Bwahahah Speaking of Florida.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Apparently the nitwits in the government down their have managed to outlaw sex...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/floridas-bestiality-law_n_860836.html#s277668&title=Fake_Gov_Rick

"An act relating to sexual activities involving animals; creating s. 828.126, F.S.; providing definitions; prohibiting knowing sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal; prohibiting specified related activities; providing penalties; providing that the act does not apply to certain husbandry, conformation judging, and veterinary practices; providing an effective date."

Now of course I'm sure that most of you will respond to this in a typical Hur Dur Stupid Republicans way but I wonder if this might not be the right time for you to reconsider whether this is something which even needs a law?

I mean yes Bestiality is abnormal and deviant and does indeed pose several public health issues, plus it is arguable that the rights of the animals are being violated, however is criminal sanction actually required here? Could it not be treated as a public health issue with interventions for those who are found engaging in it?

Comments

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Well I'm glad the cupping of dog's balls is exempted. How else can we know who is the prize top dog?

A suggestion

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

A Frisbee-catching contest might be in order, among other things...

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point of view, but...are you implying that you think bestiality should /not/ be illegal?

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

No, he's just arguing against government intervention. As usual.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Sort of.

What is the purpose of applying criminal sanction to an act?

Prevention? Do you really think that given the infinitesimally small odds of getting caught ANYONE will be dissuaded from engaging in bestiality because it is illegal?

Restitution? Who is being harmed by it? How does putting someone in jail for it make their lives any better?

Retribution? Again who is being harmed that you need to extract revenge for? Even if you can find someone do you really want the criminal justice system to be based around providing revenge?

Enforcement of social norms? Ah here you do have something but again there is the question, is the crimial justice system the optimal place to be doing this? Would the mental health system not make more sense?


Or is it just that you find it disgusting and want those freaks punished? If so you might want reconsider the meaning of the word justice.


This is not just about bestiality, nor is it a defense of bestiality. It applies equally well to other activities that harm no one but are not socially accepted (or have not at various points in the past) such as drug use, alcohol use, and gambling. Banning them with criminal sanction is ineffective at best and far more often counter productive

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Pardon me for getting all sentimental and arguing from emotion, but I strongly believe if a person is, LITERALLY, a pig-fucker, he should spend some time in jail.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Should he make restitution to the pig, or be fed a diet consisting largely of bacon while imprisoned?

Intervention?

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Distinguish "intervention" from "prosecution." Also, lay out the "public health" issues you are implying. The health issues apply to those who attempt sexual gratification with animals and those who have sexual relations with such people. This is not an issue of "public health." On top of this, while many human sexual practices applied to other species would and do constitute "inhumane treatment," it is a debasement of the concept of rights to apply the concept to animals.

The forum is to be congratulated not that a bestiality debate has surfaced here. Apparently, bestiality is a philosophical and legal issue that is bigger than just libertarian debate.<sup>1

1</sup>Note: tongue firmly in cheek with respect to this observation.

Re: Intervention?

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Disease transmission vectors. Engaging in sexual intercourse with animals provides additional vectors for blood borne diseases that do not currently threaten humans to do so.

I do recognize this is a very minor risk, however it is not one which can be ignored.

Re: Intervention?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

The forum appreciates your opinion. The forum should totally consider banning certain topics from surfacing, for the sake of everybody's inner peace.

(Takes notebook and makes notes).

1 Tongue completely in throat.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

the rights of the animals are being violated

The what? I mean, have we evolved to this discussion point?

And yes, humans are members of the Animal Kingdom.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious.

By the way, I am new here, so I don't know anyone very well. :3

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

In law, there is a whole slew of definitions given along the way. All they have to do is have an entry somewhere saying that "animal" is defined as a member of the animal kingdom excluding humans.

Again, definitions matter, especially in context

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Indeed. The legal definition need not be the same as the biological one, in much the same way as chemists and astronomers define "metals" according to differing criteria.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

What precisely is the point here because I'm not getting it. Do you *want* people humping sheep? I mean if you want that there's Scotland and New Zealand calling your name.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

And Montana.

[thies.livejournal.com]

is it still illegal if i kill an animal with the intent to eat it, but shag the body before shoving it in the oven?

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

And if it is not would that be Bestiality or Necrophilia?

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

My feeling on sexuality is that, provided it involves consenting adults, the government has no business interfering or criminalizing behavior (and yeah, I include polygamy and incest). This precludes things like pedophilia or bestiality ever being legal. On the other hand, is there really a need to waste time on specific enactment and enforcement of bestiality laws? I doubt there's an epidemic of "sheep-humping," and it seems to have been blown out of all proportion, like in that one horse vid I....

Uh, nevermind.

Frankly I'm more interested in the saggy pants law.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

What type of incest are you referring to here? Parent/child should still be excluded, even amongst adults because it's subject to undue influence.

And even if bestiality is not an epidemic it should still be illegal, even if only a very small minority are engaging in it.

my favorite comment on this one:

[op-tech-glitch.livejournal.com]

Question: If your elected officials fail basic taxonomy, promote anti-science curriculum, and consistently attempt to undermine the fundamental unpinning of all biology, what happens when they start trying to legislate from this flawed view of reality? (http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=10369)

[existentme.livejournal.com]

Dude, why do you hate the prison-industrial complex so much.

Fuck the animals (hurr), this is market share that can be picked up, dammit.

[op-tech-glitch.livejournal.com]

Long as disgusting sexual congress with plants is still allowed, that's all I care about.

Because interspecies erotica makes people feel squicky

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Re: Because interspecies erotica makes people feel squicky

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Oh god. Hahaha, you ROOL!

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I'm sure that most of you will respond to this in a typical Hur Dur Stupid Republicans way

Why should this concern you? You equally despise both the "democans and republicrats"(tm).

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

IMA just going to leave this here:

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

OH MY. Some rogue wizard has gone to a nightclub and cast his beastifying spell on everybody!

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

[yansirramus.livejournal.com]

This is perfect example of an 'ick' law. It's reactionary and logically inconsistent. Firstly, the disease aspect - there are scores of everyday activities that folk engage in every day that pose a public health risk. I mean, travelling in cars, eating rare meat, having unprotected human sex, pumping sewage into rivers, smoking cigarettes...the list goes on and on. Unless bestiality becomes way more popular than it is now, it's not anything approaching a public health risk, so that argument is nonsense.

Secondly, 'deviancy'. I really hate that word, btw. We do seem to have a habit of trying to regulate others' sexual habits, typically when they involve something we ourselves find unappealing, but laws are supposed to prevent harm to others, not to pander to our delicate sensibilities. Does bestiality harm? Well, that leads us onto point three...

Animal suffering. This is the only part of the argument that might hold water. If we judge it by the mores of our own species, having sex with the unwilling is something likely to cause them distress. However it pales beside the distress caused by life in the industrial-farming complex, which is grim, constant and unceasing. And that's not even mentioning slaughterhouses. Anyone who eats meat, eggs or dairy causes suffering to animals on a daily basis, which makes this argument a little hypocritical.

In short, this law was passed because people find bestiality 'gross'. There's no other reason. And it's kinda pointless, because the vast majority of people will never in their life consider breaking this law, and the ones who do aren't going to care if it exists or not. I suppose it's a way of giving the state the ability to prosecute - is there a word for people who engage in bestiality? bestiaphiles? - but you'd think animal cruelty laws would cover that by default.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

I have to say I disagree. The only reason I want bestiality illegal it because it causes suffering. There are some human-to-human sexual situations I find squicky, but as long as its between two consenting adults I think it would be wrong to make it illegal.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

All right, here's the deal:

It isn't "victimless" -- the animal is a victim.

Now it is absolutely true that we don't ask for animals' consent when we keep them as pets, use them as workers or decide to eat them. They lack the ability to reason and give consent for any of those purposes and the last one ultimately makes their life only valuable in so far as they give us nutrition.

But the "logical" conclusion from that does not mean that "anything goes". Society has both an ability and an obligation to set limits even within systems where we take away or do not recognize the full rights of an organism. We take away the rights of prisoners all the time, but we are bound to not inflict "cruel and unusual" punishments. That standard is right there in the Constitution, but it is not defined and necessarily is subjective. Children do not have full rights of majority, but we do not accept parents being able to do anything at all to them. Gaining legal power of attorney over an advanced Alzheimer's patient doesn't give license either.

So the fact that a pig is destined to become a plate of bacon does not automatically give license to the people in power over that pig to do whatever they want to it, especially for an animal capable of feeling both pain and emotions. The subjectivity of that standard is not a logical weakness. That it can possibly apply to food raising industry is simply a matter for more discussion, not for dismissal of the issue.

And for the life of me, I am also assuming you are just trolling the board with a standard and bizarre obsession of the libertarianism discussion board. Frankly, the incipient sympathy for sheep rapers over there is the sort of thing that hinders your whole movement.

[raven-blue.livejournal.com]

Just to play devil advocate (and I in no way condome this act) but animals are capable of displaying a depth of emotion and loyalty, not to mention an enjoyment of sexual stimulation. If someone chooses to have sex with their dog and argues that the dog is a willing participant and can display in court that the dog maintains the same level of affection and loyalty then what do we do?

Or from another standpoint how does it fit if a dog humps a strangers leg? Would this be beastial rape or sexual assault?

Just playing Devils advocate.

[raven-blue.livejournal.com]

One of the very first crimes for which someone was punished in the American colonies was on the charge of bestiality. And Floridas law is nothing out of the ornidary. Many states have similar laws and many local towns and cities have ordinances against it.

As for it being a needed law. I dont think so. Treat it as an animal cruelty act and be done with it.