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.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
While I've never been attracted to an animal I also don't see thepoint in making it illegal.
We can kill and eat them, we can test them with drugs and pharmaceuticals, we cantake their fur and hormones, so why can't we have sex with them.
I can't imagine ever wanting to, but I. Don't see any logical reason to make it illegal.
Originally posted by rogerstigers
Wow. I would bet that noone in Congress who was authoring this law ever seriously considered that this law was "making beastiality legal". They were removing an antiquated and rediculous law regarding "unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex".
Same or opposite sex... in other words, this has nothing to do with gays either. It has to do with anything other than regulation military sex... (?) Yes, it also removed the restriction on beastiality, but that was most likely collateral damage.
Originally posted by TheMindWar
I am happily married with kids. And I dont like or dislike gay people. But my question is this. Who are the senate, or anyone else for that matter, to tell people what they can and cannot do to themselves. IMO there should be no laws, period, telling people what they can and cannot do with thier own lives.
The senate should be more concerned with thier own lives, they have no right to tell others how to live thiers.
Originally posted by detachedindividual
Wow, the ignorance in this place truly is astounding. How many people here actually should be under 24hour care?
Both were repealed because both were connected. This was a common tactic to get the bans through in the first place, equating homosexuality to bestiality. It was a right-wing Christian propaganda campaign to do that and discredit and insult wherever possible.
No one is seriously suggesting that soldiers can now screw animals, and to even allude that this is the case shows how completely idiotic and brain dead so many right-wing nut cases are!
Can understand the part on sodomy as homosexuals are allowed to serve..
Originally posted by Unity_99\
Rewording it would have sufficed. Now there is a window that may never be closed that includes raping children.
Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by Expat888
Can understand the part on sodomy as homosexuals are allowed to serve..
So, you don't think heterosexuals engage in acts of sodomy? Please...
Originally posted by jerico65
It's not bestiality....it's inter-species erotica.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Afterthought
That's a very good point, and I bet you are right. I don't think we should be creating crimes to add onto other crimes, so I disagree with the whole thing, but it does make sense that these laws may have stemmed from there.
I mentioned earlier that injuring an animal is a huge exception. If something causes an injury, then it should be a crime. The problem is looking at animals as property. You can go shoot up a bunch of cows in a field, and it is closer to vandalism than murder. Those cows are an investment of a farmer, and they have a value, and legally it is closer to breaking someone's window than hurting their child.
I think that is extremely wrong. There is a thread today about the murder of a Navy Seal's Service Dog. That case had a good outcome for a change.
So, I know I've taken an unpopular stance in this thread, but it is the hypocrisy that bugs me about the issue. If raping a sheep is a heinous crime, then killing a sheep should be even worse. The law doesn't see it that way? I don't understand.
Killing and eating an animal is murder and cannibalism. Putting animals in zoos and aquariums is kidnap and false imprisonment. Keeping a bird or rodent in a cage is torture and slavery.
Clearly, in society, it's generally considered acceptable to treat animals in a way that would be illegal and immoral to treat fellow human beings.
So why - other than Moral Outrage at the actions of the perpetrator - do people get so hypocritically precious about someone having sex with an animal ?
Originally posted by Danbones
uuummmmm..
why did they need a law making bestiality illegal for US soldiers in the first place?
Originally posted by Afterthought
I'm growing quite tired of you.
Originally posted by Afterthought
Eating for survival doesn't justify cannibalism? Are you serious?
Originally posted by Maslo
Torture of animals is actually illegal (or very severely restricted at least).
Originally posted by Maslo
Because some people consider it animal abuse (torture). Which is illegal. Not just moral outrage, unless you believe laws against animal abuse are also based on Moral Outrage.
Limited, but certainly not illegal.
And the vast majority of people who consider it animal abuse are hypocrites. Most laws against animal abuse are based on Moral Outrage, unless the abuse is towards animals such as cats or dogs, which most people in the West have grown up to have a genuine level of empathy towards.
The right to life and the prevention of needless suffering is not afforded to animals in society, otherwise killing and eating them would be made illegal. As I've previously outlined, there are numerous other socially acceptable ways of exploiting, killing and torturing animals which would be serious crimes if the same actions were performed against humans.