molester, but I’d say that the long term effects on the molested children would also make him a recruiter. – DFCtomm on December 10, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Jerry Sandusky was and is married to a woman. He is an evil man who got his jollies from molesting underage boys. For the record do you know if any of his victims became gay because of Sandusky’s criminal acts? I know that one of his victims who was in a high school had to get protection from other students. They were angry that he had told authorities of his molestation. The other students, who were big Penn State fans were angry at him for blowing the whistle on what had been going on at Penn State. And, I seem to remember that some Penn State students rioted not over the criminal acts of Sandusky and the obvious coverup, but because Paterno had been fired.

SC.Charlie on December 10, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Slippery slopes.

hawkdriver on December 10, 2011 at 11:01 AM

It’s the age-old question of being moral or immoral. For those who do not believe that humans are superior to animals, bestiality is just a normal part of life (disgusting!). For those of us who were raised with “normal” morals and standards, bestiality truly is “an abomination”! Moral of this story: those of you who see nothing wrong with bestiality—you’re NOT “normal”! Only a very small segment of our population believe that bestiality is OK, making the very small percent who believe it is OK—”abnormal”.

DixT on December 10, 2011 at 11:02 AM

I cannot imagine that this repeal will survive in any form, so I’m not holding much weight in this story, but it was an amusing read to see it even attempted to be repealed. How sad.

Freeloader on December 10, 2011 at 11:03 AM

2. Prohibition against eating pork

You mess with my BBQ?

I’ll kill ‘ya.

98ZJUSMC on December 10, 2011 at 11:04 AM

DixT on December 10, 2011 at 11:02 AM

And therein lies the problem DixT. That some who would really like to be able to openly condemn this insanity, now see the need to go with the live and let live meme because they might feel like a hypocrite. Or maybe they do just like a bit of everything. Difficult to know.

I am surprised how quickly some on here went from old issues to advocating lowering the age of legal consent and then straight to actually shilling for people that want to do the deed with an animal.

hawkdriver on December 10, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Really, and Jesus said what about homosexuality?

Jesus said that sex was in the context of marriage, and clearly he said that marriage was one man/one woman.

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 11:28 AM

kaltes on December 10, 2011 at 1:37 AM

So not fighting back is now proof of consent? What, are you Sandusky’s lawyer?

For the record, I can give my cat a bath, and it’s really not hard. She’s much smaller than me, and overpowering her really isn’t a problem.

And even if it feels good to an animal, what makes you think they understand what’s going on any better than a child? Or do you think age of consent laws are wrong too? If the kid’s into it, it shouldn’t be a crime?

Esthier on December 10, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Based on biblical neanderthal-ism we’re wrong and the radical muslims are right after all.

kregg on December 10, 2011 at 9:56 AM

WTF?

Esthier on December 10, 2011 at 11:39 AM

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a story about RAPE, and AGGRESSION OR ASSAULTING someone.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 10, 2011 at 1:30 AM

If you’re going that angel, technically it’s about wanting to rape and assault to important men who came to visit the town. No rape actually took place even though Lot offered the mob his virgin daughters, though the men were completely uninterested in them.

While it’s not entirely accurate, it’s hardly surprising that a story about a mob, that desperately wanted to rape angelic men, somehow got focused on the homosexuality aspect years later.

Esthier on December 10, 2011 at 11:48 AM

SC.Charlie on December 10, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Actually you are misguided about the Old Testament view on slavery.

Chattel slavery, as was practiced in the US, was expressly forbidden upon pain of death. Slavery for that culture was allowed as the result of “spoils of war”, as a way of allowing a family to continue to survive if men of the family were killed in war, or as a way of paying off a debt.

Most of what you hear of as slavery was actually indentured servitude. In the society, you were required to discharge your debt. Going to prison for an unpaid debt made no sense since you cannot earn money to pay back the debt while in prison. Here, you could indenture yourself to pay off the debt.

Not only were there strict rules about how servants were to be treated (well treated, fed and educated on the Word of God), they were also required to be released after 7 years (the year of jubilee). At that time, the master had to provide a sizable percentage of his wealth to start the former servant off on a new life.

For that culture, it was a long term plan to getting out of poverty… something that we do not encourage here with our “compassionate” government programs.

dominigan on December 10, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Slippery slopes.

hawkdriver on December 10, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Remember a few years ago when we pointed out what would happen with sodomy laws being repealed? How many of us pointed out that bestiality would be next? How many of us were laughed at and made fun of in comments on this very site?

dominigan on December 10, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Esthier on December 10, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Esthier, I know this is going to sound hypocritical coming from me considering the language “I” use here now, but please. There are few people on Hot Air I respect more than you and Cindy Munford for your ability to always stay the fray with the manner in which you comment. Please don’t let the outrageousness of the comments bring you down their level.

hawkdriver on December 10, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Remember a few years ago when we pointed out what would happen with sodomy laws being repealed? How many of us pointed out that bestiality would be next?

Let’s not even go that far. Several of us pointed out that Lawrence v. Texas was an in road to gay marriage. Within FOUR months of the ruling, Massachusetts Supreme Court okay’d it. But opponents of L v. T said that no it was just so two consenting adults could have sex in the privacy of their own home and not get arrested.

Then DADT repeal was STRICTLY for those that wanted to serve and not be ousted from the military. No way was it an inroads to repeal DOMA or have military acknowledge homosexual marriage. The day it was repealed there was a lawsuit in court asking for the military to recognize same-sex marriage. Included in the suit is the guy who asked the question at the Repub debate.

The slippery slope happens everytime, but some say it doesn’t exist. Whatever!

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Leviticus 18:22

“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:13

“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus 20:15

“‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

Leviticus 20:16

“‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads

Romans 1:24-27

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

It is clear that the Bible regards homosexuality and bestiality as grave sins, which brings us to your question…

Really, and Jesus said what about homosexuality?

SC.Charlie on December 10, 2011 at 9:43 AM

…“Go now and leave your life of sin.” John 8:11 – Jesus speaking to the woman brought before him after being caught committing a sexual sin (and yes, adultery is mentioned in verses right alongside of homosexuality and bestiality).

And no he didn’t advocate the Old Testament punishment in that particular case because it wasn’t being applied properly in also bringing the MAN who was to be judged alongside the woman.

dominigan on December 10, 2011 at 12:12 PM

remind me again why are we fighting in the middle east today.
kregg on December 10, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Okay, but this is the last time. We’re fighting against Radical Islam because they have declared war on the West and attacked us with cowardly contemporary terrorist attacks going on 30 years now, the most recent of which killed over 3000 of your fellow citizens.

hawkdriver on December 10, 2011 at 10:52 AM

I agree. My point is that in the USA our highest authority is the law.
Hopefully our lawmakers use their faith, conscience, and best parts of their nature to guide them in the right direction.

Remember it is the islamists/imams/mullahs that believe the west is godless and by their archaic middle eastern belief system they believe that they are fighting on the side of right-god-allah.
Not long ago there was a poll taken by western muslims that concluded the majority of muslims believed that we/they should live under some form a sharia law.

Based on biblical neanderthal-ism we’re wrong and the radical muslims are right after all.

kregg on December 10, 2011 at 9:56 AM

WTF?

Esthier on December 10, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Reads differently when the emphasis indicating that I was being sarcastic was removed.
Hence: Based on biblical neanderthal-ism we’re wrong and the radical muslims are right after all.

kregg on December 10, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Cavalry finally comes to the rescue.

What do you all do?……sleep at night?

WryTrvllr on December 10, 2011 at 1:06 PM

“It is difficult to envision a situation where a service member engages in sexual conduct with an animal that would not be conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting,” said Defense spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale.

Ummm…. no. If Congress specifically repealed a portion of the UCMJ outlawing bestiality, you will never be able to convict anyone on the basis of it being “conduct prejudicial”. On top of which, you generally can’t court-martial someone solely on a charge of “conduct prejudicial” – and in the cases where you do, it is always for something not otherwise explicitly covered (or recently legislated out of the Code).

GWB on December 10, 2011 at 1:40 PM

I call BS. Cite one example.

I seriously doubt ANYONE has been prosecuted for UCMJ bestiality in recent history, if ever.

I googled it and nothing came up.

This is probably why the military did not care about keeping bestiality in.

even without a specific prohibition against it, people in the military are subject to very broad discretion where they can be punished for conduct that pisses off their CO regardless of whether it is actually illegal.

kaltes on December 9, 2011 at 9:59 PM

1. I’m a Military Police Army commissioned officer.

2. What makes you think some Soldier putting a gerbil up his butt and getting dishonorably discharged and/or confined to a military prison is going to make it’s way to Google? The military doesn’t exactly like to promote Soldiers acting dishonorably to the media. I worked with the Air Force Security Forces for over a year and several of them were being charged with dereliction of duty for falling asleep while guarding planes or the base. I bet you can’t google that either. Or, that an Afghan officer training in the US just decided to disappear. Who knows??? Did he do it because he wanted the American way of life, or because he was a spy and/or terrorist. Sorry, your not going to find it on Google.

3. The base I worked at also had 2 couples who were continually calling the police over a dispute. They were wife swapping and every once in awhile someone would get jealous and an argument would happen. The police wanted to arrest all of the military members under the UCMJ for un-carnal acts and adultery but they never had any evidence because they would never admit to what they were doing and why the argument started.

4. Military Police when all of this DADT repeal stuff happened got a briefing saying that the Army was going to take the lead and we were ordered not to arrest anyone concerning these issues. (not the bestiality thing though)

LordJack on December 10, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Wonder how the Leftie Left is going to explain to their PETA friends how they’re not going to protect animals from getting had.
hhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

RadioAngel on December 10, 2011 at 2:43 PM

The base I worked at also had 2 couples who were continually calling the police over a dispute. They were wife swapping and every once in awhile someone would get jealous and an argument would happen.

My husband had a soldier get in trouble in one of his units because he was hooking his wife out(literally) and other soldiers who had paid were talking about it in the unit.

melle1228 on December 10, 2011 at 2:50 PM

The next fight on the hill. Repealing bestiality laws?

A few observations:

1) We will get a whole new set of meanings for several popular terms such as “first the carrot, then the stick,” “going ape,” “going to bed with the chickens,” “horse play,” and “puppy love.”

2) When this goes through, you can bet the Bestiality Sex Guide (perhaps informally known as The Camel Sutra) won’t be far behind.

3) Finally, when a husband says “There’ll never be another you.” to his wife, apparently from then on “you” will be spelled.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on December 10, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on December 10, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Haaaaaaa! Now that was a gut-buster right thar!

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 10, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Oh no darling! Seriously!! There will never be another ewe!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on December 10, 2011 at 4:30 PM

So a young recruit to the French Foreign Legion was feeling a little horny and asked his Sergeant, “Sergent, what does one do for sex out here in the desert?” To which the Sergeant replied, “We use the camel!” Totally disgusted, the recruit said, “Well not me!”

A few months go by and he can on longer control his urges, so one night he seeks into the stable and, “mounts” a particularly attractive camel with big brown eyes and long lashes.

While in the act, he’s seen be the Sergeant who tares into him. The recruit responds, “but Sergeant when I asked you about sex you said you use the camel!” To which the Sergeant replied, “Dumbass! TO GO TO TOWN!”

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on December 10, 2011 at 4:38 PM

How much would you like to bet that this gets picked up on Letterman and Jon Stewart by Monday night?

Without kid gloves no doubt.

chickasaw42 on December 10, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Are mountain oysters still legal?…

dacoach on December 10, 2011 at 8:23 PM

The next fight on the hill. Repealing bestiality laws?

Proposed Opposition Bumper Sticker: “I kid you not!”

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on December 10, 2011 at 8:52 PM

I’m sorry, but, what are you even going on about? Are you honestly suggesting that repealing DADT and the ever increasing support of gay rights will lead to the legalization and promotion of bestiality? That is absurd on many levels. First of all, there is a massive difference between two consenting adults willingly having sex, and an adult having sex with an animal who cannot consent in any way, shape, or form. I’m sorry, but you cannot compare the two. An animal is literally incapable of giving consent, therefore any person who does anything sexual with an animal is essentially raping the animal.

theoddmanout on December 9, 2011 at 9:05 PM

Have you even noticed how absurd this argument is? If your argument is based on whether or not an animal can consent to sex with a human, then you might as well give up pretending to use logic.

The animal’s state of mind is irrelevant. It’s wrong to have sex with an animal because it’s an animal. The animal’s willingness or unwillingness is irrelevant, because an animal can’t determine the morality of anything.

This twisting of reason and logic is intended to protect homosexuality from being called immoral by claiming that no kind of sex can be considered immoral unless it is rape. Then, to avoid calling bestiality immoral, you have to make some argument about whether the animal can give consent.

Bestiality is wrong whether the animal consents or is capable of resisting, and whether the animal resists or is capable of resisting.

It’s hard for moral relativists to accept, but some things are just wrong. Period. Sex with animals is one of those things.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 11, 2011 at 12:22 AM

What “rights” have homosexuals been “denied” for the past 2.000 years?

Well, for most of the past 2,000 years, if you were caught having gay sex, if you admitted to being gay, or if you were suspected of being gay, you were either beaten, put in prison, or killed. In several states sodomy was a crime up until the early 2000′s.

Try, “for most of recorded human history with rare exceptions.” Sorry, but homosexuality has always been considered aberrant behavior by the culture at large. People instinctively feel that there is something wrong with it. You have to be “educated” into believing it’s ok.

Homosexuality advocates need to give up the delusion that homosexuality was considered normal until Christianity came along.

Marriage? Not a “right.” And two male homosexuals taking wedding vows does not a “marriage” make.

The equal protection clause in the 14th amendment states that the government must treat all citizens equally. Allowing straight couples to marry but not gay couples is discrimination. Either the government needs to get out of marriage completely, or it must allow gay people to marry

.

There is no law in the United States denying gay people the right to marry. What you want is for the government to force everyone to accept same-sex couples as marriages. Since the government has no charter to mandate changes to our social institutions, and since such a law would immediately violate the religious freedom of those who consider homosexuality sinful — something the government does have the charter to protect — your argument falls to pieces.

Statutes making pedophilia and underage intercourse crimes? Not a “denial” of any “rights.”

I sincerely hope that you are not comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. For if you are, that is a gross display of ignorance.

theoddmanout on December 9, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Pedophilia and underage intercourse are hardly out of context in a discussion of sexual crimes.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 11, 2011 at 12:42 AM

Where is PETA on this one?

BBReggie

Same place NOW was on Monica Lewinski, er, et al…

Knott Buyinit on December 11, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Now that Lewinski’s popped up … being that the President is the Commander in Chief shouldn’t Clinton have been charged by the military for violating codes of conduct for raising a tent in the oval office?

kregg on December 11, 2011 at 7:16 AM

If this passes, it will drastically curtail liberals’ sex life.

TheClearRiver on December 11, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Come hither my little chia pet.

kregg on December 11, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Yer goat’s got a purty mouth……..!

Tim_CA on December 12, 2011 at 1:10 AM

come on and get real on this issue!

which of our fine elected officials has not wanted to have a good shagging session with their favorite barn yard animal of choice?

acyl72 on December 12, 2011 at 8:28 AM

Comment pages: 1 2