It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate approves bill legalizes sodomy and bestiality in US military

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MollyStewart
 



I miss the old days


In the old days, a man could have relations with his ol' mule, and nobody gave it a second thought.




posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Considering that the Senate is compromised of pedophiles and luciferians it makes sense they would want to become immune to consequence so they can continue with their sick and twisted occult like crimes. The whole lot of them are vile monstrosities feeding on the innocent and corrupting everything they touch. The very thought of these people make me want to throw up in my mouth


Is it not obvious by now there is a ancient evil showing it's face to humanity by now?

The battle is just beginning... it gets uglier



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
probably because there is a recent push to legalize torture again in the US army so makes you think... maybe part of their torture arsenal involves forcing sex with animals????

there is no other explination unless they think its ok for your "heroes" to pork their dogs



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Firstly, why in the world is there a bill in the first place that bans BOTH bestiality and sodomy. I'm somewhat confused by the necessity to specifically and implicitly imply in the same statement a ban on both of the said subjects. Secondly, if you look at the "About Us", it tells the reader that CNS are weighted in some fashion towards liberal views. On a somewhat unrelated note, what does CNS stand for?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Are they allowing followers of Warren Jeffs (polygamists) going to be allowed to serve now?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I would bet many of them are "ZOOING" horses and small furry woodland creatures, even a dog or two. There is a good doc out about these people.... it's a taboo subject but it is a popular fetish with these types. It's a few years old but interesting if you have a stomach for the macabre





posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
I am sorry but you need to stop using the phrase "Statutory rape." It is IMPOSSIBLE to commit statutory rape on an animal by definition. You seem to be confusing rape with "statutory rape" and it is killing your argument. It is an argument I mostly agree with so I hate to see that happen.




''Statutory rape'' would be the definition if a human being did the same thing to someone else.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
This is why I hate combination laws, which focus on more than one act as illegal. If you want to legalize one thing, you have to automatically legalize a dozen other things as well. This is a simple case of that. I wouldn't be surprised if soon the senate were to pass a bill which then banned solely bestiality. I bet THAT one would be ignored, though.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Wait, sex that doesn't get females people pregnant in the army was banned :O

If this is true, it seems because DADT was repealed, they thought they'd go crazy and lift a ban on bestiality to get DADT to be reinstituted.

The website looks shifty though, so I highly doubt it.

Is this the same government agency which said tomato paste is a vegetable?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
This is why I hate combination laws, which focus on more than one act as illegal. If you want to legalize one thing, you have to automatically legalize a dozen other things as well. This is a simple case of that. I wouldn't be surprised if soon the senate were to pass a bill which then banned solely bestiality. I bet THAT one would be ignored, though.


This is my exact point and case.

They've used the repeal of DADT as a reason to be stupid and allow sex with animals to get DADT back in the army.

So, y'know instead of legalizing a sex act which can be performed either by two men or a man and a woman or two women with certain instruments, they've also legalized sex with animals.. why? Americans are crazy.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by Afterthought
 


would you kindly - logically - inform me why killing and eating an animal is OK, yet having sex with the same animal is not ?


edit on 4-12-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)


Eating is a part of survival. Sexual satisfaction isn't. Note that I didn't say reproduction because this can't happen between animals and people. If a person is having sex with an animal, it is only to satisfy a desire they choose not to satisfy through human interaction. If a human being doesn't have sex, they aren't going to die.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Sex with animals is alright
Firearms in New York city aren't.

I hate America.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   


In the old days, a man could have relations with his ol' mule, and nobody gave it a second thought.
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Oh yeah? I bet the poor Ol Mule did.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I accepting bestiality is just the same as me accepting sodomy. I don’t accept either of the two. Anatomically and physiologically, a bull was made to have sex with a cow, and men were made to have sex with women. If people do accept sodomy, than they should not complain about bestiality. They both are not a normal function of the human body. How can a homosexual say it’s bad for a person to be into bestiality? Can the person who’s into bestiality same the same about someone who’s into sodomy? In my eyes, they are both the same. Homosexuality is just accepted more than the other.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Propulsion
I accepting bestiality is just the same as me accepting sodomy. I don’t accept either of the two. Anatomically and physiologically, a bull was made to have sex with a cow, and men were made to have sex with women. If people do accept sodomy, than they should not complain about bestiality. They both are not a normal function of the human body. How can a homosexual say it’s bad for a person to be into bestiality? Can the person who’s into bestiality same the same about someone who’s into sodomy? In my eyes, they are both the same. Homosexuality is just accepted more than the other.


It's all about consent. In one case (homosexuality) you have two conscious, consenting adults who have made a decision to engage in an act which both will derive positive feelings from.

In the other case (bestiality) you have one consenting human and a non-communication capable animal. Without any form of communication available between the human and the animal, the animal has no way of understanding what the human wants to do and thus cannot consent. Plus, the intelligence of animals is such that even if there was communication, it would be like convincing a child that it's ok to have sex with them.

To compare the two is so ridiculous it's not even funny. Would you be fine with a man having sex with a woman in a coma or with mental retardation? It's a similar level of consent, though not sodomy.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   


I accepting bestiality is just the same as me accepting sodomy. I don’t accept either of the two. Anatomically and physiologically, a bull was made to have sex with a cow, and men were made to have sex with women. If people do accept sodomy, than they should not complain about bestiality. They both are not a normal function of the human body. How can a homosexual say it’s bad for a person to be into bestiality? Can the person who’s into bestiality same the same about someone who’s into sodomy? In my eyes, they are both the same. Homosexuality is just accepted more than the other.
reply to post by Propulsion
 


What utter nonsense!! Homosexuality is about two consenting adults. Bestiality is about the rape of an animal. In what universe are these the same? So a husband an wife who have anal sex is quite ok because they are married and whatever they do as a result of that private relationship in the confines of their own home is A- OK but homosexual sodomy is a freaking no-no? *shakes head in disbelief*
I do not understand where you are coming from here and how you relate sodomy with bestiality?

Humans have sex for enjoyment as well as procreation. (fact!)
Homo sapiens both male and female are of the same species. (fact!)
People who rape animals are mentally defective; at least morally defective and certainly socially defective. Not the same thing at all!! To suggest it is the same thing to me seems like logically flawed reasoning.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Wow you guys obviously have no idea how the military works. Mark my words, there will be a new article posted in the UCMJ to include the ban on sex with animals BEFORE article 125 is officially pulled.

Use your brains sometimes people holy #.

Also, can we geta reputable source. What is CNSNEWS??


EDIT
Don't get me wrong everyone. I love the idea and study of conspiracies but this is just stupid.
edit on 4-12-2011 by canoland because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2011 by canoland because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2011 by canoland because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Propulsion
 





Er... I compared killing and eating a human to killing and eating an animal.


So?




If - as you argue - that society is speciesist, then please provide a logical argument as to why it's wrong to commit statutory rape upon an animal, other than because of Moral Outrage at the human's actions in this business.


Its simple. The animal, uncapable of informed consent, may suffer during the statutory rape, similar to humans that are incapable of informed consent. Why you dont get this simple line of thought is beyond me.




Complete and utter nonsense.


No, it is a fact that what I described is how prevailing morality when it comes to animals looks like in modern world.




Hypocritical and logically inconsistent legislation is of no concern to me. It's those who expediently accept such illogicalities who have to live with themselves.


Maybe you only refuse to see the logic behind it?




So, you're in full agreement with me that bestiality is illegal only due to Moral Outrage at the perpetrator's actions.


No, there is also another reason, which is a concern for animal welfare.




Right. So you ''favour'' a ban on people keeping animals in constrictive spaces, yet you are perfectly happy for people to eat those same animals ?! Bizarro world.


Yes, more or less. Thats because both cause suffering to the animal (arguably, long-term constrictive spaces may be even worse than a quick well done kill), but one of them is of great utility for society, contrary to the other. Unnecessary suffering vs. necessary suffering.

When the technology of growing animal meat and other products in labs is perfected and the utility dissapears, I may even agree with butchering animals to be banned, too.

Its similar to why cars are not banned. Millions of innocent people die every year due to pollution and accidents, yet it is of great utility for society, which is why it is not banned. Laws are a mixture of morality and practicality.




So, if someone has sex with a cow ( which the animal may or may not enjoy ), then there's ''genuine concern for animal welfare'', yet if someone kills and eats that same cow, then there is absolutely no ''genuine concern for animal welfare'' needed ?


As was already explained:

A: well done kill may result in less suffering than raping the animal
B: animal products are of great utility for society, contrary to animal sex
C: one wrong does not make anothr wrong all-right




Please stop attempting to dress up your own illogical Moral Outrage as anything other than what it is.


I have no moral outrage, as I said, as long as the animal does not suffer and the sex is consentual, then I have no issue with bestiality. I am just playing devils advocate here, because the notion that bans on bestiality have nothing to do with animal welfare is totaly absurd.
edit on 5/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Propulsion
 





An anus wasn’t made to have sex with as well.


Then why is it an erotogenous zone? It may not be its primary function, but it is also "made" for sexual pleasure.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
Eating is a part of survival.


I don't understand your point. Of, course eating is part of survival, but that doesn't justify cannibalism. The necessity of eating doesn't explain why it's socially acceptable to kill and eat an animal, but not have sex with it.


Originally posted by Afterthought
Sexual satisfaction isn't.


The urge for sexual satisfaction is inherent in all creatures. Again, I'm not understanding why you're differentiating between ''needs'' and ''wants'' to explain the inconsistencies in attitudes towards bestiality.

As I've previously outlined, bestiality is illegal solely because of Moral Outrage at the act of the human who commits the act, rather than compassion for the animal - otherwise numerous other legal, socially acceptable actions towards animals, which cause them far more distress and suffering, would also be made illegal.




top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join