Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military

Meaning that if MSNBC refuses to report something it didn't happen?

 

You're obsessed. Get some help, please.

 

Just find something more middle of the road. Hell, just link me to the actual bill itself.

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf

Page 174, line 4

 

No. If, for instance, we were involved in hostilities in North Korea, we cannot turn our service members over to Kim Jung Il for "justice". The military is usually someplace because of a war, presumably with an enemy. We do not turn over soldiers to the enemy. They must face military justice.

This is not correct. Sodomy includes penetration that is not vaginal... not "anything but missionary". This DOES, however, put oral out of realm of "acceptable". Beastiality, however, must be covered. I presume they will make a statute simply to cover that.

 

I see the sodomy part. Where's the bestiality part?

 

When you give an official stamp of legitimacy to copulation that isn't with the reproductive gender, bestiality and all other paraphilias aren't far behind. Really, who is qualified to draw a limit when that first line is crossed?

Wouldn't then any other ban on sexual behavior become arbitrary? How would we define a limit?

 

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/47/X/925

 

The bill you linked me to originally doesn't have the word "animal" anywhere in it.

My guess is that the people who voted on this didn't realize that it was a code having to do with animals and instead thought it was about anal intercourse.

 

Yes it does because it deletes Section 925, Article 125.

You have to go to the UCMJ to see what that is and I posted it for you.

 

Yep, I edited my post shortly after realizing that.

I still think this was probably just a demonstration that our legislators don't read what they vote on.

Admittedly, I would've probably made this mistake, since sodomy usually doesn't have anything to do with animals.

 

I said the same thing 3 pages back but it doesn't get them off the hook with me.

Ignorance is no excuse under the law.

But somebody in Harry Reid's office knew what they were doing when they - no pun intended - "inserted" the change.

 

Well, how else are you going to screw a male dog or sheep?

 

the republican fixation with bestiality. They seem obsessed with it.

I'm not really that kinky myself.

 

Ahhh freepers you make this so easy....


Tea Party NY Gov Candidate’s E-Mails Exposed: Racism, Porn, Bestiality
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme..._gov_candidates_racist_sexually_graphic_e.php


Looks like the tea party not only supports it they actually distribute it.... just saying

 

That wasn't my point, paco. When looking at the section of interest, it doesn't mention animals at all.

You actually have to dig into the codes to find any mentioning of animals.

If you look up the meaning of the word "sodomy" it only has to do with the orifice used, not specifically animals.

 

So which orifice would you use to screw a male dog or sheep, Serfin'?

 

Someone on your side must be since they went to the trouble of making sex with animals legal.

 

I think a better question would be "Do people more commonly screw animals or humans?"

 

Don't try to change the subject. If you were trying to screw a male dog or sheep, which orifice would you penetrate? If it's the ass, then the UCMJ law applies. Don't it?

 

The point is why is sex with animals bad when sex with another man's anus isn't? When you step away from sexual activity with the reproductive gender respective to your own, you step away from sex itself and into another category.

Trouble is, who is to say how wide and far that category can fairly expand? You? Me? The guy who loves his sheep down the at the farm? Gays? Transsexuals? Necrophiles? Who gets to say what is bizarre and what isn't when the line of bizarre has already been crossed? One man's bizarre is another man's normal. We need a structure that makes sense. Sex with the reproductive gender makes sense. Everything else doesn't.

 

Of course. But that's not the point here. The section looked like it was just talking about sodomy in general.

I honestly didn't think that bestiality was a big enough problem in the military that a code had to be devoted to it.

Since it apparently is a problem, then yes, I would support a ban on it.

I don't see any reason to ban sodomy between humans, but I'm not going to support it with animals.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The same logic you're using could be used to ban heterosexual sodomy. It could be used to ban contraceptives as well.

Sex is about more than just reproduction. There's an emotional side to it as well. There's also a consent side.

The consent side prohibits sex with minors and animals. A minor and an animal can't legally give consent.

Adults can give consent, however.

 

So it's okay to screw another human being in the ass, but not a dog? Your sexual preferences here have become suddenly...ummm...interesting.

 

If two adults want anal intercourse, who am I to stop them?

I'm not into anal myself, but I know plenty of men that enjoy it with women.