OK, this wins this week's distinguished
Triumph the Insult Dog Award.
Posted on 11/14/2005 9:49:08 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
More than two and a half years ago, the nation laughed as pro-family crusader Rick Santorum predicted the consequences of legalized gay marriage: If man-on-man marriage was sanctified, man-on-child and man-on-dog unions might not be far behind.
Those who jeered Santorum were silenced last Tuesday. Man-on-dog isn’t legal just yet, but if the Massachusetts State Legislature has its way, it might be soon. On November 1, cheerleading for bestiality was just one of a string of stunning pieces of legislation that converged on the legislature’s judiciary committee in a bizarre, post-Halloween orgy. The imminent collapse of the state cannot be far behind.
Sponsored by Senators Cynthia Creem and Robert O’Leary, and Representatives Michael Festa and David Linsky, the bestiality measure was buried in a packaged assault on morality, disguised as “An Act Relative to Archaic Crimes.” The bill would strike down several sections of the current penal code criminalizing adultery, fornication and the advertisement of abortion. It also repeals what appears to be a sodomy statute forbidding “abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast.”
Archaic, indeed.
The new law would continue to forbid “a sexual act on an animal,” but reduce possible penalties for committing such a crime, making it decidedly less illegal. Whereas the old law punished doggie-diddling and the like with hard time (a maximum sentence of 20 years) in state prison, the new measure would give activist judges the option of slapping perps with a mere two and a half years in plush local jails, or even letting zoophiliacs walk with a $5,000 fine.
How badly has Massachusetts’ moral compass suffered since dudes started honeymooning with dudes? Not one legislator, nor a single member of the God-fearing public, appeared before the judiciary committee to denounce the proposed changes. But then again, who has time to worry about bestiality when teenagers are shoplifting and buying NyQuil?
Though presumably more than willing to lower penalties for crimes against nature, Rep. Linsky demanded the judiciary committee get tough on the real criminals—mall thieves. It turns out that if shopping bags are lined with duct tape, any merchandise inside can be snuck past security tag sensors undetected. One shoplifting ring, Linsky testified, had recently been busted in Natick with $47,000 in stolen goods. Linsky’s bill would criminalize the possession of duct-tape bags and other shoplifting tools in malls, punishing offenders with up to two years in the clink and a $1,000 fine.
Cold medicine, it appears, is also a greater threat to society than bestiality, as Falmouth Rep. Matthew Patrick denounced NyQuil and codeine, but remained silent about barnyard romance. Patrick’s bill would criminalize the sale of “cough syrup or a cold remedy containing alcohol or codeine … to any person under the age of 18.” Such medicine “wreaks a lot of havoc on young people,” Patrick argued.
And the shoplifting and NyQuil bills were two of the tamer legislative initiatives before the committee; the rest of the docket amounted to a clearinghouse of insanity.
Up for consideration was a measure, sponsored by Southie’s Jack Hart, to ban the advertisement of fireworks; a bill banning the sale of laser pointers to minors; a push to revamp the way the state punishes graveyard vandals; an examination of how to combat the epidemic of drunken riots; new punishments for drivers who steal gas; and—our personal favorite—a bid to make criminally liable anyone who knowingly allows their telephone to be used “repeatedly, for the sole purpose of harassing, annoying or molesting [another] person … or for the purpose of repeatedly using indecent or obscene language to that person or his family.”
Hopefully, with those problems solved, we’ll all be able to marry our dogs and live in peace.
Those are lovely quotes. Not really relevant, since I'm objecting to your definition of morality, not the value of moral behavior in itself, but still - nice quotes (although I might quibble with a couple of points).
I disagree - our society has recognized marriage as a legal relationship, and conferred certain privileges and benefits on that relationship, in the belief that the institution of marriage returns certain benefits to society as a whole. However, most if not all of the benefits provided to society are not gender specific - arguments in favor of marriage apply equally well to gay marriages as well as straight ones. Accordingly, there is no valid reason for our society to privilege one type of relationship over another.
you will say that homosexuality is immoral - I don't agree and it doesn't matter anyway; our legal structure should not be in the business of decreeing morality and our legal code should not be based on what a segment of society (even a majority) believes is or is not moral. The only valid reason I could see for opposing gay marriage is if gay relationships caused a positive harm to our society (they don't) or if gay relationships provided none of the societal benefits of straight ones (they do).
When I boil it all down I find that all objections to homosexuality and gay marriage are of two types: 'that's yucky' and 'it's against my religion'. Neither of those carries any weight with me, and neither should be the basis for government action. Call it morally devoid if you like, but I consider equal and fair treatment of all citizens to be a high moral imperative.
Dog: Noble creature/Man's best friend/Lives for affection (not abuse but affection)/Willing to Lay Down Life in Defense of even Mediocre Owner/Feed 'em, pet 'em, talk nice to 'em and they love you forever, etc.
Dog/cat/goldfish-diddling libertoonians and leftists who propose legalizing pooch-abuse: Either typical Taxachusetts windtunnels or others for whom execution is tooooooo kind.
There, there, Tipperpooch, that's why God invented the Second Amendment. Don't you worry, Tipper. I fire fast and fire true and they won't get to you.
Dukakis proposed this legislation thirty years ago as a state representative in Taxachusetts. This proposal will credential on the record a new generation of Demonrat preverts and friends of theirs who can be permanently identified as was Dukakis (See Cartoon campaign book: Magical Mike Dukakis and the page referencing his bill which featured giraffes and zebras fleeing the Gay [bestiality] State).
Doggy-diddling is too much for ONLY twenty years. Mutilation, then execution by enraged pitbull/rottweiler/dobie pack. There is room in the ring for those who object. That's the ticket! Or perhaps, a traditional Salem farewell party with a stake and roaring flames!
Kitties with their claws intact will make Mr. Diddler not want to live to be tried. Can't blame 'em. Nice Kitty! Faster, pussycat, KILL, KILL!!!!
To say nothing of Viking Kitties!!!!!
Whatever -lipstick on a pig still leaves a pig...
Maybe this a moment when we can get together usefully with Muslims and apply Sharia (Islamic Law) to this ONE situation. If thieves have their hands cut off as punishment and escaped prisoners have their feet cut off, what WOULD the Koran likely do to doggy-diddlers???? The punishment could be carried out by the specially trained pit bull avenger doggie brigade.
Woof! Rip! Munch! Spit out!
Why do you think they are "lovely" if you disagree with their and my definition of morality?
Doesn't make sense. Unless you think they are lovely not because of the content but the grammar.
And a rose by any other name is still a rose, even if you choose to call it a pig...
Are you saying the PETA folks are pervs?
Our butterscotch Persian puddy (Fighting Furball from the Sky aka Paddy O'Puddy), complete with rakish eyepatch, miniature M-16, razor sharp prosthetic front claws, camouflage parachute, mini-Rambo knife and scowl and attitude to match growls: bring 'em on!!!! He will postpone his daily daddy-nagging (to feed his people: Step slowly away from that computer and fill the kittie dishes or else!) for a day or two to do what needs doing to the Taxachusetts Supreme Judicial Court or poloclub antimoralists or whatever they are.
Execution is a LOT cheaper than incarceration. If the execution is carried out by a crack regiment of specially trained pitbulls, rottweilers and dobies, you need neither electricity nor medical personnel, not even a hypodermic.
AND we don't need some other bucnh of elitist judges giving new meanings to terms like "dog lover."
Gross. Mass. has gone of the deep end.
Does anyone else find it disturbing that this point even has to be made, including to FReepers- That people don't think bestiality is much of a problem- EEeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
AG: Do you have a problem with the concept of square circles? If not, then your position on "gay" "marriage" is consistent, if nothing else.
It makes perfect sense - I know what morality is (and is not), I approve of moral behavior, and so I can look with approval on a quotation that extols morality. Some of the grammar is also very nice, as you point out. No conflict at all... (However, you should probably read my "lovely" with half a dash of sarcasm - the real point of my post was to reject your off-topic appeal to authority.)
I guess that's clever and all - your geometric analogy is meant to say that gay marriage is an oxymoron because marriage by definition must be heterosexual. That logic may work in math class but it's fallacious here - marriage is a civil relationship defined by society (through government) which affords certain rights and privileges. There is nothing in the definition of marriage that precludes gay unions. (Note that I am only talking about the civil, secular expression of marriage - that recognized and ratified by the state - not personal or religious rites which may be more meaningful to the individual but are no business of the state.)
I have told my kids for years that by the time they are my age, people will be able to marry their house plants.
Not much makes me laugh out loud at the end of a long day. . . .
I just cannot stand it. Still laughing out loud. Slippery slope indeed. . . . . .
Actually, yucky is far too mild a term for these sick perversions.
Judaeo-Christian civilization will prevail whether you agree or not. We are in no danger of your being elected to formalize these evils. We pray that you are not a judge. We are not returning to the slime of paganism voluntarily.
Needless to say, anal intercourse is not likely to produce future generations of humans anytime soon. Nor is lesbian passion. It is for this reason primarily that Truman (whatever his many deficiencies) saw to it that Congress (whatever its many deficiencies) gave to parents (without a thought of fudge-packers posing as parents) a tax exemption PER CHILD equal to $20,000 per year in today's money. No one suggested subsidizing the sickening perversions of the lavender kind. AND, no, there is no "moral equivalence" between honest bank proprietors and John Dillinger and no equal results under the law, either. Nor ought there to be.
"Fair" is the juvenile and liberal overused to the max four-letter "f" word. Equal is in a similar category. Honest bankers and John Dillinger both made money from banking. Isn't it just fair to treat them equally? After all: Thou shalt not steal is just one of those old religious hangups, isn't it? Pass the bong! Property rights, too! Good dope, man! Gives jump the shark a new and more final meaning! Oh, wow! And, hey, pooch ####ing, I mean, like wow, whatever turns ya on! Ever try a goldfish???? Pass the bong!!!! Brain cells are a terrible thing to waste.
Your post eloquently demonstrates why there is NO PLACE for libertoonianism within the conservative movement. In my misspent youth I actually served as a Libertarian State Party officer. Then I grew up.
Grow up!
OK, this wins this week's distinguished
Triumph the Insult Dog Award.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.