US Senate votes to allow sex with animals and permits sodomy

Originally Posted by Spiritwalker

Try reading.... it's FUNdamental... the evidence is right there... stop relying on others to provide you with information.. or in this case.. MISinformation...

As far as my moral integrity... your one to toss stones... like I said... page 132 and so on... but they my be off due to my resolution...

typical SW response you make claims than refuse to back them up. Burden of proof is on you moron. You made the claim now back it up. I tried to be civil with you. Plus what happen to you never responding to my post or threads again. Luckily County Mike was so kind enough to properly articulate the situation instead of being a pompous jerk like you sir.

Nevertheless they could have amended the bill to remove the language of bestiality from the omnibus. However they chose not to thus by default they allow sex with animals. So the story is true and it is new worthy. So SW I hope the next comment is either proof or an I was wrong.

Originally Posted by County Mike

I don't think the intent of removing the law was to allow beastiality. It's just that sodomy and beastiality were part of the same law. They want to let people BF each other and the sex with animals part just goes along for the ride.

I'm not really cool with the gayness either but I don't think we'll see a huge increase in animal sex because of this.

true enough Mike but they could have if they wanted change the wording so to make beasility still illegal and they didn't so makes one wonder what they do up there. I guess they love to vote on things they never read.

the fact that sodomy is against the law is dumb .. animal sex should be .. they coulda changed the law to allow sodomy and still make animal sex illegal ...

[Spiritwalker]

Originally Posted by County Mike

I don't think the intent of removing the law was to allow beastiality. It's just that sodomy and beastiality were part of the same law. They want to let people BF each other and the sex with animals part just goes along for the ride.

I'm not really cool with the gayness either but I don't think we'll see a huge increase in animal sex because of this.

agreed.

[NateR]

It would have been just as easy to remove the section banning sodomy with humans while still leaving the prohibition on sex with animals intact. The fact that it was all removed at once betrays a larger agenda. But I can't figure out if it's the Liberals treating our military like a giant social experiment or if they are simply trying to demoralize our troops in every way possible. My guess would be the latter, since I know that Liberals have no love for the military.

[Bonnie]

Originally Posted by Chris F

true enough Mike but they could have if they wanted change the wording so to make beasility still illegal and they didn't so makes one wonder what they do up there. I guess they love to vote on things they never read.

Originally Posted by NateR

It would have been just as easy to remove the section banning sodomy with humans while still leaving the prohibition on sex with animals intact. The fact that it was all removed at once betrays a larger agenda. But I can't figure out if it's the Liberals treating our military like a giant social experiment or if they are simply trying to demoralize our troops in every way possible. My guess would be the latter, since I know that Liberals have no love for the military.

You both hit the nail on the head!

Maybe they think a law against beastiality shouldn't even be necessary. Do people really think screwing an animal is OK unless there's a law against it? Do people really want to screw animals? WTF?

Law or no law, I think it's pretty obvious that's just wrong.

Originally Posted by County Mike

Maybe they think a law against beastiality shouldn't even be necessary. Do people really think screwing an animal is OK unless there's a law against it? Do people really want to screw animals? WTF?

Law or no law, I think it's pretty obvious that's just wrong.

+1

[Spiritwalker]

Originally Posted by Chris F

typical SW response you make claims than refuse to back them up. Burden of proof is on you moron. You made the claim now back it up. I tried to be civil with you. Plus what happen to you never responding to my post or threads again. Luckily County Mike was so kind enough to properly articulate the situation instead of being a pompous jerk like you sir..

Hardly typical... you imply that I am immoral... now you call me a moron.. I don't remember saying I wouldn't reply to your posts.. but it has a ring to it...

sorry your "knee jerk reactionism".. doesn't include just a little thought.. I even gave you the page to read.. did you? hmmmm?

Nevertheless they could have amended the bill to remove the language of bestiality from the omnibus. However they chose not to thus by default they allow sex with animals. So the story is true and it is new worthy. So SW I hope the next comment is either proof or I was wrong.

OK.. you are wrong.. just read it.. and then you get your proof.

I never said a negitive word to you,...

why do you love insulting me??? you have a thing for me or something??? Sorry.. I don't swing that way sweety.... and here I was.. thinking that you were a closed minded bigot...

[flo]

Originally Posted by County Mike

Maybe they think a law against beastiality shouldn't even be necessary. Do people really think screwing an animal is OK unless there's a law against it? Do people really want to screw animals? WTF?

Law or no law, I think it's pretty obvious that's just wrong.

It's a tradition in Afghanistan, from what I've read. But not here so I tend to agree with Nate that it's just a subtle slap in the face to our military.

Ew.