Saturday
15Mar2008
BESTIALITY BANNED!
Saturday, March 15, 2008 at 06:28PM
I read over on Jammiewearingfool that the Netherlands has finally decided to ban bestiality and animal pornography. Apparently some politicians over there have concluded that the Netherlands was perversity central, a magnet for deviants, and I guess we must welcome this move. Personally I think that anyone who gets off on animal porn is a sick freak who needs urgent psychological help and possible imprisonment as they are a danger to themselves, if not the local gymkhana. I wonder how liberals view this move by the hitherto liberal Netherland political establishment - I mean, isn't it one's sexual preferences purely a private matter, and isn't this all a tad judgmental?
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (31)
I read somewhere this week that gay sex is to be allowed in Amsterdam's central Park, as long as it wasn't done in front of the children, and that they cleared up the used condoms afterwards.
At the same time they banned unleashed dog walking, declaring it as 'unsocial'...
I'll look for the link...
In the name of God David why do you post up these perverse sexual threads, they're sick.
Bloody gross to read to. Couldn't you have found something a little more news worthy with all that is going on in the world, other than show an interest in this?
Jesus Mary and holy St. Joseph what a topic! Preparing for the Sabbath are you?
Does this mean that shiners will be band form partaking of sex, as everyone knows that they are all beasts?
'Does this mean that shiners will be band form partaking of sex, as everyone knows that they are all beasts?'
Saturday, March 15, 2008 at 08:18PM | Ranger1640
Try learning to spell Ranger before sharing your sick fantasies with us.
That is the trouble with sick threads they invite sick comments.
Cait.
There is a serious point behind this and it is to do with the moral relativism that pervades liberal thinking. You see I believe some things are plain WRONG. Bestiality is one of them. But to some of our liberal friends who reject religion and operate on the "If it feels good do it" agenda, I wonder WHY they might share my objection to bestiality? We need a moral code - and in my book Judaeo- Christianity provides it. I am regularly informed that homosexuality is not a sin. I think it is. So, if I wrong to make a moral judgement against that because it is judgemental, you see where it might lead...
Cait
I do hear you....but if the good guys don't address these issues...the bad guys surely will.
Let a very bright light be focused on it.
'I am regularly informed that homosexuality is not a sin.'
I'm not into gay bashing, and until you put this post up I didn't know there was such a thing as animal porn, so thanks for the information David, but I'd have preferred to live without it.
Please cry out against child abuse, but until the first dog gets aids (good God!) don't you think you could avoid highlighting it??
Why would you wonder about it at all? Saints perserve us. Put a warning sign up next time so as I can pass over it will you?
Thx
Cait,
Don't read this article about former US Senator Rick Santorum.
I recommend it to David and Phantom, who will disagree with the author but find much to applaud.David,
"There is a serious point behind this and it is to do with the moral relativism that pervades liberal thinking."
Most liberals haven't even got a clue what moral relativism means and neither have you.
"But to some of our liberal friends who reject religion and operate on the "If it feels good do it" agenda"
The idea that if you reject religion you operate on such an agenda is insulting nonsense.
"I wonder WHY they might share my objection to bestiality?"
Probably because we don't wish animals to suffer.
"We need a moral code - and in my book Judaeo- Christianity provides it. "
No it doesn't, you provide it. For example, for my part, I wonder why you might share my objection to slavery, given that the text you follow never condemns it and IIRC actually contains instructions from St Paul on how best to treat your slaves. And of course for hundreds of years Christians kept slaves, and in America Christians even fought a war over the rights and wrongs of it. It would appear that the Bible let them down badly when it came to insight on this matter, which is no surprise.
OK Frank,
How do you know animals would suffer? u
It was Christians that fought to outlaw slavery, something that the non-Christian African slave traders failed to follow.
I simply repeat my question; why is beastility wrong? Isn't it a lifetsyle choice?
I know exactly what moral relativism is but the issue is that you choose not to accept it. Then again, what is your moral code, exactly? From where does it come? Is it OK for others to invent their own moral code? And is so, on what basis do you condemn them??
Good post Frank. And Frank didn't even have to bash gays to decimate David's argument.
I think these threads invite verbal gay bashing - and that is a pity, since most gays suffer enough abuse due to their sexuality. Thats another reason I don't like them, during the week another thread on US syphillis rates go up, was put on ATW, and I thought that was a thread interested in verbally bashing gays too, as well as inviting some sick comments.
I would speak out against this ban but I'm feeling a little hoarse.
David,
"How do you know animals would suffer?"
They can't meaningfully consent. Similarly I would not justify statutory rape just because the child might like it.
"Then again, what is your moral code, exactly? From where does it come? "
My moral code is based on my values.
Now you. Why is bestiality wrong? Bear in mind that if you allude to the Bible or your religion in your response, you are providing an answer that is for many people no more persuasive than alluding to the Lord of the Rings.
"Is it OK for others to invent their own moral code?"
Yes.
"And is so, on what basis do you condemn them?"
I don't condemn you for inventing your own moral code.
So, to summarise Frank, you accept that one moral code is as valid as another. And IF that individuals moral code considers bestiality just fine then on what basis would you condemn it? And if you wouldn't, do you object to the decision by the Netherlands politicians to ban it?
Cait,
I am not gay-bashing when I repeat the Biblical view that sodomy is a sin.
Cait,
I take David at his word that he is not condemning gays as individuals but merely all acts of sodomy, regardless of the sexual preference(s) of the actor(s). He does use the word "condemn" quite a lot, though, doesn't he?
Here is a simple solution. Sex between consenting adults is ok, so long as it's done in private. That rules out preying on children and preying on animals.
Cruelty to animals is wrong. That rules out bestiality, hare-coursing, fox-hunting, whale-hunting and battery chickens.
I don't need a bronze-age holy book to teach me these things. I can work them out for myself, without belief in a sky-god.
David,
"So, to summarise Frank, you accept that one moral code is as valid as another."
No that does not follow. I believe there is no such thing as objective value. That doesn't mean there is no such thing as value. Similarly there is no such thing as an objective price. That doesn't mean that any price is as valid as any other or that prices can be anything you want - for example, you can't buy a house on the seafront for £1. That doesn't mean I am willing to pay £1,000,000 for one. Somebody else might. Morals work in a very similar way, because they are also about values. People have to negotiate each other's morals the same way they have to negotiate each other's prices.
"IF that individuals moral code considers bestiality just fine then on what basis would you condemn it?"
Same basis as you. My own values. I open my mouth and say it.
"And if you wouldn't, do you object to the decision by the Netherlands politicians to ban it?"
No.
I'm still waiting for your own justification for why bestiality is wrong, by the way. Perhaps you will say that is condemned by the Bible. The Bible has also been said to condemn lying, adultery, homosexuality, taking the Lord's name in vain, the worship of other gods, not loving your neighbor, judging, witchcraft, sorcery, not loving an invisible supernatural being, not believing in the existence of the same, and not inviting Christ to build a bunkhouse in your heart.
So, shouldn't all those things be banned too? Should judges, Buddhists, Wicca witches, atheists, adulters, liars, people who work on sunday, people who say verboten words, people who make graven images, followers of other religions, Harry Potter, and all the rest be thrown in jail like those convicted of bestiality? If not then why not, since the Bible is the only justification you are able to give to ban bestiality?
Peter -- excellent post.
DV: ''I am not gay-bashing when I repeat the Biblical view that sodomy is a sin.''
No David but you are (again) informing us of your prejudice.
The vast majority of homosexuals are born as such. Condemning them for being 'what God made them' is every bit as offensive as condemning the handicapped.
Human Animals
Ah, you reveal your own "prejudice", by unintentionally inferring that homosexuality is to be equated with physical and mental handicaps.You close-minded Animal you.
For Cait.
And time for a joke here:
An oil prospector is sitting at a crowded bar in some god-forsaken arabian desert oasis.
He turns to a local arab and asks, "what do all you guys do about sex round here, Abdul?"
"We take a camel, effendi".
Just then a huge cloud of dust appears on the horizon as a herd of camels thunder into view; everybody leaps to their feet, and make a dash for the door.
"Strewth Abdul, why all the mad rush!!"
"You don't want an ugly camel do you?!"
Well spotted Phantom. Not my intention, needless to say.
I'm merely trying to point out to DV that condemning anyone for being what 'God made them' is quite simply wrong.
Damn, I've just seen this thread.
And worse: Frank and Peter have said everything I'd have wished to say :0)
Do lay off the gays, David, there's a good chap. There are many, many more pressing (and deserving) targets for your wrath.
Totally agree Dawkins. I'm mystified as to why DV (and a huge number of modern-day Christians) have such a fascination with what people do in private with their dangly bits.
Why did the Bestialist dash out into the street ?
Because the weather girl had just said it was raining cats and dogs outside.
Poor joke I know, but it's all I could think of.
I would post the lyrics to 'bestiality's best' (sung to the tune of, er, 'tie my kangaroo down, sport!') but Cait will give out to me.
Ah, what the hey:
"Chorus
Bestiality's best, boys, bestiality's best...
(Echo) F**k a wallaby!
Bestiality's best, boys, bestiality's best!
1
Be a rotter with an otter, boys,
Be a rotter with an otter
(Echo) F**k a wallaby!
(You've gotta) Be a rotter with an otter, boys,
Be a rotter with an otter
(Songmaster:) All together now!
2 Make love with a dove...
3 Be pleasant to a pheasant...
4 On a train with a crane...
5 Honeymoon with a racoon...
(The song can go on for hours, and those are the cleanest ones)
*Dons boots of escaping*
On a log with a dog if your bored try the hog
on the rig with a pig then relax with a cig..
Most of the reasons people here have given for opposing bestiality are imho really rationalisations.
Unless the bible specifically says "don't shag animals" I don't see how it can be claimed that a Christian moral framework is the reason why anyone opposes it.
Similarly the people claiming that they are against the practice because it abuses the animal are also talking nonsense, unless they are seriously claiming that scientific proof that animals enjoyed it would make them come out in support of zoophilia.
I oppose bestiality because like almost all humans have an innate revulsion at the idea, I suspect that that applies to everyone else.
Ross,
"Similarly the people claiming that they are against the practice because it abuses the animal are also talking nonsense, unless they are seriously claiming that scientific proof that animals enjoyed it would make them come out in support of zoophilia. "
Why should it? If there were scientific proof that children enjoyed it should that make us come out in support of paedophilia or statutory rape? In the case of teenage children we don't even have to imagine that as many of them can and do say that they enjoy sex with older people. We say it's still wrong because they cannot meaningfully consent.
(Although the law is rather, uh, interesting in the case of teenage boys as many people nod and wink if they are found shagging some Mrs Robinson type, and the law is quite happy to hand them a child support obligation even though they are a rape victim in the eyes of the law. But then CS is difficult to defend on moral grounds anyway)
"If there were scientific proof that children enjoyed it should that make us come out in support of paedophilia or statutory rape?"
No because humans are sufficiently complex mentally that it may well inflict a lifetime of psychological problems on them. Animals are not, if they enjoy something then they aren't going to regret it at a later point when they reflect on things.
Keep your penis in your genus.
Charles: LOL. words to live by.