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: 8
22
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
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.




posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


You're right, come to think of it, I probably wouldnt vote for him afterall if animal-rape advocacy were part of his campaign message.


Neither do I think he would really make that part of his campaign. I dont even believe he would honestly be as calm as he is now if he ever witnessed animals squealing in pain at being brutalized.

It was more a matter of saying Id more likely vote a politician who has some unpopular views but admits to them than a politician who stays safe in all of his views.
edit on 5-12-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

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.


Because out of the list of abuses, at least RAPE is punishable by jail. They have at least one win there, and its going to stay that way, despite certain elements in the US paving the way for certain world elements, and those elements also don't seem to protect their children much either. Because we're going to wake up or have the sky filled, and end this whole thing,sooner or later.
edit on 5-12-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

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.


Oh really And it also removed age restrictions. And I have problem with that. All it took was changing a few words on the sodomy part.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

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.


Well, the sodomy part was wrong, but as for the rest of it, telling people they are not allowed to harm or rape children or animals seems rather important to most people's values since we're not hellzone material, unlike the senate and our leaders and the demons running things. In fact that is the part we need to get savvy too and send them to the corner to study their navels in really big timeouts.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

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!


Rewording it would have sufficed. Now there is a window that may never be closed that includes raping children.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
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...



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99\
Rewording it would have sufficed. Now there is a window that may never be closed that includes raping children.


It's much more difficult to reword a bill than it is to simply remove it and pass a new one. I'm sure they're writing one that bans bestiality and sex with children. Besides, it's not like they'll just get a free pass. Surely those in the military have to abide by federal law as well as military code.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

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...


It's not that it isn't sodomy (which is a religiously based offense anyway). It's that it's completely outdated. I can name a dozen couples (male-female) who practice anal and oral sex. Heck, almost every couple does oral. Technically, that's sodomy. We need to get rid of these religiously motivated laws and keep church where it belongs; in the personal life and in the church.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


It's all good and I'm glad you wouldn't vote for him. I understand what you were trying to say. We all have wet dreams about an honest politician coming onto the scene, but we must be able to keep our wits about us in the rare event that this ever happens and consider their position on important topics. I'm sure you'd have the ability to do this. I remember when I was 18 and able to vote for the first time. One topic on the ballot was about whether or not pregnant sows (gilts, actually) should be kept in tiny pens that prevented them from turning around or even lying down. Well, of course I didn't think this was right, so I voted against allowing the pigs to be treated this way. Well, it turns out the majority agreed with me, but the public was never told that if this was how the vote turned out, they'd all be killed, which they were. I learned a tough lesson that year. Our politicians and leaders may tell you the truth sometimes, but rarely tell you the entire truth.

I believe the main problem here is that some people will always view animals as beneath them, as property, or
"things" that have no feelings and who deserve no respect. Being a former rabbit breeder, I can honestly say that a female rabbit will cry and whimper if she doesn't want to breed when the male is put into her cage. When she's ready, she won't make any sounds as at. To me, the "I don't want to" noises the females make are awful, heartbreaking sounds, but some people would simply laugh and watch as the male had his way. I never viewed my rabbits as property or that they didn't have feelings. Some people don't have respect for animals.

All of my animals are treated just as though they are my children and I wish everyone gave animals as much respect as they deserve. Maybe it has something to do with our pineal glands. If they weren't so highly fluoridated and calcified, maybe people would understand why some things are just plain wrong and that we are here to protect nature and not use it up and toss it away like a piece of garbage after satisfying selfish desires that shouldn't ever have crept into the minds of man in the first place.

One thing to validate my point is the fact that even very young children who have been molested (not raped, only touched) report that it felt wrong. After much thought about this, I have to believe that all creatures are born with an ingrained sense of when their bodies are being violated and used for perverse means. If animals could talk, I have to believe that they would tell us the same things as children who have been targeted by paedophiles.

Besides, humans are supposed to know the difference between right and wrong and forcing yourself on any living creature to satisfy selfish desires is just wrong.

Alright, NOW I'm done with this thread.
Be well, everyone.

edit on 5-12-2011 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
It's not bestiality....it's inter-species erotica.



Curiosity didn't kill the cat.

Beastiality did.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Many people on this thread are debating about whether beastiality is morally right or wrong, for those who want to have that debate I suggest making a thread on the topic in the philosophy forum, simply because the morality of anything is more a philosophical discussion, I took a class called the philosophy of sex and in that class we debated strongly about the morality of beastiality, and paedophilia, necrophilia, Sado-masochism, voyeurism, homosexuality and various other topics....we learned about the history of why certain sex acts were considered immoral, and we studied the physiological functions and psychological perspective behind these topics....I think this is a HUGE topic, but better left to another thread.

This thread is about a Military law being repealed. The source from which this information came from was sensationalist in nature, and a disgrace to proper journalism. Just because the old law was repealed does not mean the military has given a green light for beastiality or sex with persons under the age of 16, I am sure a new law will be added to the UCMJ that outlines the no sex with minors or animals.


The UCMJ is it's own beast (no pun intended) and it only governs military people. I am familiar with UCMJ very well for a number of reasons, and I am pretty sure that as many others have already said, this repeal was done because of the repeal of DADT and also because for YEARS now good heterosexual soldiers have been in trouble or even kicked out of the military because of this law. For years now heterosexual people have been complaining about this law.

The original law had oral, anal and beastiality included because back in the day (when religion dictated societal morals) any sexual union not involving "penis into vagina" was considered "unnatural copulation" as is stated in the UCMJ definition at the begining of this thread.


edit on 6-12-2011 by Mijamija because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2011 by Mijamija because: Spelling error



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

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.


It's quite simple, we kill sheep because we eat them, we kill fish because we eat them, we kill carrots and potatoes because we eat them.

It is the law of nature.

What we do not do, because there is absolutely no logical reason to, is have sex with them, with the possible exception of carrots.


Such behavior can only lead to diseases of the animal world filtering into the human world or vice versa, and i don't want to be eating bacon/eggs and wondering if the pig(or the chicken that laid the eggs) had a sexually transmitted disease it caught from some wacko deviant.

Cosmic..
edit on 6-12-2011 by Cosmic4life because: Added chicken......



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


I agree with you on both points. We kill to eat, and inter-species sex can spread disease.

The only problems I have are, we don't always kill to eat, we sometimes kill for sport, or kill for nuisance, so we are killing for entertainment or comfort in many cases, and humans already spread disease with their actions, whether we spread to each other or the environment, or through scientific meddling.

So, while I agree with both points, there is still a huge cloud of hypocrisy. We can murder 1000s of wolves or wild mustangs and it isn't a crime, but sex with a Great Dane is a crime? Even if the dog enjoyed it, LOL!

I said earlier, I'll be happy to support the law against bestiality, as soon as we prosecute other heinous offenses toward animals.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 





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.


Keeping a bird or a rodent in a cage is not torture or slavery. It is kidnap and false imprisonment, too.

Torture of animals is actually illegal (or very severely restricted at least).




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.


Yep.




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 ?


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.


edit on 6/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
uuummmmm..
why did they need a law making bestiality illegal for US soldiers in the first place?


Well, back in the day with the US Cavalry, out on the open plains. Cold, lonely, and "Ol' Paint" is starting to look purty!


Now it's the local nationals in A-stan with "Man-love Thursday" and eharmonygoats.com.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
I'm growing quite tired of you.


Of course you're growing tired of me, because I am highlighting your logical inconsistencies and flaws on this issue.


Originally posted by Afterthought
Eating for survival doesn't justify cannibalism? Are you serious?


Who said anything about eating for survival when you have no other choice ?

In society, it is considered morally unacceptable to kill and eat humans, whereas it's generally considered morally acceptable to kill and eat animals.

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.

But, concern for an animal's welfare is selectively applied in cases of bestiality, because of Moral Outrage at the perpetrator's actions.

So, people can either admit that they are against bestiality primarily because of disgust at the human's involvement, or accept that they are hypocrites who are suffering from severe cognitive dissonance on the matter of animal welfare in society.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Torture of animals is actually illegal (or very severely restricted at least).


Limited, but certainly not illegal.


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.


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.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 





Limited, but certainly not illegal.


Maybe if there is a very good reason, such as medical research, there can be granted an exception. Otherwise, it is illegal, and punishable by prison (or should be, I am not familiar with how the law varies in US states).




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.


That sentence does not even make sense. Laws on animal abuse are based on simple logic - unnecessary suffering is considered wrong, and so it is banned to inflict it upon animals.

It is totaly absurd to state that bestiality is looked down upon only because of moral outrage. Even in this thread, there are people that consider it wrong because the animal is raped, so your argument automatically fails.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 





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.


It is not black and white. There is some level of protection granted to animals, too, otherwise there would not be any laws against animal abuse. And there are people that believe rape should be included in these laws, for similar reason it is banned in humans. Simple as that.

And dont forget that one wrong does not make another wrong OK. I dare to say lots of people that are against bestiality would favor laws against animal abuse to be made more strict, thus preventing any hypocrisy.
edit on 8/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join