This entire article is hilarious

[DeeBye]

Man dies from sex with horse.

http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/0722/be...y_ctv.html

I feel bad that someone died, but there are some very hilarious quotes in this article.

Here's my favourite:

Last week, prosecutors in Tallahassee, Fla., dropped animal cruelty charges against a blind man who was accused of having sex with his guide dog. Florida, like Washington, doesn't have a bestiality statute.

Prosecutors were forced to charge the man with disorderly conduct, alleging he was disturbing the peace by engaging in sexual activity with his dog.

I don't have a dog, but I do have a cat. HEEERE KITTY KITTY KITTY!

[TheDragoon]

I saw an article in the Times implying what happened. It's sick.

[Doc]

My friend... Flicka?

Nothing new. People in Washington state been having sex with animals for far to long. Heck, when I lived up there, I'd hear about it through the local rumour mills and grapevines all the time.

Sickos.

[Mithrandir]

So wait... his colon was perforated? Doesn't that mean...? Oh my. That just has "Bad Idea" written all over it in big neon letters.

I always thought the human would want to be the pitcher, tbh.

[Doc]

Ok. I will now warp all of your minds and do irreversable damage to your brains.

Imagine, if you will...

Mr. Ed making orgasm noises.

[TaMeOlta]

Ok. I will now warp all of your minds and do irreversable damage to your brains.

Imagine, if you will...

Mr. Ed making orgasm noises.
[right][snapback]84579[/snapback][/right]

Just say "Nay !" :lol:

[Guest]

How is it worse than sodemy?

I think its sick and disgusting, but I doubt the animals really mind in most cases. I think that just an exscuse to make it illegal. Ordinary animal husbandry(isnt that nice word) involves amy actions the animals probably dislike more than beastiality.

I suppose the small animal arguement is valid, but their would still be plenty of animals out there that thise idiots wouldnt hurt.

[wakim]

... but I doubt the animals really mind.... I think that [is] just an exscuse[sic] to make it illegal. Ordinary animal husbandry... involves amy[sic] actions the animals probably dislike more than beastiality.
[right][snapback]84614[/snapback][/right]

Perhaps you, like the legislator who is suggesting that this type of act should be a felony because it hurts the animal, may be missing the point. Although one should rightly agree that animals should be treated humanely, the act in question is one that demeans the man, not the beast, and that is the correct reason for imposing legislation designed to prevent or punish such an act - not because it harms animals, but because it harms man.

[Doc]

Do not have sex with any kind of animal. You would become unclean by doing so.



Any man who has sex with an animal, is certainly to be put to death.



Put the animal to death as well.



Neither should a woman present herself to an animal for sex. It is a perversion.



If a woman approaches an animal to have sex with it, kill the woman and the animal. They are certainly to be put to death. Their blood is on their own heads.

[Guest]

the act in question is one that demeans the man, not the beast, and that is the correct reason for imposing legislation designed to prevent or punish such an act
[right][snapback]84633[/snapback][/right]

Personally feel that gay sex is just as demeaning to humanity, but Im not argueing that it should be illegal.

Personally I think all such behavior is best dealth with by shunning or shaming rather than making it illegal.

[Mithrandir]

I completely disagree with your position ghostiger, but I'll try to only address the legal aspects to keep this thread relatively sane since a discourse on homosexuality will clearly not change your opinion over the internet.

Even if you think homosexual sex is "bad", you have to admit that it is between two consenting human beings, whereas an animal cannot give consent in bestiality. An animal cannot articulate when it is in pain (kicking, bucking, whatever can be interpreted in any number of ways I'm sure) and its desires are for the most part unknown. When one human has sex with another without the second party's consent, it is called rape. Animals cannot ever give consent. Therefore, the rights of the animal must be protected.

[Guest]

When people eat people its called canibalism. Be wary of making parallels here.

You will notice I was responding to Wakim who said " the act in question is one that demeans the man, not the beast, and that is the correct reason for imposing legislation designed to prevent or punish such an act - not because it harms animals".



I addressed the animal issue earlier. Obviously if someone was hurting an animal it would be bad, but that is in no way clear in most the cases.
We essentially force pets to do our will(either by force or with our intelligence.)
So if your going to complain about the lack of consent by animals you should also becalling all pets and beasts of burdon - slaves.

If your not willing to go to such extremes then your point is moot.

[wakim]

Animals cannot ever give consent. Therefore, the rights of the animal must be protected.
[right][snapback]84654[/snapback][/right]

A stunning non sequitur. Please consider whence an animal derives its "rights" if an animal lacks those faculties that would allow it to give or withhold consent.

When people eat people its called canibalism[sic]. Be wary of making parallels here.

A point well made. The question of the proper method to prevent such behavior, "shunning or shaming rather than [by law]," is, however, a digressive topic.

[Ninjadruid]

Aren't there laws pertaining to cruelty against animals in these places? Unless the act is deemed cruel, I see no point in persecuting those involved.

Have you ever artificially inseminated a cow? Also, before you inseminate a cow, you need to get the sperm from somewhere. This involves a lot of warm water, and a soft tube - and it happens all the time. Oh yes, and steers *snip*.

Furthermore, humans often make two species that would normally breed, breed with each other. This is not illegal.

To summarize, we, as humans, manipulate animals' sex all the time. They probably never consent to any of it, bringing humans into the mix shouldn't change anything.

I don't see the point in such a law. Laws should protect people and animals from undue cruelty, if engaging in a sexual act with an animal causes it physical harm, then yes, this should be punishable. If it doesn't? I do not see how sex is worse than being made into steaks.

[channel1]

Ok. I will now warp all of your minds and do irreversable damage to your brains.

Imagine, if you will...

Mr. Ed making orgasm noises.
[right][snapback]84579[/snapback][/right]

Ohhhhh, Wilburrrrrr.....

[Crusader]

Hmm, what I find funny is the enormous animal cruelty part... saying the horse didn't want this and all... Knowing stallions and how frustrated they can be at times, I doubt it was forced into doing anything and was willing to oblige... :P :rolleyes:

Also, knowing stallions and their enormous force and disregard for the well-being of their mate once they've started 'the act', I find it rather suicidal for a human being to mate with one. Man, but that must do some internal damage when thet stallion lets 'r rip... nasty... :wacko: :o

The guy got what he deserved though, a slow, painful death. Sickos.

Good thing Falco is a gelding and doesn't get those ideas. All he wants is a hug... well... lots of hugs.. :wub:

[DeeBye]

I do not see how sex is worse than being made into steaks.
[right][snapback]84680[/snapback][/right]

Are we seriously defending the right to have sex with an animal? Some things are wrong, and don't need to be explained. This is one of those things.

[Guest]

Some things are wrong, and don't need to be explained.  This is one of those things.
[right][snapback]84690[/snapback][/right]

30 years ago most people said that about homosexuality.

[Chaerophon]

Mmmmm... more bigotry. It's not about the act, it's about consent - an animal can't do so, end of story.

[gekko]

Mmmmm... more bigotry.  It's not about the act, it's about consent - an animal can't do so, end of story.
[right][snapback]84705[/snapback][/right]

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this argument. While I personally agree that this sort of thing is disgusting and "wrong" (and shouldn't need to be explained), saying that it should be illegal on the grounds of animal cruelty is just ridiculous, considering the way we treat animals we plan on eating. If having sex with a horse is wrong because the horse can't consent to the act, why is it ok to keep cows perpetually pregnant so that we can harvest their milk indefinately? Why is it ok to slaughter thousands of animals for food? They certainly don't give their consent to that treatment. Several people have already made this point in this thread, and no one's responded to it. Either we grant animals rights or we don't - you can't call sex with a horse rape but not call slaughtering cows for food murder.

gekko