This is sick!
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
Not for long...
Maverick, Rearden and others have argued that bestiality should be outlawed because of the pain and force used on the non-consenting animal. But forced bestiality is already covered by laws against torture and cruelty to animals. The question is why should *consensual* (by both parties) human/animal sex be illegal.
Bestiality laws would punish people who had sex with consenting animals - with the alleged victim not only being consensual but not even human either! Surely this is the very definition of a victimless crime?
As for ludicrous laws on sex, I suggest you look closer to home for examples - certain US states have jail sentences on the books for oral sex, anal sex, and adultery, and going topless on beaches is often an arrestable offence. Consensual sex with 17 year 364 day old cheerleaders is legally defined as "rape". So normal bedroom fun with your wife could send you to the slammer for several years, and teenage couples are risking jail each time they get laid. Next to such examples of virtually Islamic puritanism and sexual repression, the fact that Swedes are technically entitled to screw dogs is not really a big deal.
Bestiality laws would punish people who had sex with consenting animals - with the alleged victim not only being consensual but not even human either! Surely this is the very definition of a victimless crime?
As for ludicrous laws on sex, I suggest you look closer to home for examples - certain US states have jail sentences on the books for oral sex, anal sex, and adultery, and going topless on beaches is often an arrestable offence. Consensual sex with 17 year 364 day old cheerleaders is legally defined as "rape". So normal bedroom fun with your wife could send you to the slammer for several years, and teenage couples are risking jail each time they get laid. Next to such examples of virtually Islamic puritanism and sexual repression, the fact that Swedes are technically entitled to screw dogs is not really a big deal.
Is this a fact? Or is this just what you would prefer to believe? Can you give an example from a real source?
You "know liberals all over supporting Nambla"? How do you know them? Do they go to the same gym as you? Belong to the same church? Are they in your motorcycle club? How do you know them? Are they in your Tuesday night poker game?
Just shooting from the hip, I personally don't think of the "Deliverance" type sickos as your typical "liberal". But hey, that's just my take on it. What do you base your statements on?
We know you "hate" liberal judges. You use the word "hate" quite a bit. Do you notice that about yourself?
But again, is what you say fact? Or what you prefer to believe? How many liberal judges do you know? How many have you ever spoken with?
And can you give an example of when a "liberal" judge let a pedophile or a rapist "out on the street with merely a slap on the wrist"?
Mav, saying things does not make them true. Even reading things does not make them true. It does not surprise me at all that you would not take the few moments to subscribe to the NY Times on line. After all, why read a paper that holds it's writers accountable for being accurate? Why read a paper that publishes op-eds from all shades of the political spectrum?
What are you afraid to learn?
Peace,
RSWould like to hear an operational definition of what exactly 1.) a male dog and 2.) a female dog would have to do, to be seen as giving 'consent'.