[IronJack]

Let's make this even simpler. Let's just draw the line at bestiality just because we can. We know that there is value in setting limits, and we recognize that any line we draw is by necessity arbitrary. So let's just accept the arbitrariness of that decision and draw the line without apologizing for it.

We're going to say that having sex with animals is wrong. Not ... "because" ... of anything. But just because it is. We could just as easily pass a law saying it's illegal to wear red. Except that humanity in general does not agree that wearing red is an abomination, while it DOES agree that that describes bestiality.

Enough is enough.

[penelopesire]

Good article, but...gross to think about!

[snarks_when_bored]

The pursuit of horses? That's completely disgusting.

But sheep are so clean and soft and fluffy and kind...

[Cicero]

Hmm. I had a look at the legal article that is linked above in this one, "Substantive Due Process and the Problem of Horse Sex."

I find that it was written by a third-year law student at Seattle University, which happens to be a Jesuit university.

She thanks two of her law professors at Seattle University for helping her with the article.

To what depths have the Jesuits descended? Do they still consider themselves to be Catholic? Good grief. This is disgusting. Are they proud of their student, trained "in the Jesuit tradition"?

[freekitty]

Sick, sick and sick.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I hope our government has better things to spend our tax money on than investigating and prosecuting cases of apparently consensual sexual activity between humans and their own animals or animals whose owners don't object. Animal cruelty is not okay, and surreptitiously having sexual contact with other people's animals is not okay, and having sex with animals is kind of icky. But do we really need our police and courts and prisons tied up with cases of people whose dogs humped them and who encouraged the dog to continue and go further? I can hear the testimony now:

Prosecutor: "Which party would you say initiated the act?" Defendant: "The dog, sir. It was the definitely the dog who initiated it."
Prosecutor: "Did you in any way encourage the dog?"
Defendant: "Well, no, I didn't actively encourage the dog, but I didn't actively discourage the dog either."
Prosecutor: "And then what happened? Was there penetration?"

And the jury instructions would be simply beyond belief.

[berdie]

This is pretty darn scary. As each societal and moral taboo is made acceptable and "understandable" by the media..we cross another line..and another...and another...