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 isnt 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 legislatures 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 OLeary, 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 criminalsmall 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. Linskys 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. Patricks 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 Southies 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; andour personal favoritea 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, well all be able to marry our dogs and live in peace.
Sheep, dog, cat, goat, horse, cow, camel or spider rapers: We have a 4 x 6 room with your name on it.
And since when did we get so ridiculously tolerant to actually believe there is a difference between bestiality and zoophilia and are willing to even tolerate discussions about that difference? A fruit-cake is pretty hard to stomach if you ask me.
Two and a half years sounds about right. Twenty years is too long.
Exactly the point I made above. Since most of us will NOT accept immorality shoved down our throats, the only way the so-called moral relavists (in reality, purveyors of immorality) will get us to shut up is at the business end of a gun/threat of arrest.
There's no other way they will get most of us to acquiesce. Totalitarianism is what will happen.
You're right, it doesn't make one molecule of sense.
There will be a revolution before that happens.
It doesn't really matter what anyone "thinks". The sentence is eternal damnation.
Roman queers kept catamites routinely. Catamites were young boys forced subjugated to the wishes of male homos. Sickening to think the Nambla crowd is pushing the same thing again.
Just curious about where you draw the line--do you have a problem if the gays are siblings?
We've reached a point of some circularity, I think - you insist on calling homosexuality immoral, and I insist that it is not. I doubt there is any convincing on the horizon for either of us...
I say your quotes are off topic because you are ascribing a meaning to "morality" that I don't agree with - the discussion was about that meaning, and you can't argue a point using quotes that are based on the assumption that the point is true ("off-topic" may have been the wrong term, cicular may have been better).
In response to the problem raised in your second paragraph, I would suggest that our laws really shouldn't be based on morality at all (as I think I stated in another post). Precisely because morality is not absolute, and individuals (based on upbringing, cultural heritage, socialization, etc) do develop their own sense of morality. Despite that, many of us have very similar backgrounds and heritages, so we share a moral viewpoint which becomes the 'morals' of society at large. However, it seems better to me for our legal structure to be based on questions of cost/benefit to the functioning of our society, not on the moral opinions of a segment of society. For example, murder should be illegal not because it is immoral but because our society functions a lot better when we can go outside without (much) fear of being murdered. By this standard, people who don't consider murder immoral don't get a pass.
Hopefully this only applies to beastiality between consenting adult humans and adult dogs, in the privacy of their own kennels.
Seriously folks; Is a human that will engage in sexual intercourse with a dog, human enough that such an act between the two is in fact beastiality???
In terms of legality, I think the legal line should be wherever there is a clearly definable societal interest in limiting a behavior. If there is not articulable societal interest, then a behavior should not be infringed.
Your philosophy sounds very similar to communism or Nazism in that nothing matters except the smooth running state organization.
I can only thank God that people like you are in a small minority.
Such "humans" are worse than animals, because animals stay within their own kind.
But how bad does it have to get? And how many people tolerate stuff now, that if it had shoved at them 20 or even 15 years ago without the previous slide, would not have tolerated it?
The boiling frog analogy.
I don't know, Harry. It's going to have to come to a head like a bad boil, one way or another. Because those who want to destroy morality and any vestige of religion will not stop until they win. And them winning means re-education camps for us, under a totalitarian government.
Except for the occasional human leg they become enamored with.
I knew someone would bring that up! But there was a bitch in heat around, they wouldn't go for the corduroy, or denim, as the case may be.
I don't mean a "smooth running state organization", I mean society (culture, civilization) in a larger sense. What I'm trying to say is that people's behavior should not be infringed upon unless there is a compelling societal interest (necessity) to do so. The mere fact that part of society finds a behavior immoral does not constitute a compelling societal interest. It's about personal freedom, not the efficiency of the state machine...
So you are comfortable with incest and interspecies sex too? How do you define societal interest? Since male homosexuals have an average life-span of about 45 years (on a par with IV drug users) and the cost to treat the medical conditions associated with the lifestyle exceeds normal lifestyles, should we draw the line or pay the costs? I for one, don't care to be forced to pay the cost for a destructive public health issue that is a personal choice. Furthermore, AIDS patients are dominated by male homosexuals and are breeding grounds for highly resistant bacterial strains. In short, male homos especially, are a huge public health issue.
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.