Is having sex with an animal a crime or even wrong?

[jeager106]

I read recently a 20 year old woman had been having sex with her dog since age 13.
She made selfie and Fido video and showed her boyfriend who was shocked and turned her into cops & she was charged with beastiality, later amended to
a crime against nature.

An odd charge in light of global warming, pollution, rising ocean levels and no one is charged with a criminal offense of a crime against nature.

Should she be criminally prosecuted & is this a crime in your opinion?
No one has commented on Fido's response, or if Fido was in fact willing.
Does Fido need psychological counseling or simply shot in the head as has been the practice for centuries?
Kidding aside tho is this an issue of morality or sexual preference?
Is it a moral AND criminal issue or a morality issue only?
Should the boyfriend feel his g-friend cheated on him? (moral & emotional response?)
Should the b-friend have gone to the cops?
What is a crime against nature? Should the woman be charged criminally with anything?
There are a lot of really keen minds here & I respect them so.
I value those opinions.

If you must have documentation there are many on line articles.
Here's is but one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/2 ... 12694.html

[bluethread]

If we are going to deem sex to be disgusting, then all we are doing is proclaiming that our creator-designer (if such a being exists) is ultimately disgusting.

Nice use of the fallacy of generalization. I don't think anyone is arguing that all sexual acts are disgusting. One could just as easily use that fallacy the other direction as well and say that erotic asphyxiation is totally justified. I would just like to know where we are supposed to draw the line and on what basis? That said, I do agree that the yuck factor is not a very useful guide. There is also the problem of determining what is considered sex and what is not.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 30 by Beans]

If the Christ had half a brain he wouldn't have designed STDs in the first place. Nor would he have designed humans so they they would need to use their sewer organs for procreation.

If the Christ is real then he is totally responsible for all the ills of the world.

[Divine Insight]

I don't think anyone is arguing that all sexual acts are disgusting.

I am.

I think it's all disgusting. Including the simplest "missionary position" of sexual intercourse. The mere fact that we are forced to use filthy waste removal organs to make love and procreate is IMHO disgusting.

The human design is, IMHO disgusting. If we were designed to be this way by some God who actually planned this all out, then IMHO that designer God is himself disgusting.

[Beans]

[Replying to post 30 by Beans]

If the Christ had half a brain he wouldn't have designed STDs in the first place. Nor would he have designed humans so they they would need to use their sewer organs for procreation.

If the Christ is real then he is totally responsible for all the ills of the world.

I cannot condemn you for having an opinion. I know that we are all in a sense the victim of the type and quality of the knowledge we have been fed infancy up. That being said, my love for you in the general sense as a fellow human who is a part of the body of mankind, to hate you would be as hating the very body I myself share. My desire is to heal that body rather than to be a contributor to what destroys it. That is the view Christ teaches us.

Think about it this way for a moment: Dogs have immunity to many viruses and bacteria that we do not. Therefore the vet deeming a dog healthy is not a clean bill of health from a man's standpoint, but only from the standpoint of a dog.

And so regardless of how well one cares for the health of their dog, by the sheer nature of it's design it is not a suitable body to become as one flesh with to exchange fluids.

There are literally thousands of types of these bacteria and viruses which a dog's body handles the presence of but a man's body does not. There is therefore no such thing as a safe exchange of bodily fluid between a dog and a man unless (according to CDC guidelines) that dog is thoroughly cooked to an inner core temperature of at least 165 degrees Fahrenheit for no less than a sustained time of three minutes.

But if one would only love God and do what he asks of us we would be protected without having to learn all of that the hard way.

Good health to you.

[Divine Insight]

But if one would only love God and do what he asks of us we would be protected without having to learn all of that the hard way.

Good health to you.

You don't need an imaginary God to know about the danger of disease. In fact, the ancient God myths had God being responsible for inflicting people with diseases as a form of punishment.

I won't argue about the possibility of health risks associated with exchanging fluids with animals. But that can be done without having sex with them too. In fact, I've seen many people who allow their pets to lick their faces. No one seems to think that's a crime.

This thread isn't about health risks. This thread about about this particular girl allowing her dog to lick her virgina and whether or not she should be criminalized, or otherwise demoralized by proclaiming that she's a "sinner".

I don't think either of these barbaric responses are called for. On the contrary, perhaps health education is the order of the day?

I'm also not suggesting that what this girl has done should be considered normal or encouraged. Personally I wouldn't encourage people to let their pets lick their face either, but like I say, many people seem to have no problem with that.

The problem I have is with the "lynch mob" mentality. Let's make this woman into a filthy criminal/sinner as an example for anyone else who might get this idea.

IMHO, that very mentality is stupid.

On the contrary if the real issue here is one of HEALTH, then why not make that the message?

Why make the message be about criminality and sin?

Let's try to move up a step in our intellectual approach to these types of issues and address them for the real concerns.

Eating with dirty hands is not healthy either, yet Jesus defended that very act when his diciples were accused of not washing their hands before they ate

So much for the "Jesus Model" of living.

Religious supersitions have no place in our modern understanding of the world.

You claim that Jesus preached brotherly love. But Jesus also preached that we must hate our mother and father and our siblings and that he came to set a a man at variance against his own family.

Matthew 10:
[34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
[35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
[36] And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

This is horrible. Jesus is preaching against the famiyl unit and proclaiming that he has come to set a man at variance with his own family.

So the "Jesus Model" is highly questionable in terms of having any positive or constructive value. It's not something that I would give my support to.

[Beans]

[Replying to post 35 by Divine Insight]

Fine.

There is no more point in conversation then.

I wish you well.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 35 by Divine Insight]

Fine.

There is no more point in conversation then.

I wish you well.

Of course not. There's never any more point in conversation about religious superstitions once the absurdities of the scriptures has been demonstrated.

We don't need to criminalize people in Jesus' name by proclaiming that we need to follow a "Jesus Model". That agenda can actually be dangerous since Jesus was also quoted as proclaiming that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law. That opens the door for the entire Old Testament being used as fodder for stoning people to death in Jesus' name.

In fact, isn't that metaphorically what some people are trying to do this girl today. They aren't exactly calling for having her stoned to death, but they certainly aren't being restrained from calling for that by the Bible. The only thing that keeps them from suggesting Biblical punishments is the fact that no one in their right mind would support those punishments today.

[bluethread]

I don't think anyone is arguing that all sexual acts are disgusting.

I am.

I think it's all disgusting. Including the simplest "missionary position" of sexual intercourse. The mere fact that we are forced to use filthy waste removal organs to make love and procreate is IMHO disgusting.

The human design is, IMHO disgusting. If we were designed to be this way by some God who actually planned this all out, then IMHO that designer God is himself disgusting.

I'm sorry you feel that way. That's kind of a buzz kill. I personally only find things disgusting when they are not treated in the manner for which they were designed. But as I say, the yuck factor is not the best standard for setting social policy.

[Beans]

[Replying to post 35 by Divine Insight]

Fine.

There is no more point in conversation then.

I wish you well.

Of course not. There's never any more point in conversation about religious superstitions once the absurdities of the scriptures has been demonstrated.

We don't need to criminalize people in Jesus' name by proclaiming that we need to follow a "Jesus Model". That agenda can actually be dangerous since Jesus was also quoted as proclaiming that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law. That opens the door for the entire Old Testament being used as fodder for stoning people to death in Jesus' name.

In fact, isn't that metaphorically what some people are trying to do this girl today. They aren't exactly calling for having her stoned to death, but they certainly aren't being restrained from calling for that by the Bible. The only thing that keeps them from suggesting Biblical punishments is the fact that no one in their right mind would support those punishments today.

Sorry you feel that way.

But I think both ways there is a great deal of unfairness.

It is unfair to criminalize a girl who by the ignorance of having not been taught better would do such a thing.

But you criminalize all Christian belief because a huge sector of it is failing to really follow Christ. IMHO you are just trading one wrong for another by way of closing your mind with hasty evaluations.

Non-the-less acts which cause harm are inherently criminal, just at different levels, if you understand anything about law.

Criminalizing an act does not disallow mercy toward the actor.

[Divine Insight]

But you criminalize all Christian belief because a huge sector of it is failing to really follow Christ.

No. Not at all. On the contrary I hold that there is no such thing as "Christian Belief" in any meaningful sense. Every person who claims to be a "Christian" believes something different. And this even carries over to individual sects and denominations. Even individuals of any given congregation of any given Christian Church have differing opinions and views on what it means to "Follow Christ".

So the very concept of "Following Christ" is a meaningless concept.

Moreover, I point directly to the dogma from whence this entire religious paradigm came. In that dogma Jesus is quoted as having stated that he did not come to change the laws and that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law.

Jesus never wrote anything down himself. The New Testament Rumors hadn't yet been written about him. Therefore the only jots and tittles he could possible have been referring to in his quote were the jots and tittles of the Old Testament.

Therefore it is perfectly valid for any "Christian" to claim that to "Follow Jesus" would be to follow ever jot and tittle in the Old Testament. And those jots and tittles have God commanding that we must seek out those who worship other Gods and kill them, along with many other quite violent directives and commandments. Not to mention stoning people for mere blaspheme against these jots and tittles.


So to "Follow Christ" may mean something entirely different to you than it does to other "Christians".

All you can do is whine and complain that you are the only "True Christian" and they have it all wrong. But that doesn't do much to support your case since that is clearly nothing more than you own personal opinion.

Jesus doesn't agree with you. Jesus proclaimed that not on jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass.

So if you don't support the entirety of every jot and tittle in the Old Testament as being valid law, then you have no business claiming to be a "Follower of Christ" because you are in direct opposition to the very words attributed to the Christ.

IMHO you are just trading one wrong for another by way of closing your mind with hasty evaluations.

I see no value in making criminals out of people based on ancient religious superstitions. If there's a health issue here it should be addressed directly instead of trying to turn it into a crime.

In fact, if this young woman who is 20 years old now started doing this at age 13, that means that she's been doing it for some 7 years. There isn't any mention of any disease in this story.

So I question the charge that this behavior is a highly risky health issue anyway.

I'm all for addressing this issue with the woman in terms of education. But I see no value in making a criminal out of the woman. What's the purpose of that? To send a message to other young girls as a deterrent?

Why bother making it a crime? Why not just bring it up as a public health awareness issue?

Why do you feel the need to criminalize every little thing in Jesus' name proclaiming that we must have a social "Jesus Model" to follow?

And how you are then going to stop the "Christians" who accept Jesus' at his word that they should be carrying out every jot and tittle of the Old Testament?

They might kill you in Jesus' name on charges of blaspheme if you fail to support HIS WORD that every jot and tittle of the Old Testament must be obeyed.

How can you claim to be a "Follower of Jesus" when you aren't following words attributed to the man?

If you aren't seeking out other people who teach of Gods other than the God of the Old Testament and killing them, then you can't claim to be following Jesus. Jesus said that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law. And it's the law that you are to seek out people who teach of other Gods and kill them. You are also supposed to kill their wives and children, their livestock, and the entire city from whence they came.

You'd be kept pretty busy if you tried to follow Jesus today.

Don't forget to go around killing everyone who's working on the Sabbath too. That ought to keep you pretty busy on Sundays.