>This Michigan legislator is attempting to ban sodomy while the Flint water crisis rages on
https://archive.is/jVPnQ
The legislature insists that the law
>doesn’t target gay people
but claims that it
>applies to both same-sex and heterosexual couples.
It reads in part,
>“the abominable and detestable crime against nature with mankind or with any animal.”
Because the law uses the word “mankind” many suspect that it reaffirms the sodomy laws that are already on the books.
The bill was was well-meaning;
>it began as an attempt to create a registry of animal abusers.
Many states like Tennessee and New York are turning to this as
>a solution to prevent animals abuse,
but it also serves the dual purpose of identifying
>violence against children, families and future killers of humans.
Anthropologist Margaret Mead worked extensively to understand
>the link between animal abuse and human on human abuse.
Mead was one of the first researchers to conclude that
>cruelty to animals from children could be a precursor to future violence.
>In 1964, she wrote:
“One of the most dangerous things that can happen to a child is
>to kill or torture an animal and get away with it…
[as] such children, diagnosed early, could be helped instead of being allowed to embark on a long career of episodic violence and murder.”
how the fuck do you even enforce something like this lol
>>5695120
Cont'd
The bill has passed the Senate, but the state House still has an opportunity to strip the unconstitutional provision. Republican Senator Rick Jones is urging his colleagues to refrain from doing so because it could put
>a crucial bill to protect animals in jeopardy.
“The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done,” Rep. Jones explained to The New Civil Rights Movement.
“Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional…
If we could put a bill in that said anything that’s unconstitutional be removed from the legal books of Michigan, that’s probably something I could vote for, but am I going to mess up
>this dog bill that everybody wants? No.”
Logan’s Law is named after
>a Siberian Husky that died tragically after having acid intentionally poured over him.
> abominable and detestable crime against nature
Wut? I thought laws were about logic, that fucking sentence is so emotionally based it is fucking scary!
How does this crap even pass for a bill.
>>5695120
Michigan NO!
>>5695131
Lawrence v. Texas started because cops 100% chanced into busting down the wrong door
I'm confused, is vaginal sex with animals still legal?
>>5695120
>solution to prevent animal abuse
Female animals have vaginas, therefore I believe they should pass a law that any vaginal sex in mankind and with any animals must be banned.
>>5695120
But the US Supreme Court already ruled anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional in Lawrence V. Texas.
>>5695918
Finally someone who is knowledgeable in law to debunk this stupid thread.
>>5695120
LAND OF FREEDOM
to be a straight white male and absolutely nothing else.
>>5696028
Being white and male won't be an issue 100 years in the future because Latinos and Blacks are reproducing at a larger rate than whites are.
>>5696049
No, it's classic reverse psychology. Well if anal sex is being banned to deter animal abuse why not vaginal sex to be banned to deter female animal abuse. I mean it's only logical right?
sod·om·y - sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation.
It should be banned. It's perverted and disgusting. Dicks belong in vaginas to create babies...not because one is sexually excited or in the mood. It should only be done by those who truly want a baby to be born into the world.
Any other kind of sexual contact should be a jailable offense, even masturbation.
Sexual intercourse was never meant to be a daily/habitual thing people do. People in older times didn't have sex regularly, only a few times a year if even that....it wasn't a staple of their life. They only had sex to create a baby when they needed help on their farm/land/etc. The same rules should apply today.
>>5696077
Except it's unconstitutional. You Jesus Freaks are really stupid when it comes to law.
>>5696077
>People in older times didn't have sex regularly, only a few times a year if even that
>>5696076
Brilliant, if they just banned sex with animals in general, it would be *yawn*. By making it controversial, they draw attention to it.
It's going to be a bad time to be a zoophile soon. For now and in the past you could just go stealth mode, and nobody would ever suspect a thing. Now some people are starting to draw attention to it, and it won't be long before people start seeing a single guy with an non-spayed/neutered big dog and making assumptions.
>>5696112
I didn't really mean attention being drawn from people trying to ban bestiality, I mean zoophiles trying to do an impression of the gay rights movement.
>>5695460
You forgot this was America. Half the people and half the people in government in it are religious quacks.
>>5696120
It's true. There are social classes in America that nobody likes to talk about it, and nobody really notices because they don't spend any time outside of their own class. It's kind of disturbing that >40% of Americans are conservatives, and I know like, 3.
Seriously this world is sex-crazed and perverted.
People need to overcome those desires. Only way to do that is make it illegal for sex to happen unless it's to create babies.
>>5696118
Oh, well you know what the dogs and other animals are willing to do these acts. I mean so a human takes advantage of a dog, if the dog is being hurt or physical pain is involved then of course it's wrong, but if the animal is enjoying it. Who am I to stop it. The animal likes it the human likes it, why should we interfere.
>>5696128
Interspecies sex is sinful and disgusting. Repent and kill yourself.
>>5696127
>>5696131
I dont have sex with animals but I'm not gonna stop someone who does. That's their business, jesus freak.
>>5696128
I agree, but also am biased on the issue. Part of me wants to support them, the other part wants to be able to remain in stealth mode forever. The similarities to the gay rights movement are eerie, honestly.
>>5696135
>I don't have sex with animals but I'm not gonna stop someone who does. That's their business.
>I don't rape other humans but I'm not gonna stop someone who does. That's their business.
That line of thinking is why you are a shitty person, satanic freak.
>>5695120
>using the term sodomy unironicly
fucking conservatives
>>5696137
Well things would be fine if people would mind their own business. I mind my own business and I expect others to mind their own business. If they try to interfere with my life such is this >>5696127
sad piece of shit is trying to do then I have a problem. I really don't care if my neighbor has sex with his dogs. Is the dog mine? no. Is the dog being hurt and in pain? no. Why is it any of my business then?
>>5696146
Seriously...may you suffer long for your fucked up sinister logic that it's okay to rape dogs.
Dogs can't consent to human pervertedness
Neither can babies or young children.
May a bullet land inside your skull.
>>5696140
Have you ever seen a dog in heat. They are fucking annoying. They literlly will follow you around and present themeelves to you like they want you to fuck them. Im not one to do that myself, but your equating it to rape is just dumb. Yeah, rape happens, but you're fucking stupid if you think animals dont want to have sex ever.
>>5696146
The argument goes:
>animals can't consent
>therefore having sex with them is rape
>rape is bad
It's a compelling line of reasoning if you're not able to the multiplicity of words.
umm how is this related to this board?
>>5696115
Why, I never thought I would live to see it. Another poster from 1953. Say, remember drive in movies and fag dragging? Weren't those the good old days, you fucking fossilized piece of shit? The bible is a book, dipshit. It is not alive. Why is more important to you than that which can change and grow, your fellow man?
>Americans are idiot Bible thumpers
Wow, really? Who knew that a nation which forces religion into its cult esque 'Pledge of Allegiance' would be bonkers?
>>5695460
Because the ruler of America, Jesus Christ, said nothing of the sort but people think he did. What they think his word was is law.
>>5696033
You're right, it won't be an issue after white is all that's left.
Race war soon.
>>5696127
Amen.
>>5696165
How is outlawing anal sex related to /lgbt/? Also the zoophile community deeply resents the lgbt community for excluding them, as the struggles are fairly comparable.
>>5696150
May the lord take you in your sleep because you aren't fit for this world. Amen.
>>5696128
>but if the animal is enjoying it. Who am I to stop it. The animal likes it the human likes it, why should we interfere.
How are people this fucking autistic.
So all of you are okay with this happening because it's not your business and it didn't happen to someone you personally know? May you,or your sisters and mothers have to go through what these women did, maybe than you'd realize howyour wrong your logic is!?
12 Asian men gang-raped a 13-year-old white girl
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3437252/Twelve-men-repeatedly-gang-raped-abused-vulnerable-teenage-schoolgirl-saw-utterly-worthless-jailed-total-140-YEARS.html
US Girl Helps Homeless Muslim “Refugee”- He Follows Her Home And Rapes And Strangles Her To Death, Leaves Her Body Covered In Blood And Vomit
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3433995/Illegal-immigrant-arrested-murder-American-nanny-Austria-took-stop-deported-revealed-raped-underage-girl.html?ito=social-facebook
>>5696157
Dude, animals have sex. It happens. Sometimes they fuck other kinds. It happens. Try convincing the duck fucking a rabbit to stop because god says its an abomination. It wont work.
>>5696168
>after white is all that's left
The best you can ever wish for in the future is mixed race or white and other races. That is the future. Read the Time Machine again or watch the movie. The future is only filled with mixed race of humans. A highly intuitive novel I do say so myself.
>>5696146
>I don't care what my neighbor does
>my neighbor's actions have no bearing on my life
>my neighbors actions certainly wouldn't transmit to his behavior in "normal society"
>use animals as masturbatory devices is totally healthy and fine, hey they aren't hurting anyone if the dog likes it
>QUIT BEING SUCH A BIIIIGOOOOT YOU SHITLOOOOOORD
>>5696189
Rationalizing with religious people doesn't work man. They don't base their life on logic. Logic is completely absent from their brains. So you're essentially beating a dead horse by responding.
>>5696201
At least they're not fucking a dead horse.
>>5696189
interspecies sex doesn't happen idiot
you won't find a duck trying to have sex with a rabbit, don't be idiotic
>>5696188
Stop trying, these stupid fucks only think something is morally wrong if someone isn't liking what's happening, their morality is completely hedonistic.
>>5696205
>interspecies sex doesn't happen idiot
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbdBtMdgt7k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR2pxnoG02Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab3f9uaBXfo
>>5696209
I consider myself a utilitarian. If there's no negative utility for the person or the animal, where is there negative utility?
>>5696188
>because it's not your business and it didn't happen to someone you personally know
literally can't see the forest for the trees
>>5696196
all this does is illustrate why putting sex between adults and sex between a human and animal together is completely fucking insane
>>5696205
explain ligers senpai
>>5696205
le sigh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St4K2Xiz0Fw
>>5696166
lol
Baited so fucking hard.
>>5696226
>I consider myself a utilitarian.
Utilitarianism is good for legalities, not so much for ethical theories to bring about effective social cohesion.
Your brand of utilitarianism is a hedonistic utilitarianism, in that you define a positive utility the pleasure of a person or sentient being, but you completely glance over the fact that actions seldom effect no one else except the participants involved. You give no credence to the nuance that exists in moral decision making, the ripples certain actions have on society by in large.
Most people tend to be utilitarian, but most people are also morons.
>>5696247
Oh right, silly me, I forgot that the gays are going to bring the downfall of society.
>>5696220
>>5696230
They were groomed to do it for human entertainment. It's disgusting what humans make animals do for youtube views or money. You think some human just magically stumbled onto them having sex while recording a video of something else? Nope, they were groomed..
You wont find any sort of interspecies sex happening in the wild. You won't even find gay behavior in the wild..it only happens on zoos or in unnatural habitats.
That's the truth.
>>5696228
>all this does is illustrate why putting sex between adults and sex between a human and animal together is completely fucking insane
Not really, then you're just using another human as a masturbatory device, which doesn't really matter if the other person "consents" or not. I'm not supportive of legislation to ban sodomy (because straight couples could effectively have rampant sex for nothing but pleasure), but I am supportive of it being frowned upon. Certain pleasures are meant to be experienced at certain times, misuse of these only contributes to social entropy, as we're seeing today.
>>5696262
National Geographic says otherwise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d68_vlLD60Y
This video is 10/10, actually.
>Who would have thought that the great and powerful lion, is secretly a sissy faggot?
>>5696262
/lgbt/ people have only ever existed inside big civilizations...
Never outside civilization or in the wild..where real human pioneers live...
You won't find them amongst tribal people either. They also didn't exist in most Indian tribes despite internet myths...
LGBT is a social engineered disease.
>>5696261
That's narrowing the issue down to a foolishly small perspective. Homosexuality isn't so much to blame as the normalization of hedonism and sodomy between all genders and orientations is. I mean, just look around you, there's no place on earth that isn't in some sort of disarray right now. And I don't blame the moral decay as the sole cause, but it is a large chunk of it.
>>5696280
Nat Geo is also under control of Fox media so I don't give much credence to their shit anymore.
>>5696280
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC can't be trusted. It's all hollywood...
They will often record things on manageable land, maintained nature reserves (basically zoos), and act as if they're out in the wild recording these things happening. Often grooming takes place as well before their recorded scenes are done. There are numerous animal actors/actresses who can be put in a scene and make questionable moments happen.
>>5696282
>despite internet myths...
Facts and history are stupid!
>>5696269
>which doesn't really matter if the other person "consents" or not
Wait so now consent is irrelevant?
>>5696301
when I say say animal actors/actresses
I mean GROOMED animals made to do certain perverted things.
>>5696290
>such disarray
You can't reason with such people, the rose-tinted glasses are stapled to their face. Don't you dare try to ask them for an example for a society that wasn't ever in disarray...they don't have any, but they just KNOW that things now are worse than ever cause it just IS!
>>5696295
>>5696301
Well, what do you want, an academic journal article? I'm sure I can find plenty. Of course if I do that, you'll tell me that academia is corrupt. And of course instead of trusting them, I should trust you, an obvious expert on sexuality in the animal kingdom. Seriously, how do you claim to know that animals don't have gay sex? Have you researched it? Or do you just magically know, with your brain's ability to magically know things?
>>5696302
history can be made-up, changed/edited, etc.
You can't trust everything you read.
You can't trust every historian.
>>5696282
As long as two humans are near each other there is some level of "social engineering" in progress. So according to you the only way homosexuality cannot exist is a condition where no humans are in contact whatsoever. Which is a completely asinine view as every other social construct would be equally invalid in that case.
>>5696262
Hahahaahahaha! You're worse than Trump.
>>5696319
Many academic journals are corrupt.
All it takes is one scientist interfering with or exaggerating the results, those results getting published in academic journals, those results going further into the media machine to brainwash the masses for a lie to become the truth....
>>5696322
>history can be made-up, changed/edited, etc.
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand how history actually works. Oh, but I'm supposed to disbelieve mounds of evidence, written records, artifacts, and research. Because some guy on the internet says "nu huh!"
In that case, how do we REALLY know that heterosexual couplings were the majority traditional couplings in our past? I mean, can we really believe what historians tell us?
>>5696340
Right, we should listen to you. After, you're smart, therefore every intuition you have is correct. Even on subjects you know nothing about.
>>5696340
many shitposts are corrupt.
All it takes is one shitposter interfering or exaggerating his self importance and intelligence, the shitposts getting pushed into threads where they don't belong, those shitposts going into stopthejewishconspiracy.com to brainwash the poltards for a lie to become the truth...
>>5696340
Do you have any evidence of these claims? Or is this just another one of those things that we're supposed to take your word on above all other claims?
>>5696346
*After all
>>5696280
>river dolphin
>inserts penis in other male blowhole
I lost my shit at that moment of the documentary. Laughed whole heartedly
>>5696362
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYVyZn4Ay9o
>>5696290
Yea glance over alarmingly high rates of suicide, depression, decrease of trust, ethnic displacement, and factors that aren't quantifiable but hey, if there's no numbers to back them up, they doesn't real right?
I'm sure you heard your comforting stats on the Daily Show or Huff Post, just wait until Trump becomes president then you can ignore those stats to say that conservatism is destroying our country lmao.
>>5696308
it's not irrelevant, but it's not all that matters.
>>5696319
I wouldn't say an academic journal is corrupt lest I found issue with the content. But the "appeal to nature" thing you're trying to do just doesn't work. There is male on male sexual activity within the animal kingdom but the reasons for it are mostly unfounded assertions by people with an agenda saying stupid shit like "it's loooooove :3" when in reality it's a display of dominance or some other dysfunction within the animal. But to say "animals do it, so it's cool" shouldn't need explaining on why it's wrong. Animals also eat their babies and abandon weak members of the pack but I don't think you'd be eager to support infant eating or going back to leaving our elderly and disabled in the forest to die.
>>5696375
>Yea glance over alarmingly high rates of suicide, depression, decrease of trust, ethnic displacement
Alarmingly high compared to?...Do you have any numbers to back up this assertion?
>factors that aren't quantifiable
But we can totally tell that those factors are worse now. Even if we can't quantify them. We definitely know that whatever bad factor it is, it's a lot more bad as of now than it was say 100 years ago, 300, 500, 1000, etc. Definitely.
>just wait until Trump becomes president
Hahahaha! Oh, /pol/tards never fail to disappoint.
>But the "appeal to nature" thing you're trying to do just doesn't work.
Hint, you and your /pol/tard ilk are the ones trying to appeal to nature. Don't cry when you get slapped down with facts.
>>5696375
>the "appeal to nature" thing you're trying to do just doesn't work.
I never made such an appeal, I guess someone else did. But you made the claim that it never happens, which is factually wrong. It wasn't relevant to the discussion, but you know how it is with people being wrong on the internet. They must be corrected by the only sane person left.
>>5696375
>factors that aren't quantifiable
>they doesn't real right?
if it isn't quantifiable i'm not sure how it could be an issue
also consider this example
>overall crime rate is down 50% this year
>but rate of orange theft is up 100% this year
>SOCIETY IS IN COMPLETE DISARRAY OVER ORANGES WONT SOMEONE DO SOMETHING ABOUT OUR COLLAPSING CIVILIZATION THINK OF THE ORANGES
point being new issues becoming more prevalent does not imply that society is miraculously worse off as a whole
>>5696416
Can't you see that if we banned homosexuality, people would stop stealing oranges?! This kind of sexual hedonism is ripping apart society's moral fabric, and now people figure "Hey if I'm allowed to bone a dude in the butt now, why not just steal a whole bunch of oranges too??" There's no line anymore! You fags erased it!
>>5696426
The next thing they'll be saying is that it's okay to have sex with animals!
>>5696389
>Alarmingly high compared to?
the past, areas that aren't as shitty as ours. Look up male suicides, female depression, happiness of "diverse" societies. I'm not going to take the time to look up articles if you aren't either.
>Hahahaha! Oh, /pol/tards never fail to disappoint.
I don't go there, but yea everyone you don't like is from /pol/, I get it, so le witty. But you know there's bias when your values are status quo cause you to view the world through rose-colored glasses.
>Hint, you and your /pol/tard ilk are the ones trying to appeal to nature
I'm not, I'm making an ethical argument, I haven't once used the "muh 'it aint natural' " argument.
>>5696416
>if it isn't quantifiable i'm not sure how it could be an issue
many issues are lacking in empirical proofs, for instance dishonest statistic manipulation can warp worldviews into making things seem better off than they really are.
>point being new issues becoming more prevalent does not imply that society is miraculously worse off as a whole
These issues are hardly new, they're decades in the making and representative of increasing trends.
>>5696447
You have still yet to explain, at even a basic level, how fucking animals damages society.
>>5696449
>how fucking animals damages society.
I'm sure if you looked at zoophiles and their connection to other crimes you'd find something there. Also it comes down to their character and how using animals as your sexual play things effects their behavior with others. The dysfunction rarely ends with bestiality, I presume, these people tend to have a lot more issues, and more that develop from exercising their perversions.
Go to an online forum for zoophiles, just get a read for the kind of folk they attract, then come back here and said it's fine and they should be tolerated.
>>5696447
>These issues are hardly new
I never said that before this year there had never been a single orange stolen did I?
>>5695120
Awesome! Where can I vote in favor of this law?
>>5696472
There are no doubt some truly sick fucks among "zoophiles." There's also some people that just really love animals. The sick fucks fuck animals because they're sick fucks. The ones who love animals aren't the ones who will go on to rape children.
The same thing was said of the gays. More child molesters are gay than not. Yet at this point, we can obviously see that gay people don't generally go on to rape children. In fact, being gay isn't even seen as degenerate among reasonable crowds anymore, so it's not even attractive to degenerates.
>>5696473
You'd have to show that it was steadily increasing to be taken seriously, and even if it was, still isn't a reason to attribute it to social collapse because it's a fraction of the larger issue of theft, which would have to be proven to be high overall to give an effective indicator of human behavior in that area.
>>5696506
>There's also some people that just really love animals.
oh holy fucking kek, you aren't honestly insinuating that the relationship some zoophiles have with animals is "love" are you?
>The sick fucks fuck animals because they're sick fucks
that's all you needed to say really, there's no "healthy" zoophile.
>More child molesters are gay than not. Yet at this point, we can obviously see that gay people don't generally go on to rape children.
True, but the homosexual community tends to produce more dysfunctional individuals than others, such as drug abusers, HIV+ individuals, sexually promiscuous individuals, depressed individuals, suicidal individuals, etc. Yes, there's some that are more stable than others, but it society is still told to ignore the rampant dysfunction in our community, which is notable.
>reasonable crowds
More like "average crowds who follow the status quo" but yes, it is destigmatized, which I don't think is the best thing. It's good for me, but for society at large, I don't know. I think a lot of people are having M/M sex nowadays who could honestly help it, perversions give way to more, and it all coincides with a time when birth rates are decreasing among western nations.
>>5696534
>you aren't honestly insinuating that the relationship some zoophiles have with animals is "love" are you?
Infatuation? Yes. Beyond that, you don't think that people love their pets in a non-sexual way? It's not that much of a leap from there.
>>5696115
>God and his word is the ultimately authority dipshit.
Prove it.
>The constitution doesn't declare everyone is free to have buttsex and oral with each other.
The constitution does not forbid consensual sex either (Hehe, I bet you like to call yourself a small government conservative too).
>Anytime sex is used outside of the creation of a baby between a man and a woman it is WRONG AND A SIN.
So I've offended something you think exists, and on behalf of that thing you think exists you want me to stop doing something that is none of your business.
At least when tumblrites cry about being offended, they're usually crying about their own feels not their imaginary friend's.
>You will all pay the price in the end.
How do you know that?
>Stop trying to rewrite laws to justify your sick sinful lifestyle.
Then don't write unconstitutional laws like DOMA and we won't have to challenge them friendo.
> It doesn't work.
Yeah, after attending my friends wedding in August, using the system clearly does work when we want to protect our rights.
>You aren't God.
Don't have to be, when I've got the law of the land on my side.
>You didn't create yourself.
My parents did that.
>All the authority goes to him our masterful creator.
Stockhold syndrome.
>He set the foundation.
In which mythology?
>He makes the law and he'll strike you dead when he wants to and you'll be judged on his throne and sent to hell if you didn't repent of your evil sick sinister lifestyle.
Even in your own stories it's said that no man can know the mind of god, or judge the salvation of another. Read and adhere to your mythology first please, because you clearly suck at your own religion.
>Have a nice day fudgepacker.
The schadenfreude I've gotten from you will help me have a better day.
>>5696115
b8
>>5695120
Well, if it really is just outlawing anal sex, I'd kind of agree that it's not exactly targeting gay people, as long as it's actually applied fairly, and doesn't just assume people in gay relationships are having anal sex while requiring substantial evidence that straight people are. But the reasoning is pretty stupid, banning anal sex to prevent animal abuse is like banning all sex to prevent pedophilia. And as far as I know, Margaret Mead is pretty respectable, and her point makes sense, but I don't see how these people are getting that anal sex is human on human abuse. It would make more sense to actually outlaw abusive behavior, which can obviously occur with or without anal sex being involved.
>Logan’s Law is named after
>a Siberian Husky that died tragically after having acid intentionally poured over him.
So they're naming this anal sex ban after a dog which died under circumstances HAVING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANAL SEX? If they could at least associate it with a case of an animal dying after a human had anal sex with them, they could at least pretend to have an argument on how banning anal sex protects animals.
>>5696077
Oh so they're going to ban oral sex too? Something that like 99% of straight people engage in? Lol, let's see how well that goes.
>>5696115
>God and his word is the ultimately authority dipshit.
Yes, but it's useless in a legal sense because god's will is not provable.
>The constitution doesn't declare everyone is free to have buttsex and oral with each other.
That is correct, however it also declares separation of church and state. Laws may be inspired by religious beliefs, but religion itself has no value as justification for secular laws.
>Anytime sex is used outside of the creation of a baby between a man and a woman it is WRONG AND A SIN.
So you don't watch porn, and anyone involved in the production or consumption thereof should be jailed?
>>5696550
>Infatuation
is not love
>Beyond that, you don't think that people love their pets in a non-sexual way?
Yes I do, but the romantic notion of "love" cannot be applied to another entity which does not give clear reciprocation of the emotions. Then there's the fact that sexuality's purpose is to propel procreation. Yes, I realize I'm dysfunctional because I'm homosexual, you don't have to say it.
>It's not that much of a leap from there.
Oh totally, old Ms. Abernathy down the road with her two poodles isn't all that different from trailer park joe who fucks his black lab at all.
>>5696600
>So they're naming this anal sex ban after a dog which died under circumstances HAVING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANAL SEX?
As far as making laws go
> Crime: abusing the dog
> Method: pouring acid
> Response: making a law that makes the CRIME illegal whatever the METHOD
If a law (a local one at that) is too narrow in its scope, it may be impractical to put into effect.
>>5696135
I'm an agnostic, but choosing not to prevent harm to another when you're in a position to do so is equivalent do doing the harm yourself.
>>5696154
So you think there is some case where either nonconsensual sex isn't rape, or where rape isn't bad?
>>5696209
That's pretty much the only reasonable definition of morality (but it has take into account everyone, hurting others isn't moral just because YOU don't mind it). Anything based on some kind of higher authority might as well be made up since it's either unprovable or ends up falling into argumentum ad baculum (which for some reason is okay when God does it, but when humans do it they get called evil dictators).
>>5696282
Just because you've never heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist. And even some tribal cultures actually acknowledged the existence of gay and trans people (dismissing it as an "internet myth" doesn't mean anything unless you have some kind of source to back it up) far more than say early modern Europe did.
>>5696286
The world has always largely been in disarray. We're just noticing it now because of modern media, communication, and globalization. Back in 1820 there would still be wars and poverty in distant lands, but as long as things were okay in the town where I lived I wouldn't know about it.
>>5696322
Sure, but historians are still far more credible then random people on the internet.
>>5696375
Is the suicide rate higher today than it was in say Elizabethan england? Do we even have statistics on that? Depression and psychological disorders in general weren't even looked at as a real thing scientifically until a little over a hundred years ago.
>>5696447
>the past, areas that aren't as shitty as ours.
Could you be more specific and provide statistics to back this up?
>>5696627
>the romantic notion of "love" cannot be applied to another entity which does not give clear reciprocation of the emotions.
Okay. "Love" in that sense is one of the mostly vaguely defined concepts in all of society. I can't really argue about it because nobody seems to agree on what it is. Your appeal to nature sexuality shit isn't worth responding to.
>>5696627
>Oh totally, old Ms. Abernathy down the road with her two poodles isn't all that different from trailer park joe who fucks his black lab at all.
It does seem to be more common among lower social classes. Personally I grew up in a wealthy, white neighborhood and went to a well-regarded private high school, and went on to get a degree at a prestigious university, graduating on time. I now have a very good paying job. The point being, I'm not exactly Trailer Park Joe.
>>5696676
Right, but they ARE outlawing an actual method (anal sex), even when it's not used to commit the crime.
I think it's interesting that one of the most common arguments against gay marriage was that it would lead to pediphilia and bestiality being ok too. It was always laughed at because it was a clearly unjustified slippery slope.
>>5696707
>choosing not to prevent harm to another when you're in a position to do so is equivalent do doing the harm yourself.
Hypothetically, you are now aware that there is a lot of completely preventable harm going on that you are not attempting to rectify. People are hurting themselves. Hurting others. You are not educating yourself to be more capable of reaching out to and helping these people. There is a great deal of suffering that you could be ending, but you are letting it happen because you don't care.
Your negligence carries a heavy price.
>>5696707
>So you think there is some case where either nonconsensual sex isn't rape, or where rape isn't bad?
First, draw a distinction between legal consent, and what we'll call "natural" consent. Legal consent is a subset of natural consent (that is, all legal consent is natural, but not all natural concept is legal). Then, draw a distinction between natural rape, and non-natural rape (legal rape of course being the conjunction of natural and non-natural rape).
Thus we have two distinct arguments:
The first is:
>animals can't provide natural consent
>therefore having sex with them is natural rape
>natural rape is always bad
>therefore having sex with animals is bad
I would agree with this argument, but reject the premise that animals can't provide natural consent. They can agree to (in a non-legal sense) and enjoy sex with humans. Thus, I reject the conclusion.
The second is:
>animals can't provide legal consent
>therefore having sex with them is legal rape
>legal rape is always bad
>therefore having sex with animals is bad
In this case, line three is the problem. Something being illegal does not make it immoral. You have to examine the actual effects.
>>5695120
did they try telling them that animals have butt-sex, and human butts will produce there own lube during orgasm. some peoples anuses actually produce a mucus during orgasm. my butt does!
>>5696831
Yes, and I don't deny that at all. It's one of the ways humans are imperfect.
>>5696836
>They can agree to (in a non-legal sense) and enjoy sex with humans.
I'd say that's debatable. I would require that "natural" consent requires the one consenting to understand what they're consenting to, and to be able to exercise their free will. If either of those conditions are violated, then I would say their "natural" consent is invalid, regardless of any legal issues.
>>5695120
>straight people are so booty bothered about gay people they take away their own rights
>mfw this might actually stop some straight people from enjoying sex but fags arent going to even consider not having anal
>mfw straight people literally cucking themselves and taking away their own rights
>>5700194
Glad someone else noticed
>>5700194
It's reparations for all the decades of gay oppression. Pretty progressive 2bh.
>>5700194
a taste of thier own medicine nyaa...
>>5695460
same reason that you get retarded "X's Law"s, SJW laws, religitard laws...
>>5696262
but what if it happens in the wild? This is BBC footage, by the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZBH-nIh0hM
Christ, you people are stupid. This has nothing to do with stopping anyone from having anal sex. It has to do with not allowing people that have abused animals from ever having a pet again. SCOTUS ruled laws against sex between ci Sebring adults unconstitutional, so that can't be enforced. The sponsor of the bill knows this, and already stated this. The state law against Sodomy is very old, and changing it know will only make this new bill take longer.
Another registry?
No way this one will be abused, unlike all the others.
Civil liberties are so passé
>>5695460
>>5696120
>>5696168
>>5707617
>abominable and detestable crime against nature
Because this passage of law was written in the 1930's - they didn't write this yesterday. It's aprt of a larger law that they're tweaking to increase penalties for animal abusers - they just didn't change that part.
The ban on sodomy between humans is unenforceable anyways since the supreme court 2003 ruling. There's really nothing going on here.
This guy >>5707711 has it right.
You faggots need to do some more research before jumping on bandwagons.
>>5695120
>leftists are suicidal
>conservacucks are self-destroyers
>>5696077
>mfw I read that while fapping
>>5696184
Not him and I don't like bestiality but male dogs WILL fuck your ass willingly.
>>5696188
Last I checked those two cases are already considered crimes.
>>5708317
Willingness does not imply meaningful consent.
>>5708317
Children will willing play with your cock. Does that make it okay?
>>5708434
Then what does it, who decides it?
>>5708437
>Children will willing play with your cock.
How do you know that anon, do you have something to share
>>5708504
I know because science. Children are very curious creatures and will grab and play with everything.
Older children will also confuse molestation with love and willing let you have sex with you, and even enjoy it in a lot of cases. That actually the most common way that kids are molested. Should it just be legal because it was done willingly and they liked it?
>>5708522
Yes tell us more, how do you know about all of that? Why did you thought at children for your examples in consent.
>>5708540
I know about all this thanks to psychologists.
And I thought of children because they are at the same level as animals.
>>5708548
So children are like animals, very interesting answer anon, continue
>>5708557
Well every human is an animal by definition, but young children up to probably the age of 5 aren't any smart than a dog. Nor do they live a very different life from a dog.
>>5708569
So toddlers are like dogs, continue
>>5708578
I don't see any way to elaborate Any further
>>5708579
So children are like animals, toddlers are like dogs. I don't know which psychiatrists you've been talking to but that is utter bullshit.
For starters the intelligence of a fog is at every point of his life very different from that of a human. You say they are on the same level when in fact that's impossible because they are from different species. Their brains are wired and evolved for completely different purposes and while dogs might never reach a certain level of intelligence in areas such as communication and logic they will be much smarter than children in other areas. You are comparing grapes and apples.
And now I'm left wondering what kind of twisted mind draws a link between a dog willing to fuck any hole with a curious child that will investigate anything.
>>5708611
>>5709482
So...you think having sex with children is okay if the child is willing?
>>5710020
You're the one saying it's okay with dogs because they are willing. I am simply using your own logic.
>>5711457
I never said any such thing.
>>5708186
could've just passed a bill saying 'bestiality is illegal.'
>>5712533
It isn't just about beastiality. I clearly stated in my post that it is about not allowing people that have abused animals from ever having a pet again. This bill, Logans law, is being made because of a poor dog who's nigger owner threw acid at it's face.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2775741/michigan-was-not-trying-to-ban-sodomy-with-logans-law-it-was-simply-not-un-banning-it/
They aren't going to worry about semantics and changing the wording, which will jeopardize the bill passing after they have already been trying to pass it for years now, to avoid hurting some faggots feelings.
>>5696150
Not an animal fucker, but...
The laws of consent don't apply to non-humans.
They don't consent to lab testing, to being killed for food or sport, to be pets, to be impregnated, or to be bred with those who we see fit.
Why should sex be any different?
>>5712561
They say they leave in the part about "mankind" because it would be too controversial otherwise, however that seems kind of nonsensical, I don't see why the part about human sodomy would make a difference to people voting for or against it, given that it would be illegal to enforce anyway. And leaving it in would make it possible for any who opposed the law to argue that the ENTIRE law is unconstitutional.
In any case though, I still think it's silly to have a blatantly unconstitutional law still be "on the books". That could just lead to all kinds of problems. It would make sense to just have the entire law be made null and void until it's amended to comply with federal law.
How the fuck will they enforce this
>Have you been having buttsex sir?
>Yes, officer
>You're under arrest
If you're stupid enough to get caught by this you deserve to go to jail
