Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Because then it wouldn't have happened.
Right. Which is why every atheist & person of a non ′Ahl al-Kitāb faith is hopelessly enthralled with bestiality, just ****ing every goat, wolf & lion they can find.
It sounds like the dog was on top; a willing participant; not forced into anything; consensual sex all around.
"A woman was arrested on charges of bestiality after she showed pictures to her boyfriend of herself having sex with a dog.Soooooo, assuming the dog was a willing partner, do you think this should be a crime? If so, why?
Brittany Sonnier, 20, of Arizona, has been jailed after she allegedly confessed to having sex with her family dog.
An investigation began after Sonnier told her boyfriend that she enjoyed having sex with dogs. Sonnier showed her boyfriend pictures of herself engaged in inappropriate behavior with the dog.
According to Lake Havasu City Police, Sonnier admitted to having sex with dogs since she was 13-years-old.
source
So then, would you see, for example, tentacle porn criminalized for the sake of the greater good as the same could be said for beastiality being illegal as doing some benefit to the greater good of society, and if so, where does the criminalization of acts deemed "detrimental to the greater good, where the greater good is the well-being of society, whether physical, emotional, social, or otherwise not stated"? While I don't find beastiality or tentacles porn appealing, I am against criminalizing acts that one commits that hurts no one else but the party commiting the act, i.e., marijuana usage, but as soon as someone who is high on marijuana, for example, gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and kills someone in a wreck, then that person should get a more severe punishment in comparison to someone who killed another person because they were distracted by a cell phone call, but the person shouldn't be in violation of the law just for smoking a plant that God put on this planet for a purpose, and whether we find the proper use for it is up to us a people. Don't get me wrong, to a point I do see a need for monitoring the health of a society until the measures taken to try and promote the greater good of the public starts to infringe upon the rights of an individual.Ahhhhhhh, which one was the dog?
The one in the photo? Yeah it's a dog.
Having sex with an animal absolutely should be a crime.
It's just so yucky.
Most know I was a career police officer, detective for 10 of my 22.5 years.
There is justifyable reason to arrest, fingerprint, photo the wierdo and get 'em on record.
I don't advocate jail but do promote serious psychological intervention and here is why.
People that ingage in gross misadventures in a sexual nature are often involved in other serious gross misadventurs.
Note I said GROSS, way extreme events. People that engage in this sort of behavior are emotionally skewed somehow.
Perhaps this poor woman was herself a victim of some kind of abuse, perhaps sexual abuse, in her past and likely needs some help.
Or perhaps a boyfriend with a lot of body hair answering to Fido?
Seriously I have been part of investigations of a criminal nature and social services, when needed, would aid in the investigation. It was learned that victims often become victimizers themselves, often seeing nothing at all wrong with victimizing another.
I remember one girl who was sexually abused at a very tender age that was also caught, as a teen, letting Fido to the deed with her as she did oral favors for the pooch.
It is a complexe, perpelxing, issue that needs addressed seriously.
In the last case I just outlined the foster father shot the dog.
Yeah, I know it ain't the dogs fault but when a dog gets accustomed to that sort of sickening behavior the dog can, often does, become crossand dangerous
Sick ain't it?
As if you're better looking.
How about, no informed consent, no trip to the slaughter house?
No.
