Skip to comments.
Sex with animals still not OK in U.S. military (impact of pending removal of Art. 125 UCMJ)
Stars & Stripes ^
| 12/8/2011
| LEO SHANE III
Posted on 12/10/2011 6:48:49 AM PST by markomalley
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-29 last
To: markomalley
And how do you know the sheep didn't consent? You don't.
Sheep lie.
21
posted on
12/10/2011 8:37:54 AM PST
by
null and void
(This is day 1054 of America's ObamaVacation from reality.)
To: markomalley
Darn. I love my pet chicken. I was hoping to take Gertrude, my free-range/free-love chicken, to the ‘holiday’ party and then home for some happy-fun time.
And now I can’t.
Can’t people see the ‘violence inherent in the system. I’m being repressed!’
:-P
(never thought I’d be able to worm that Monty Python quote into a post about bestiality)
22
posted on
12/10/2011 8:50:03 AM PST
by
gogogodzilla
(Live free or die!)
To: markomalley
As I remember it the UCMJ article was “Abusing a Public Animal”. I believe it had to do with cavalry days and caring for military horses, mules etc but it also applied to military working dogs or any other animal including ceremonial horses. I’m not sure it ever had to do with bestiality although who knows.
23
posted on
12/10/2011 8:52:11 AM PST
by
RJS1950
(The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
To: markomalley
Juan McCain didn’t know the sodomy/bestiality repeal wasn’t in the bill. Liar.
24
posted on
12/10/2011 8:57:09 AM PST
by
central_va
( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: markomalley
If the intent is continue to make beastility illegal then why do they wish to strike the affected wording?
To: P-Marlowe
Bullsh!t.
Bestiality had to have been put there to appease the muslims and whoever put it there thought they could just slip it in unnoticed.
Why not just go ahead and add pedophilia?
To: Cowgirl of Justice
bingo...
27
posted on
12/10/2011 11:00:13 AM PST
by
Chode
(American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
To: RJS1950
That is a separate article unto itself, and while it
could apply to sexual abuse of a public animal, it is geared more towards the non-sexual abuse of (as you say) military working dogs, horses, the Navy's mine detecting dolphins, etc. It's roughly analogous to most civilian cruelty to animal charges, but also takes into account that said animals are also military property or, for lack of a better term, equipment.
Thrashing a patrol dog that wants to bite its handler, while a crime, is not specifically considered a crime of moral turpitude. Having sex with that same dog certainly is, and is more appropriately covered under the sodomy article, which would also apply to all animals, not just those owned by the military.
28
posted on
12/10/2011 11:13:29 AM PST
by
Joe 6-pack
(Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
To: markomalley
29
posted on
12/10/2011 9:59:49 PM PST
by
little jeremiah
(We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-29 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson