Washington Votes

2006 Senate Bill 6417 (Prohibiting bestiality)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. Pam Roach, (R-Auburn) on January 12, 2006, to prohibit: sexual conduct or contact with an animal; causing or abetting another in such conduct; knowingly permitting such conduct on property under their control; videotaping such conduct. These violations constitute a Class C felony.
    • Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 12, 2006.
    • Substitute offered to the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 3, 2006, to provide that animal cruelty in the first degree is committed when a person knowingly engages in sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal. It also occurs when a person knowingly causes or aids another person to engage in sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal. A person who knowingly permits such conduct or contact with an animal to occur on premises under his or her control or who knowingly participates as an observer, organizer, promoter, or advertiser of such conduct is also guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree. Animal cruelty in the first degree is a class C felony and is ranked at seriousness level III. In addition to the penalties in statute for a class C felony, the court may order that the convicted person (1) refrain from harboring or owning animals or residing in a household where animals are present; (2) permanently relinquish all animals residing in his or her household to an animal shelter or humane society; (3) participate in appropriate counseling; and (4) reimburse the animal shelter or humane society for costs incurred for the care of any animals relinquished to the shelter or humane society. If the court has reasonable grounds to believe sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal has occurred, it may order the seizure of all animals involved in the violation. An exemption is created for accepted animal husbandry practices or accepted veterinary medical practices by a licensed veterinarian or certified veterinary technician. Sexual conduct and sexual contact are defined in the legislation. The bill as referred to committee was not considered.
    • The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on February 11, 2006.
  • Passed in the Senate (36 to 0) on February 11, 2006, to prohibit sexual activity with an animal. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Received in the House on February 13, 2006.
    • Referred to the House Criminal Justice & Corrections Committee on February 13, 2006.
  • Passed in the House (98 to 0) on March 1, 2006, to prohibit sexual activity with an animal. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire on March 24, 2006, to prohibit sexual activity with an animal.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Pam Roach, (R-Auburn) on January 12, 2006. Passed in the Senate (36 to 0) on February 11, 2006. New Comment

1) It makes me giggle [by Anonymous Citizen on January 30, 2008]
I find it amusing that every single nay-sayer of beast/human sexual relationships has, at some point, thought about it, watched it, touched themselves to it, or have actually participated.

It's even funnier knowing that it's a guarantee of probability that some of the politicians who voted for this law have had sex with an animal at some point, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Haha.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Nice design [by Anonymous Citizen on November 10, 2007]
Very interesting site. Perfect design and content. Thanks.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) I think the [by Anonymous Citizen on July 24, 2007]
basis that it's disgusting is subjective since other people get their jollies off of it. Therefore, the only argument to support this bill is it animal rape? Well, it can be, but then again, I've seen pets rub against thier owners in ways that they should be doing with females of their species. So I think it depends. And if it depends, then we really shouldn't enact a bill as solid as the one we have made, because it may not always be rape. So if the bill doesn't have guidlines but simply outlaws it straight out, how can we be sure were not simply just using a biased opinion of what is right and what is wrong?
Reply New Comment

Line

4) Animal Love [by Anonymous Citizen on July 25, 2007]
Just because an animal rubs against you and shows you affection doesn't mean the animal wants you to mount it and go at it.

My cat gives me love bites and rolls around on the floor displaying submission does that mean the animal is inviting me to sexually molest it? Don't think so. Besides it's an ANIMAL. It doesn't have any ethical standards. Supposidly humans do. Sometimes I wonder.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Disgusting? [by WILDWULF on June 18, 2007]
I agree with the other commenter, there are other disgusting things too. First of all this is not as disgusting as incest or people eating other people's feces. That's disgusting and so is homosexuality! Also the whole different species thing, get over it! and most that say it's disgusting, quit hiding it and admit you've thought about it. If people want to have sex with an animal, let them! It's there damn choice and that's what I'm sticking to. This so called "land of the free" is turning into a big country of laws prohibiting people from doing what they enjoy!! To put it simply, SCREW THIS BILL!!
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Homofobic [by Anonymous Citizen on October 31, 2007]
So your against gays though.
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Freedom [by WILDWULF on June 18, 2007]
I believe it should not be prohibited on just the sole base of what most of you naysayers call "immoral". It is indeed an act that most would not do, but most do think about. It is only natural to love and want to get closer to another living mammal no matter what species. Over 60% of the world population participates in sexual relations with animals and even a higher percentage watch or think about it. People have the damn freedom to choose what they have sex with. Are you going to prohibit sex with inanimate objects too? I say let the people choose and this is just another law to take away our rights!! LET THE PEOPLE HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS! There are worst things out there to be worrying about besides animal sex! It's not cruelty, about 99.9% of the animals participating aren't really forced to do it, they do it themselves. The sexual necessity needs to be filled one way or another and I believe that all the people in DC need to let the people vote on this matter. There will be protests on both sides sooner or later. FREEDOM!!
Reply New Comment

Line

8) sick [by Anonymous Citizen on November 28, 2007]
you are a sick person... animals have rights too. if a child were to get raped like this, the person would be charged, why is an animal any different?! your beliefs sicken me.
Reply New Comment

Line

9) Okay? [by Anonymous Citizen on October 31, 2007]
Where did you get these statistics exactly. Not that I'm against people/animal love, as long as you are able to somehow prove it. I mean its only by the dominant species putting up these restrictions based on a majority opinion that such an act in this sort of developed society is immoral when really if you where to look at the simple fact that creation of diverse species much less their sexual attraction has no morals. And if you ask me in the grand scale of existence these laws matter very little and really boils down to if the two creatures are as they say "into it", though I guess since most of these other animals are so low on development of their own brain it does get complicated as to if they have a real understanding of the act of love or what their doing.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) WILDWUF [by Anonymous Citizen on June 18, 2007]
People justify their wrongful actions with all kinds of reasons. Land of the Free does not mean you get to do whatever you want. It means the majority VOTES on it. We are still a society with moral standards.

Just because 'other' people do other things you consider to be more perverse does not make having sex with animals morally right. It's not morally right to take advantage of anything whether it's a child, a person who is mentally encapable of protecting themselves, or an animal in your trust. Wrong is wrong.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) Overbearing morals [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2007]
I think this bill basically is nothing more than a case of someone traying to use their moral bias to squelch an an otherwise free world. They may have their own little sins that they hide but they see a "greater" sin that others are involved in. Thus they choose to overlook their own and stomp on others rights. Plus their is the fact how can a primarily moraly currupt and ungodly society pass moral and Godly laws when you really have no basis for it other than oh my it makes me feel gross. Hell there's many things out ther that make me feel this way. I ignore it do to the fact it is not hurting me and it is only harming those involved and it is not as yet illeagle, but soon it may be just because somone does not like it and wants people to believe as they do. Face it sooner or later this country will be just like many other communist countries with everything being watched and dictated. It is a matter of letting "your morals stay out of my way and I will be just fine". No one is without sin or God so they have no right to pass judgement on others who are doing harmless acts.
Reply New Comment

Line

12) Hi, nice site, good work! Thank you!,Good site [by Anonymous Citizen on August 27, 2006]
Hi, nice site, good work! Thank you!,Hi, nice site, good work! Thank you!
Reply New Comment

Line

13) Yuk [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2006]
Bestiality is disgusting. I'm glad this law passed.
Reply New Comment

Line

14) That's nice... [by Trangle on August 31, 2006]
I just hope you have a reason besides "It's disgusting." Not that you require one (they certainly didn't to pass this bill!), but I hope you do all the same. And on top of that, I hope you have one that hasn't already been contradicted in the past debates here.

Somehow I find that unlikely.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) A Rose By Any Name [by Anonymous Citizen on August 31, 2006]
Discusting is pretty clear.To the point and accurate as well.
Reply New Comment

Line

16) But that arguement is a failure in logic... [by Trangle on September 13, 2006]
If we should outlaw bestiality because it is disgusting, why shouldn't we outlaw all disgusting behavior? Homosexuality was considered disgusting once too, you know. So was inter-racial relationships. Disgusting has never been, and never will be, a good reason.
Reply New Comment

Line

17) we are what you would call HUMANS [by Angel974 on April 27, 2007]
First off, disgusting is a clear reason..why because we are humans people!!! humans talk about how great they are and how animals are dumb....yet they are willing to have sex with them. WE'RE A DIFFERENT SPECIES! My god! Its as sick as incest or anything like that! Yuck, who cares what the reason is..they have 4 legs and a tail that should be enough.
Reply New Comment

Line

18) We're not that different [by Anonymous Citizen on November 2, 2007]
Well actually I don't really think the species difference think counts for much, just cause we've evolved farther than others doesn't mean we should be restricted these things. I'm not saying I've done this sort of thing, its just that when you see a fox mounting a wolf you question the boundaries, also, afterwards when you realize they were both MALES your really gonna need a scotch cause my god I'm not joking about this situation, I don't even know whats right anymore, this subject is just way to over thought. I guess if their both into it or something, I'm trying to figure this out as I go along honestly because like three day ago I was with a photography class passed northern Toronto and I saw a vulpes red fox on a feaking canin lupus timber wolf and i thought ow wow this creates an interesting perspective, but then right after i finished in the dark room dennis tells me their both guys like an hour ago and i'm totally freakin out. then i start thinking if it matters for humans and i'm here. can someone make sense of this for me please.
Reply New Comment

Line

19) Infamous Enumclaw horse sex case to be made into movie [by Anonymous Citizen on July 6, 2006]
From The Seattle Times

Seattle filmmaker Robinson Devor has begun filming this month for his new documentary, "In the Forest There Is Every Kind of Bird." The film examines the widely reported 2005 incident of a man in Enumclaw who died after having sex with a horse.

Devor, whose previous film, "Police Beat," premiered at the Sundance Film Festival last year, hopes to bring the new film to Sundance in 2007. It will continue filming through July and into August.

In the meantime, "Police Beat" — Devor's and writer Charles Mudede's made-in-Seattle drama about a bicycle cop — will open for a week's run at the Varsity July 14.

Moira Macdonald, Seattle Times movie critic
Reply New Comment

Line

20) CELEBRATE DIVERSITY [by Anonymous Citizen on April 21, 2006]
I am surprised that a legislature that passed HB 2661 would pass this law. This law seems so narrow-minded and prejudiced. Sexual orientation comes in many different forms. Remember when sodomy used to be illegal. Here is just a partial list of things that constitute sexual diversity: auto-erotic asphyxiation, bestiality, cross-dressing, infantilism, masturbation, pedophilia, polygamy, prostitution, sodomy and many, MANY others that would probably be considered to crude to post here.
Reply New Comment

Line

21) Even I must say... [by Trangle on May 4, 2006]
Though I agree with your point, even I must say many of those do not qualify as "Sexual Diversity." With pedophilia in particulular, a child is not legally nor biologicaly at an age where they can comprehend sexual activity, so it is inherently rape and is wrong. Maybe the age of consent could do to be lowered a little, but calling pedophilia a legitimate "sexual orientation" is wrong. I condemn it just as I would condemn having sex with an under-aged animal... Having sex with something that has reached sexual maturity is different entirely.
Reply New Comment

Line

22) My Essay... [by Trangle on March 28, 2006]
I wrote this personally. It was previously externally linked, but aparently that is a no go. I wish to post it here natively, with no such links. I believe that is within TOS. It covers a great many of the moral issues within the bill, specificly relating to the supposed abusive nature of Bestiality. Please allow it to remain up, and if you must take it down, please explain why so I may correct it to be more appropriate.

Essay is as follows:

On the subject of Bestiality and Sexual Abuse

Submitted for the approval and edification of Society, Government, the Individual, and Man-Kind.

The subject of this article is no doubt controversial in nature. It is presented in an educated fashion, and invites you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions, even if they differ from those presented in the article.

On the question of Topic:

The topic of this article is not one of morals, ethics, or belief. It is one of fact. This article only wishes to address the question of bestiality and sexual abuse, namely, the issue of whether or not the activity known as bestiality (the act of having a sexual relationship with a animal), always implies abuse on it’s animal participants. Nothing else is taken into consideration. Morals, ethics, religion, and all things related to them are irrelevant in this article. Whether or not it is against the readers morals, is of course, up to the reader. That is not the question. The question, one which I believe has an absolute truth, is one of whether or not a animal can have a sexual relationship with a human without it turning to sexual abuse. That is the subject of this article, nothing more, nothing less.

On the question of Consent: The first argument regarding topics of this nature is always the same, it is consistently predictable. Bring this topic up with anyone, see how they respond.

“Animals can not consent.”

Consent. What is consent exactly? A quick look in the dictionary well show you the following.

“To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree.”

Based on that definition we come up with the following: Consent is the act of one entity giving confirmation to another entity for an action. Note now, that in order for consent to take place, we must have another key factor: Communication.

To be sure, we must have Communication to consent. One party must communicate to the other party they are consenting before any act is to take place, or the act would not be consensual in nature. Lucky for us, humans are not weak in this department. Communication has been one of the key roles in bringing humanity as far as it has come. The entire world of “diplomacy” and “politics” is nothing more than an extension of our elaborate extension of our very ability to communicate. Indeed, this very article is a form of communication. Communication is the transfer of ideas. Human communication is of course, the most advanced form currently known to man. It is the main reason our species has come so far. Take this example: I have an apple, I hold the apple out in front of me roughly 5’ off the ground with a firm grip. I could let the apple go, but why should I?

I know that if I drop the apple, it will fall. Not only do I know that, but if I cared to do so, I could calculate the exact speed of impact the apple would have upon making contact with the earth. How? Communication. Indeed, Isaac Newton discovered how to do this in the late 1600’s, but we would not know it ourselves if it were not told, and retold, and written, and rewritten. If it were not for communication, all knowledge humans have would be lost to time. We would be nothing.

Now, to think humans are the only species that can communicate is not only foolish, it’s blatantly wrong. Humans can communicate better than any entity currently known, but they are not the only ones that can communicate. Animals, of course, have their own ways of communication. It can seen by the complex suites of scents, various poses, expressions, and noises animals as tiny as the ant to as large as the horse are all capable of making. It may seem foreign to us, but it certainly is not that hard to understand. Humans still possess most of this communication hardware of course, but evolution has toned it down in favor of our relatively new ability to speak.

Indeed, humans themselves opt to tone it down, by creating products to mask the various scents and even hiding the various noises our body produces on a regular basis. Allowing this hardware to function has become inappropriate at the human social level, but it does not change the fact that it does exist and continues to function. We are not as far from other mammals as we think, at least from a biological standpoint. We still have all the same hardware, the only thing that really is significantly different is our ability to communicate, which, in fact, is not as different as it seems. We still could communicate like other animals, but it is not appropriate for society to do. It would be easy to relearn, all it would take would be a little getting used to. But again, it’s not useful in any significant way, so why bother?

The point of this is to prove that a human who has spent a fair amount of time with an animal, be it a zoo-keeper, zoologist, or pet-owner, develops an ability to communicate with that said animal. It’s not really that difficult, as animals means of communication are really the same as ours, only far more basic and “primitive”, if you will. They communicate in the way we have chosen not to, but that doesn’t mean we can’t still communicate in that way, or at the very least, with a little training and observation, read communication that way. Indeed, people who own dogs will tell you that after a little bit of time, it becomes very easy to tell when the dog is happy, sad, mad, etc.

It’s simply a matter of learning how. It’s not as exotic and difficult as you might think. Most of the time it takes a few days for a owner to get to know his dog at the level, and the communication bond only grows from there. Who’s to say the dog cannot communicate consent to an activity? It would not only be foolish to say such a thing, it would be utterly false. The hardware is more than present in the dog (or any animal for that matter) to say yes and/or no. No is probably the most painfully obvious (it literally can be), and yes, although harder to see, can be seen if you’ve spent any amount of time with the animal. Therefore, an animal can consent to an activity with a human.

And, seeing as how our sexual organs and instincts/sexual drives are similar to that of most mammals in both purpose and function, it is not that far fetched to say a animal could and quite possibly may consent to a sexual relationship with a human they are comfortable with. It’s only a matter of learning how to communicate. It’s not a question of possibility. The hardware and the methods are there, all it requires is a little work on the human part. But then again, isn’t that true of any relationship? But there is yet another argument, a much better, well thought out, plausible one. Can the animal understand what it is consenting to?

On the question of Understanding:

Understanding is a more difficult issue to tackle. For this, we shall again turn to the dictionary. A quick look in the dictionary roughly defines understanding as the following:

“To perceive and comprehend the nature and significance of; grasp.”

So, can a lower animal understand the significance of sexual relations? Can they, for example, feel pleasure? Do they understand the consequences of sexual relations? This is a difficult one to answer… Animals can most definitely feel pleasure, or at least mammals can. Most mammals are equipped with the same sexual hardware, including the variety of nerves in the vagina and penis. The most significant thing evolution chose to include in the female mammal is the clitoris. It is a very interesting thing that evolution should produce such a product. The clitoris, as well as the majority of sensitive areas on/in the penis/vagina, serve no purpose towards survival. Why then, did evolution chose to add them to the mix? Simple, it is yet another way to entice animals to mate. These areas, when stimulated in a human, produce pleasure.

This makes a human, for example, remember the experience favorably, and wish to partake in it again (thus, more offspring produced and more traits spread. Evolutions continues). Animals have the same hardware, most likely, if not definitely, for the same purpose. So they can experience pleasure, it is an incentive for them to mate (a very good one at that). “Love”, as we humans coin it, is also probably present, though not as we know it. Animals love each other in a different way than humans, dictated by their varying hormones. It’s the same for us humans, our hormones drive us. A study by the Popular Science magazine concluded that the addition of a simple hormone to a certain rodents blood stream can make the animal’s sex life monogamous in nature, much like human “love”. So, quite simply, love as we know it, is just a hormone. Nothing more, nothing less.

Animals surely have their own versions of this “attraction hormone”, and, although the way they express it is different than ours, they surely can love. So, the pleasure/love question is answered. Unfortunately, that is also the easiest question to answer. Whether or not the animal understands the consequences of mating is very debatable, and this article can not prove either side of that argument. It would be foolish to try for that matter, as it likely varies from species to species. We’re back at square one with this point… Or are we? There is a fatal hole in this argument that you may have missed, one that very well could turn this discussion around…

Does the animal need to understand what it’s consenting too? Sure, in human-human relationships, it’s an absolute must. There are consequences to a sexual relationship between a man and a women. Pregnancy, STDs, among many others. Education is a must if you plan on being sexually active. Same goes for bestiality, you should be educated before partaking in it. Unfortunately, the animal can’t be much more educated than its instincts tell it to be, so the human in the relationship obviously has to take up much of the burden of responsibility for the animal. The knowledge one needs is very basic, one should know if the animal in question is of similarities in genital design (most animals are). You should be able to interpret consent. Any idiot who has spent some time with the animal in question can sort this out. What about the rest of the responsibility?

Here’s where things get interesting: There really isn’t much else. Pregnancy? None-existent. No species currently is known to exist that can cross-breed with a human. STDs? Highly unlikely. Diseases that jump species (known as “Zoonoses”) are highly uncommon. They make up nearly 0.01% of known diseases. To be blunt, it is more of a risk to walk your dog in the park than to have sex with it (provided you know what you are doing). A dog is much more likely to contract a disease from the outdoors than from a human. So, why not just abstain from sex with the animal? If you love it so, why not eliminate the risk entirely? Sex is not necessary for survival, now is it? Well, why not just lock your dog inside as well? That’s not necessary for survival either. The dog can do without both these activities.

What both these activities do bring is benefits to both the human and animal partner. This is referred to in scientific circles as a mutual relationship (a relationship in which both parties benefit). In taking your dog for a walk in the park, your dog may meet other dogs, be exposed to a social environment, and is a fun activity for both human and animal. Bestiality, if consent is present on both parties, can be just as fun. It’s also a form of social interaction, with the human. It benefits the human because he/she may become closer to the animal in question, and both parties get pleasure. The argument that the addition of bestiality to an animals life is harmful to the animal’s mental state is ludicrous at best. Adding sex to a human life certainly doesn’t harm the human’s mental state, why should it harm the animal?

It being “deviant” has nothing to do with the issue at hand, as that is a moral issue, and has nothing to do with the development of the animal. Bestiality occurs in nature, as many studies have shown. It is a naturally occurring thing, so why shouldn’t humans partake in it? If it doesn’t hurt the animal, the human takes the responsibility needed, and consent is present, who is society to say it is abusive? It is the conclusion of this article, that bestiality can be acted out without sexual abuse on the animal participants side. Clearly, the same standard rules apply. If the animal is hurt by the activity and/or does not consent, then it is rape, and should be treated as nothing less. But to classify all bestiality as rape is wrong, as that is clearly not the case.

In conclusion:

It is the finding of this article that not all animal-human sexual relationships are abusive. While the potential is clearly there, a consensual relationship is indeed possible. This article finds the argument that bestiality is always a cruel, abusive practice to be invalid. Of course, we ask you, the reader, to draw your own conclusion based on the evidence presented. Thank you for taking the time to read this article, if you find yourself even the least bit enlightened, then it has more than served it’s purpose.
Reply New Comment

Line

23) Response to My Essay... [by Anonymous Citizen on September 1, 2006]
Very well put. It is nice to see the facts displayed for once instead of opinion and personal preferance.
Reply New Comment

Line

24) Basic Law [by Anonymous Citizen on March 29, 2006]
Interesting view

But...We need to take responsibility for being intellectually aware of what we do to creatures less mentally inept and prone to basic instinctual reactions.

Additionally, I don't think it's a good idea to exclude moral responsibilities in your thinking. Accepted social behavior is the basic premise of all law.
Reply New Comment

Line

25) Yes... [by Anonymous Citizen on March 30, 2006]
I believe the subject of taking responsibility was covered in the article. In short, there is not as much responsibility involved since humans and animals can not interbreed, and what little responsibility is required can be taken up by the caretaker of the aniamal, in this case the human.

I left morals out of the essay because morals are highly relative, and they are not a good way to make a logical arguement regarding abuse. If you want my true views on the matter, I think there is nothing morally wrong with it, since it is not inherently abusive behavior. Why should something that isn't inherently harmful to anyone/anything be outlawed? It may gross out some people and be against their beliefs, but that is no reason to outlaw something. According to a recent poll, 50% of society still finds homosexual behavior to be morally wrong. Does that mean it should be outlawed? No, because as the past has shown, societies beliefs should not be forced upon the whole, provided the behavior in question is not inherently harmful. In this case, it is not, and that was the main point of the article.

It is my belief that that which is not harmful to anyone/anything should not be outlawed, and that is the catagory this practice falls under.
Reply New Comment

Line

26) -wuff- [by Anonymous Citizen on March 29, 2006]
Nice article.
Reply New Comment

Line

27) Comments [by WashingtonVotes Director on March 28, 2006]
We have finished re-approving comments. Some appropriate comments are missing because they were responses to or part of inappropriate (and permanently unapproved) post threads, making them technically difficult to re-approve.

Feel free to continue posting on this bill. The Terms of Use still apply. Comments containing personal attacks will not be approved. Off-topic comments will not be approved. Comments containing links to outside webpages or outside web addresses will not be approved.
Reply New Comment

Line

28) Comment Thread [by WashingtonVotes Director on March 28, 2006]
We re-approved appropriate comments from this thread--those that deal with the bill and do not violate the Terms of Use. Because there were so many posts, this process will took some time.

We could not do this initially because of the time it takes to go through each comment. Time was of the essence. Based on numerous complaints from users and several obvious violations of the Terms of Use, we decided to close the thread and then begin the process of re-approving appropriate comments.

If you do not see a comment here that you feel was appropriate, feel free to re-post it, so long as it pertains to the bill, doesn't include any web addresses, and is in keeping with the Terms of Use.
Reply New Comment

Line

29) Sex Offender Legislation “Wish List” [by Anonymous Citizen on March 2, 2006]
This is what we need now, enough coddling of these offenders. We need to protect our oved ones and stop giving offenders all the rights, Sex Offender Legislation “Wish List”
1- GPS and lifetime supervision/treatment Law The failure of today's solutions regarding sexual offenders is because we are stuck in the strategy of “public notification” rather than “controlling offenders”. The current model puts the burden on parents rather than offenders, and makes the wrong people work to prevent abuse. Remotely (GPS) knowing where an offender is at all times throughout his lifetime can help to prevent that offender from creating new cases of sexual abuse.
2- Include all known offenders in the management plan-for life. It is wrong to include just those under supervision since the Meagan’s Law was written. People do not ever age out of this behavior so why an old is charge less important than a new charge. Sexual offences are the most under reported crimes (according to the FBI). The fact that a molester has not been arrested recently does not necessarily means he has not offended. In my opinion all offenders should be included in any plan, regardless of when their offense occurred. I believe some states have done this already.
3- Put all offenders , levels I, II or III on the website . I believe Florida does this. The leveling tool is very poor and pedophiles often end up with only a level I because they did not use force, and they superficially complied with treatment. The way the leveling system works pedophilic “groomers” who do not use force (and are the most busy of all offenders with hundreds of victims) are often not level III’s and therefore are able to have their offense relatively unknown. In New York for example offenders can lawyer up and reduce the “level” they get at their hearing. Molesters can assert they are “non violent”, “sober”, ect, and get the “points” reduced or get the judge to “override” the scale. Currently the public notification system is failing. All offenders of all levels should be on the website.
4- “Victim Shield Law”. As you know one of the few protections we offer rape victims is “Rape shield laws”, in order to at least try and prevent a rape victim’s sexual history from being put on trial rather than the rapist. In child sexual abuse cases there are no “Rape shield laws” to prevent the victim, or the victim’s family (often the mother) from being made the center of negative attention. In the past defense lawyers for rapists would portray rape victims as promiscuous, today child molester’s lawyers portray victims and victim’s mothers as manipulative, litigious, unreliable, angry, mentally ill, sociopathic, medicated, or undedicated. Because we as a society love to blame women, especially mothers, molesters have been able to harness the misogyny in our culture in order to escape responsibility for their offences. Like the old rape cases that would revolve around the victims sexual past, today molester cases revolve around a child or a mother’s real or fictional problems instead of the focus of attention being the sexual abuse committed by the offender. I do not know if there can ever be a “victim shield law” to prevent the victim/victim’s mother being put on trial rather than the molester, but I know it would help victims avoid being re-traumatized in the system and help society hold sexual offenders accountable. One of the things to always remember with offenders is they are control seekers, and will take any opportunity to attack rather than just defend. They feel entitled to their behavior and see being held accountable as an injustice they are being forced to suffer, and they have zero guilt in harming any number of people (even their children) in order to escape the consequences they deserve.
5- Plea deals down to “Endangering the welfare of a minor”. Despite the underlying behavior being the sexual abuse of children offenders are often given convictions that hide the nature of their behavior. When this happens offenders can get employment that gives them access to children, offenders are not on the State Sex Offender Registry. The other consequence to their being given non-sexual charges is that it cuts their supervision time in half. Misdemeanor sex offences carry 6 years probation supervision but “Endangering the welfare of a minor” carries only three. I feel the law should be changed so offenders cannot be given non-sexual abuse charges.
6- Make “Endangering the welfare of a minor” registerable , if the judge feels it was a sexually motivated crime. The registry is to narrow and limited as to what crimes can be registered. Laws be changed so “endangering the welfare of a minor” is registerable when the behavior or motivation was sexual.
7- “Standardized” conditions for those on sex offender probation. Right now offenders with good lawyers can get specific (or all) sex offender conditions removed from their sexual offender conditions of probation. This means that sexual offenders are on probation but are allowed to drink alcohol, work with children, have computers, go to bars, and do other things that will create a higher risk for the community. I feel there should be a “Statewide Sex Offender Conditions of Probation” that conditions cannot be removed from (but conditions can be added to suite the offenders issues).
8- Sexual Offender Contraband law- Strangely it is legal for sexual offenders off probation to own all kinds of things such as handcuffs, police lights, spy cameras, and software to make their internet behavior more anonymous.
9- Sex Offender use of technology law- When bank robbers use technology such as wearing body armor the penalties are increased, why are sex offender allowed to use any technology without added consequences. Offenders choose the internet because it allows greater access to children and greater anonymity. They should be punished for use of technology to harm a child. (technology such as Computers, digital cameras, webcams, ect)
10- “Secrecy Bind Law” The offender getting his victim to not report the crime he committed should be a separate crime that he suffers added consequences for. The pain that a victim suffers because the offender threatened, tricked, or manipulated the victim into silence should be seen as a separate and deserving of added consequences.
11- “Parental Alienation Syndrome” is a pseudo syndrome that is being used to get offenders off the hook by saying (incorrectly) that sexual abuse allegations come from a manipulative ex- playing head games with a child rather than because the child was actually molested. This “Parental Alienation Syndrome” is not a legitimate disorder, has not been subjected to peer review, has been ignored for 20 years by the APA, AMA, NASW, ECT because it is just a sophisticated way to say your wife is crazy and turned everyone against you. It is being pushed by hired guns such as Doctors, PhD’s, and lawyers to get their child molesting clients out of trouble. It is a favorite of the “Fathers Rights” groups who see men as victims of the Family Court system. By the way, these “Fathers rights” groups, “wrongly accused” groups, and “victims of allegations” groups are very organized and spend a good deal of time and energy networking and paying professionals. These angry, entitled molesters are organized and work hard, and I feel we need to work just as hard against them. My point is I feel we need some legislation to block this fake disorder from being used in court.

Reply New Comment

Line

30) Sex Offender Legislation “Wish List” [by Anonymous Citizen on March 2, 2006]
This is what we need now, enough coddling of these offenders. We need to protect our oved ones and stop giving offenders all the rights, Sex Offender Legislation “Wish List”
1- GPS and lifetime supervision/treatment Law The failure of today's solutions regarding sexual offenders is because we are stuck in the strategy of “public notification” rather than “controlling offenders”. The current model puts the burden on parents rather than offenders, and makes the wrong people work to prevent abuse. Remotely (GPS) knowing where an offender is at all times throughout his lifetime can help to prevent that offender from creating new cases of sexual abuse.
2- Include all known offenders in the management plan-for life. It is wrong to include just those under supervision since the Meagan’s Law was written. People do not ever age out of this behavior so why an old is charge less important than a new charge. Sexual offences are the most under reported crimes (according to the FBI). The fact that a molester has not been arrested recently does not necessarily means he has not offended. In my opinion all offenders should be included in any plan, regardless of when their offense occurred. I believe some states have done this already.
3- Put all offenders , levels I, II or III on the website . I believe Florida does this. The leveling tool is very poor and pedophiles often end up with only a level I because they did not use force, and they superficially complied with treatment. The way the leveling system works pedophilic “groomers” who do not use force (and are the most busy of all offenders with hundreds of victims) are often not level III’s and therefore are able to have their offense relatively unknown. In New York for example offenders can lawyer up and reduce the “level” they get at their hearing. Molesters can assert they are “non violent”, “sober”, ect, and get the “points” reduced or get the judge to “override” the scale. Currently the public notification system is failing. All offenders of all levels should be on the website.
4- “Victim Shield Law”. As you know one of the few protections we offer rape victims is “Rape shield laws”, in order to at least try and prevent a rape victim’s sexual history from being put on trial rather than the rapist. In child sexual abuse cases there are no “Rape shield laws” to prevent the victim, or the victim’s family (often the mother) from being made the center of negative attention. In the past defense lawyers for rapists would portray rape victims as promiscuous, today child molester’s lawyers portray victims and victim’s mothers as manipulative, litigious, unreliable, angry, mentally ill, sociopathic, medicated, or undedicated. Because we as a society love to blame women, especially mothers, molesters have been able to harness the misogyny in our culture in order to escape responsibility for their offences. Like the old rape cases that would revolve around the victims sexual past, today molester cases revolve around a child or a mother’s real or fictional problems instead of the focus of attention being the sexual abuse committed by the offender. I do not know if there can ever be a “victim shield law” to prevent the victim/victim’s mother being put on trial rather than the molester, but I know it would help victims avoid being re-traumatized in the system and help society hold sexual offenders accountable. One of the things to always remember with offenders is they are control seekers, and will take any opportunity to attack rather than just defend. They feel entitled to their behavior and see being held accountable as an injustice they are being forced to suffer, and they have zero guilt in harming any number of people (even their children) in order to escape the consequences they deserve.
5- Plea deals down to “Endangering the welfare of a minor”. Despite the underlying behavior being the sexual abuse of children offenders are often given convictions that hide the nature of their behavior. When this happens offenders can get employment that gives them access to children, offenders are not on the State Sex Offender Registry. The other consequence to their being given non-sexual charges is that it cuts their supervision time in half. Misdemeanor sex offences carry 6 years probation supervision but “Endangering the welfare of a minor” carries only three. I feel the law should be changed so offenders cannot be given non-sexual abuse charges.
6- Make “Endangering the welfare of a minor” registerable , if the judge feels it was a sexually motivated crime. The registry is to narrow and limited as to what crimes can be registered. Laws be changed so “endangering the welfare of a minor” is registerable when the behavior or motivation was sexual.
7- “Standardized” conditions for those on sex offender probation. Right now offenders with good lawyers can get specific (or all) sex offender conditions removed from their sexual offender conditions of probation. This means that sexual offenders are on probation but are allowed to drink alcohol, work with children, have computers, go to bars, and do other things that will create a higher risk for the community. I feel there should be a “Statewide Sex Offender Conditions of Probation” that conditions cannot be removed from (but conditions can be added to suite the offenders issues).
8- Sexual Offender Contraband law- Strangely it is legal for sexual offenders off probation to own all kinds of things such as handcuffs, police lights, spy cameras, and software to make their internet behavior more anonymous.
9- Sex Offender use of technology law- When bank robbers use technology such as wearing body armor the penalties are increased, why are sex offender allowed to use any technology without added consequences. Offenders choose the internet because it allows greater access to children and greater anonymity. They should be punished for use of technology to harm a child. (technology such as Computers, digital cameras, webcams, ect)
10- “Secrecy Bind Law” The offender getting his victim to not report the crime he committed should be a separate crime that he suffers added consequences for. The pain that a victim suffers because the offender threatened, tricked, or manipulated the victim into silence should be seen as a separate and deserving of added consequences.
11- “Parental Alienation Syndrome” is a pseudo syndrome that is being used to get offenders off the hook by saying (incorrectly) that sexual abuse allegations come from a manipulative ex- playing head games with a child rather than because the child was actually molested. This “Parental Alienation Syndrome” is not a legitimate disorder, has not been subjected to peer review, has been ignored for 20 years by the APA, AMA, NASW, ECT because it is just a sophisticated way to say your wife is crazy and turned everyone against you. It is being pushed by hired guns such as Doctors, PhD’s, and lawyers to get their child molesting clients out of trouble. It is a favorite of the “Fathers Rights” groups who see men as victims of the Family Court system. By the way, these “Fathers rights” groups, “wrongly accused” groups, and “victims of allegations” groups are very organized and spend a good deal of time and energy networking and paying professionals. These angry, entitled molesters are organized and work hard, and I feel we need to work just as hard against them. My point is I feel we need some legislation to block this fake disorder from being used in court.

Reply New Comment

Line

31) A FELONY? [by Anonymous Citizen on March 1, 2006]
One point that is truly missing, especially
with this comment:

-If you are discrete and no one know it, you shouldnt fear this bill.

You SHOULD fear this bill. A FELONY? Do any of
you realize what a felony is? It means you loose
a lot of rights like the right to vote and bear
arms and is always reserved for the most hardned
of criminals. Now however the additude seems to
be more and more to throw the book at others, screw them over good. Its not just this bill but
this bill seems to me to be the shining example
of this. Lets just kill em and be done.

A FELONY? Old studies have shown that s high as
50% of kids raised rurally with large animals have experimented with this. Its less today only because animal ownership is declining. It was a
safe sexual release, rather than getting some gal pregnant or worse. Now I see people everywhere with pent up sexual fustrations that do manafist themselves into horrible things and hate others even to the point of creating new felonies. This used to be kept secret like other sex and people knew back then how to keep secrets. A secret was not what noone knew but rather what they pretended they did not know. I know as me and other of us rural hillbillies used to talk about this and I have experimented myself. It used to be Lil jonney may have been teased a lil if caught but now he can go to juvie and if he stumbles upon a adult doing the deed he may be in serious trouble for whitnessing this
new felony.

Theres a lot of this going on. Legslators should
listen to the people. Its still our country.

But the big point is, having been there, do you relly think its a FELONY??? A felony ... not a mistomenor. I know everyone seemed to know what
we were up to. I guess I was lucky being born
back then as now i would surly be on some sex
offenders list for spending too much time with betsy milking.

Does anyone know how to milk a cow anymore? Most of us knew back then. Most of us knew how to ride horses. Now you all are so afraid to even touch the dirty beasts. Too bad, your missing something basic to ones existance and dont even or will ever realize it. No wonder why everyone wants to beat up on others and there are perverts loose
on the streets and so much road rage in the big cities. Your all fustrated and alot of it starts
with sexual fustration.

too bad

just one more thing. Tell me why if you can,
WHY A FELONY????
Reply New Comment

Line

32) Stop Posting Until You Use Logic [by Anonymous Citizen on March 1, 2006]
I told you, stop posting here if you can't refute my arguments, and none of you supporters of this bill have yet been able to do that.

"Satan's snares" poster - your argument that it's "not now nor ever will be normal" has no relevance to legislation. Strictly speaking, any sexual activity that cannot propogate the the human species is "not normal." And regarding "animals aren't to be molested to fullfill your sexual desires", even if you're right and the animals don't have any desire, you're still wrong in general. Animals are "used" every day to fulfill our desires for food, clothing, and scientific advancement. The desire for food is no different than the desire for sex. If society says animals can humanely be used for the former then it's not logical to say they can't be humanely used for the latter. Argument over.

By the way, the term "used" is a completely innacurate way to describe what happens with most zoophiles and their animals but I'm not going to waste time debating that with you because even using your own terminology your point defeats itself.

"RAPING the animal" poster: Breeders regularly masturbate stallions with their hands and stick their arms all the way down a mare's vagina to impregnate her without consent. They do this for profit. This bill keeps that legal but makes doing the same actions for pleasure a felony. That is hypocrisy. STOP bringing children into the debate. The law says animals can be humanely used to meet our needs. Children cannot. Argument over.

Dance a jig all the way around the real issues here, but the only ones that matter I have refuted without question. So don't post if you can't debate with logic instead of moral outrage. This forum is not about your emotions.
Reply New Comment

Line

33) Your Right to Post Here [by Anonymous Citizen on February 26, 2006]
Hello again, I posted the first comment to this bill ("Knee-jerk Hypocritical Lawmaking") and I've been coming back and checking up on comments that have been posted since it became such a noticed piece of legislation. I've seen a huge amount of really petty arguing (including spelling correction? please!) but none of the supporters of this bill can touch any of the facts I stated in my first post. Let's briefly revisit a couple:

CONSENT: I see posts "animals and children cannot consent", and variations on this argument ad nauseum. Please get this through your skull: we do NOT need consent to use animals in any manner that does not cause cruelty. This includes taking their semen and eggs, impregnating them for profit, ejaculating them with an electrical probe, using them for medical research (including giving them products and seeing if they cause cancer), and other acts up to and including kill and eating them. Cruelty is the key aspect in using an animal without consent. This bill is a blanket statement against all sexual acts, which would include ones that are cruel and ones that aren't. Case in point: police in the Enumclaw horse-sex case determined that there was no cruelty involved. That negates this bill from a cruelty perspective. If there had been inhumane treatment, the man could have been prosecuted under existing laws. I would support a law that detailed every sexual act that was cruel, but nothing beyond that. So, unless you are a vegan, any "consent" argument you make should be immediately discounted as hypocritical.

"BUT IT'S JUST...WRONG!" Morality outraged, many of you are posting because it's "just wrong". It's sick, it's depraved, etc. Fine, be outraged. Have moral indignation. Be incensed. Vomit in the toilet at the nauseating mental image. But do NOT legislate morality, because that is no longer legal, per the Supreme Court. If you have no other legal basis to pass a law, it can NOT be passed simply because it seems "immoral". And yes, I would argue it in person (as several researchers and sociologists have done)in public, if given the opportunity. It's bad science AND bad lawmaking.

And might I add that I am a Libertarian, not a Democrat; the left vs. right argument has no validity on either side.

Please remember what this comments page is for: logical debate. I notice that the most logically stated arguments here were avoided like the plague by most of the bill's supporters who instead started arguing religion and spelling. I have presented all angles of this debate that have any merit, and refuted them. Stated simply: if you can't present a cogent argument against my points here or in my first comment, then you have no business posting here - nothing you say has any validity.
Reply New Comment

Line

34) You are getting off topic [by Anonymous Citizen on February 26, 2006]
I think you sound like a one-trick pony. All of your 15,000 words about we can use animals for research, taking their eggs, impregnating for profit, et cetera...is irrelevant (not to mention annoying). We are talking about SEX WITH ANIMALS.

Animals cannot say "Hi, you're cute, I'd like to have sex with you today!" Your dog is not going to insist that you wear a condom. You don't have to take your German Shepherd to a fancy restaurant and buy him lobster just to get in the sack with him/her. You don't have to try to seduce the sheep or the cow in the barn. An animal is certainly capable of being raped. No animal can give consent to you, a human being.

In case you didn't hear me the first time - NO ANIMAL CAN CONSENT.

So...what was your point again? That we take eggs to market and sell them or that I had a Big Mac for supper last night?

Please!

We're not here to debate animal research. We're not here to discuss slaughterhouses and animal cruelty or why we should all be vegetarians.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BESTIALITY! If you can't stick to the topic, why just not post at all?
Reply New Comment

Line

35) Re: You are getting off topic [by Anonymous Citizen on February 28, 2006]
> I think you sound like a one-trick pony.

No, you just don't like it when people do tricks with a pony.

> All of your 15,000 words about we can use animals for
> research, taking their eggs, impregnating for profit, et
> cetera...is irrelevant (not to mention annoying).

I did not count 15,000 words. The sum of words I saw in both messages is 866 exactly. The points made are not irrelevant. However, your exaggeration to make a point is annoying.

> We are talking about SEX WITH ANIMALS.

We are talking about the SENATE BILL PROHIBITING BESTIALITY. We are talking about and responding to points made in the first message of this thread. We are talking about subsequent points and your avoidance of them.

> Animals cannot say "Hi, you're cute, I'd like to have sex with you today!"

It is obvious to an owner or observer of an uncastrated animal that he not only wants sex today but wants sex now. Do you argue this -fact-?

> Your dog is not going to insist that you wear a condom. You
> don't have to take your German Shepherd to a fancy
> restaurant and buy him lobster just to get in the sack with
> him/her. You don't have to try to seduce the sheep or the
> cow in the barn. An animal is certainly capable of being raped.
> No animal can give consent to you, a human being.

Your points are ridiculous. Animals are capable of being raped - just as I feel the left side of my brain is being raped by your mindless arguments. It's amazing how animals managed to survive millions of years without the ability to give consent. I say animals do give consent. I say animals could not have evolved millions of years without -powerful- drives for sex and both an ability and willingness to breed.

> In case you didn't hear me the first time - NO ANIMAL CAN CONSENT.

You are wrong. Animals do consent. It is more accurate to say animals cannot give -legal consent-.

> So...what was your point again? That we take eggs to market and sell them or that I had a Big Mac for supper last night?

You had a Big Mac. How interesting that you have no problem whatsoever paying a person to kill and butcher an animal when there is documentation of inhumane slaughterhouse practices. Yet here you are, no doubt motivated by the -sex- quotient of this bill (i.e., "We are talking about SEX WITH ANIMALS.") and not animals being butchered alive. So the -sex- is what sparks your interest, huh? Why is that? Why is it you're not really interested in the welfare of animals but only at the sexual practices of people? Why is it when one looks at your -behavior- we see the folly of your intention?

> Please!

Funny I was thinking the same thing.

> We're not here to debate animal research. We're not here to discuss slaughterhouses and animal cruelty or why we should all be vegetarians.

We are here to talk about points made by the original message, among other things. Why do you think you are the moderator of this discussion? Is it the beef hormones acting on your testosterone level? You, of course, would like to avoid discussing animal research, slaughterhouses, animal cruelty or becoming vegetarians. It blows the crap out of your argument that sex with animals is wrong. It makes you appear silly. It makes me wonder what you are hiding under your bed. It makes me wonder what is in your closet.

> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BESTIALITY! If you can't stick to the topic, why just not post at all?

We are talking of many things. We are talking of shoes and ships and ceiling wax. Bestiality is not wrong unless the animal is treated wrongly. Animals are treated wrongly in this world - yet here you are attracted not to any cruelty - but rather that a person -has sex with an animal-.

You jump up and down with your arms flailing over your head pouting that sex with animals is wrong.

Then don't have sex with animals.

The point is you and others should mind your own business and leave the sexual acts of people alone. You mindless drumbeaters don't think before you act. Meanwhile animals are being put to death horribly and you, for some reason, just aren't motivated enough to respond to this. Oh, but a person's -sexual- act is important! God forbid an animal was harmed before he or she was killed to make your Big Mac.
Reply New Comment

Line

36) OK - They Can't Consent! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 26, 2006]
Great, thanks, that's fine. Let's follow your argument to its logical conclusion (again, apparently you can't really follow the logic, so we'll restate it in simple terms). I don't agree with your statement, but let's just take it to the end. Here we go, ready? "ANIMALS CAN'T CONSENT" and...wait for it...NO ONE CARES.

Do you get it? Consent of the animal is not required to MURDER it and EAT it. So if you want to call "non-consensual" animal sex "rape", then you'd better be willing to call slaughtering "murder". Because they certainly didn't enter a suicide pact with the slaughterhouse!

NOW do you understand?
Reply New Comment

Line

37) I can understand.. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 26, 2006]
I can understand your point of view. I share it. Laws should be backed by some technical justification for the common good of the public, our planet, and the general welfare of our animals.

I do not like the blanket statements in the law (SB 6417). I realize laws can not be so specific to analyze if a perpetrator had penetrated the cervix of an animal, or any other detailed act that can state this is cruel and this is not. That's why there are sentencing guidelines. I believe the guideline states if a person who has one conviction, the sentencing is 0 to 9 months in jail plus a fine. Repeat offenders get an increasing sentence.

What I would have much rater have seen was a bill where some medical examination is required to prove a man/woman guilty of cruelty. If sex was involved, than the punishment could be greater. The bill or law needed to differentiate a cruel sex act from a non cruel sex act. Instead it lumping them all together and making the punishment greater than that if one had bludgeoned an animal to death with a club.

I have reviewed some animal torture acts on the Humane Society website, and even there, it seems to be the opinion, that if a person rams a foreign object up an animals vigina causing internal injury or death, that this cruel act is associated with and considered the same as one where a person who may just masturbate an animal.

The Pasado donkey, if you remember the incident, was about torture. The Pasado Safe Haven people backed SB 6417, but in a strange twist, the torture acts committed on that donkey are considered less sever than if someone had touched the animals genital areas. The bill was initially introduced to equate the two, but it was amended to make the sex acts more sever. I just wonder where all the animals protection peoples heads are at. I would have thought they would have protested. I had.

Bottom line this bill is not about protecting animals, its about restricting peoples activities.





Reply New Comment

Line

38) Numbers will increase [by Anonymous Citizen on February 25, 2006]
Ironically, the publicity that this law has generated will more than likely make people aware that they can have sex with animals now. With this new found knowledge the number of people who participate in this act will increase. You know, risk brings about a certain high in people. A lot of people do things just because someone says that can't.

Reply New Comment

Line

39) no [by Anonymous Citizen on February 26, 2006]
I don't think you should blame this bill. If a person wanted to try bestiality, they'll do it anyway. They're not going to go, "Wow! I want to start bestiality. I'll move to Washington!"

If they're going to do it, the sickos will do it in any state.

I've actually perused some of the zoophilia boards...they don't like this law. I hope this bill works as a deterrent to keep them away.
Reply New Comment

Line

40) Can someone clearify this? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 25, 2006]
If I rape an infant, will I get a higher sentence then raping an animal?
Reply New Comment

Line

41) So..... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 25, 2006]
When I was a teenager I had a pitbull. Well the dummy liked to 'sunbathe' and would stretch his back legs out behind him. He wasn't neutered. Guess what? He sunburned his scrotum. I had to take him to the vet and get an antibiotic ointment and had to apply that to his scrotum. Nasty job.

If this bill passes, I could be arrested for applying ointment on the dog and the neighber happened to see me doing just that.
Reply New Comment

Line

42) jeepers... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 25, 2006]
QUOTE - If this bill passes, I could be arrested for applying ointment on the dog and the neighber happened to see me doing just that.

You are grasping at straws!

If the vet gives you medicine to apply to the dog's scrotum, apply it to the scrotum! If you are so worried that following vet orders will get you arrested, apply it inside the house! Apply it when your neighbor isn't home. And if your neighbor calls the cops, show them the vet meds! You're in the clear!

Stop grasping at straws. You are making yourself look pathetic.
Reply New Comment

Line

43) and... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 25, 2006]
You know how to write, but you don't know how to read. If you clearly read everything, you will see this part:

"An exemption is created for accepted animal husbandry practices or accepted veterinary medical practices by a licensed veterinarian or certified veterinary technician."

If a veterinarian tell you its ok to apply this "thing"... Then you will not be prosecuted.
Reply New Comment

Line

44) And [by Anonymous Citizen on February 25, 2006]
This denies us equal protection under the law, which is the whole point of legislation like this.
Reply New Comment

Line

45) Another point [by Anonymous Citizen on February 24, 2006]
If they pass this law as written it could be
considered to be promoting beastiality just
by talking about it here or trying to get the
law thrown out again. This is how the church
treated witches during the dark ages. I guess
we relly havent left all that behind after all.
:(

Reply New Comment

Line

46) USA isnt the worst law maker [by Anonymous Citizen on February 24, 2006]
I took this from yahoo news site:

"The slaying was a rare crime in the wealthy Atlantic Ocean island. The case remains unsolved, although local man Kirk Mundy pleaded guilty to accessory to murder and was sentenced to five years, which he served.

But Mundy remains in jail. He was on bail for armed robbery at the time of Middleton's slaying, and was sentenced to an additional 16 years in prison."

5 years for a murder and 16 years for armed robery... Snd here we are complaining about a sever law for sexual contact... But less sever for torturing the beast.

Reply New Comment

Line

47) Someone made a good point [by Anonymous Citizen on February 23, 2006]
At the rate it's going, abusive corporate farming will continue to be legal, as will "game farms" otherwise known as "canned hunts." The only relations between humans and animals will be abusive.

Some are passing laws making the killings of animals illegal, with certain exemptions, and you've got to think, which would an animal rather do, have sex with its owner or die? Would it rather live in a relationship with a trusted individual or chained to a stanchion with its only destiny the supermarket?

Making bestiality a felony is just one more part of a huge scam.
Reply New Comment

Line

48) Why even bother? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 23, 2006]
Do most people have to be told not to have sex with animals? Is it such an attraction that people must be burned at the stake or made into non-persons? This is definitely grandstanding by unethical lawmakers. If they do this to animal lovers, they will do it to the rest of us.

Why do we let ourselves be used this way? We give billions of dollars to organizations that deliberately deceive us about caring about animals, and the next thing you know the small farmer can't make a living because of all of the nonsense he has to go through, and we can't afford our food, and we aren't any safer than we were before, we aren't any more "moral", we're still fighting wars that drain our resources without returning anything. All of this is brought to you by the people who happily take advantage of you for any possible profit.
Reply New Comment

Line

49) Unranked Offense [by Anonymous Citizen on February 23, 2006]
How come animal cruelty (torture) is an "unranked" felony punisable up to a maximum of 12 months in jail, no matter how many times the act is commited, but if a person has a sexual contact with an animal, it is a "ranked" felony where if repeated violations occur, a person can get up to 10 years in jail.

Seems like torturing an animal to death is worse than some sexual contact.

Any thoughts
Reply New Comment

Line

50) It is because [by Anonymous Citizen on February 23, 2006]
It is because our lawmakers do not actually care about the harm done to the animal. They care about the harm they can do to humans and how they can profit from it.
Reply New Comment

Line

51) No torture.. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 23, 2006]
No, torture and sexual contact is one in the same according to the revised bill. The are both acts of cruelty. The sexual kind has greater punishment.
Reply New Comment

Line

52) Oh I can see now.. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 23, 2006]
Maybe if sexual contact is made in torturing an animal, then it is a "ranked" offense. This makes more sense. Plan ol sexual contact would be an "unranked" offense as I see it, unless the animal is tortured.

Reply New Comment

Line

53) Another useless law [by Anonymous Citizen on February 23, 2006]
Enacted by short-sighted clowns with no concept of reality, using their positions of power to force the population to conform to a lifestyle dictated by the fears, hangups, ignorance and frustrations of the lawmakers.
What PROOF is there that zoophilia is in any way cruel ? Let's see the FACTS presented openly, if these politicians can actually find any. If they can't, on what basis are they seeking to implement these medaieval laws ? Will they ban it because they don't understand it ? Because they don't believe in it ? How many of them have made ANY EFFORT whatsoever to research the subject and form an educated informed opinion ?
Nope - it's sick, we don't care and don't want to learn the facts - we'll just ban it, because our closed weak little minds are incapable of rationalsing anything. Such is the feeble mind of the average politician...
What's next ? Hey let's ban pets altogether ! Ban smoking ? Naaah, we make money out of killing our population - can't do that...
Ban grog ? Same deal...
Ban drugs, guns, murder etc etc.. Hmmm.. strange how what's banned always seems to exist unaffected isn't it ...
Perhaps mankind will one day evolve to the stage where they possess common sense, but with laws like this, you have to wonder...
Reply New Comment

Line

54) If they would have.... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 23, 2006]
just banned it based on moral values. Just like only one woman/one man to a marriage. But for some reason, they think they have to justify their position with some technical basis. That's my gripe.


Reply New Comment

Line

55) Well [by Anonymous Citizen on February 23, 2006]
That's what a "big lie" is about. They CAN'T tell the truth even if doing so would be to their advantage. They can never let any of this come into contact with reality.
Reply New Comment

Line

56) Guess we cant have fun anymore [by Anonymous Citizen on February 23, 2006]
One day we will be abble to go in space... but a bill will pass saying that it is forbiden to speed up into space... Dude, how am I going to fly from mars to earth at a 60 miles per hour if Im in a hurry?

Can our politician spend money on things that REALLY matter instead of approving bills that just a handfull of people are commiting these acts?

You must excuse my english since its hard to speak many dialect... and writing them.
Reply New Comment

Line

57) Where's the serious dicussion? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 22, 2006]
Lots of bickering on this board. Can we get back to talking about the bill? I, for one, think it's a good idea. What is the current status of this bill?
Reply New Comment

Line

58) You've got to be kidding [by Anonymous Citizen on February 22, 2006]
"What is the current status of this bill?"

You are posting to a forum hosted by Washington Votes, who provides you with near-daily updates of legislative status and activity, and you ask for the status of this bill? Spend a few minutes learning how to use this site.
Reply New Comment

Line

59) Diane Whipple case [by Anonymous Citizen on February 15, 2006]
Don't forget the 2001 dog mauling case of Diane Whipple. Marjorie Knoller and her husband, Robert Noel,owned two very large 120-pound Presa Canario dogs named Bane (male) and Hera (female). One day the dogs attacked Diane Whipple and tore her throat out. She died a horrible death.

There was evidence that Noel and Knoller practiced bestiality with their dogs. Pelican Bay Prison Sgt. Joe Akin reported finding "a letter disguised as legal mail addressed to (inmate Paul) Schneider" that discusses "sexual activity between Noel, Knoller and the dog Bane." Noel and Knoller are Schneider's attorneys and adoptive parents.

Akin reported that he saw "numerous photos of Knoller posing nude with fighting dog drawings" among the property of Paul "Cornfed" Schneider and cellmate Dale Bretches. Both inmates are artists, and have made the Presa Canario dogs the subjects of many of their works.

Akin also reported that he "discovered communications between Noel and Knoller to Schneider that described sexual activities between Knoller and Noel and included photos and drawings of dogs and fighting dogs" as well as a photo of a male dog's genitals.

Robert Noel said the nude photos of his wife found in his adopted son's prison cell were a private matter. He stated that it was nothing deviant and reminded reporters that it wasn't long ago that homosexuals were considered deviant.

Hmmm....the pair also referred to their dogs in strangely affectionate terms, claiming Bane to be a "pet me, pet me" dog and Hera a "certified lick specialist." Kind of gross when you think of the sick inside joke they could have had between themselves. In any event, these dogs were abused.
Reply New Comment

Line

60) no confusion here [by Anonymous Citizen on February 14, 2006]
First the legislature has to deal with gender confusion, now species confusion. What a sick state. 20 plus years of leftist Governors and this is what we get.

The good part is that not even the gun-grabbing leftist Homocrats could vote against it.

Funny how election year politics works, huh?
Reply New Comment

Line

61) morals? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 14, 2006]
"Morals are for people who have them."

Terrorists have morals, look whats happening.

This bill wreaks of morals. The stench of a election year is apon us.

Politicians are like salesmen. If you believe everything they tell you, you will buy everything they have to sell.
Reply New Comment

Line

62) careful...you're revealing your true character [by Anonymous Citizen on February 15, 2006]
QUOTE: "PETA,HSUS and ASPCA can go away!"

Wow. Why don't you reserve your anger for the people who abuse animals instead of people or organizations who might try to help animals?

Let me give you an analogy:
There is no reason for a person to get angry with the National Sex Offender Registry...unless he IS a pedophile.
Reply New Comment

Line

63) Registy for animal sex abusers [by Anonymous Citizen on February 15, 2006]
I think you have stumbled upon a good point. If a person is convicted of sex with an animal, why not have a National Registry for those kind of people too? I mean, if a person will abuse a helpless, defenseless animal, why won't he move on to a child? Perhaps there is a way to have animal sex abusers shown also on the National Sex Offender Registry?
Reply New Comment

Line

64) What the...?? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2006]
I read about this wonderful bill on an animal abuse website and thought FINALLY!, Washington is coming to its senses. So, I search and find this message board and am astonished to find some sicko (who probably practices beastiality given the level of his/her vitriol at this bill) actually upset because we might stop people from raping an animal. Don't we have better things to discuss, he/she asks. As if forcing an animal to have sex is just totally harmless and victimless. Unbelievable! I was with this bill 110% and now I'm with it 210% after reading this board. Only a sick-minded individual would get so outraged over this bill. IT'S A GOOD THING, you idiot!!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

65) You are ignorant [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2006]
Just because you find something distasteful doesn't mean you get to pass a law about it. You probably want felony laws passed against all sexual acts you don't consider "normal". The problem is, you don't get to do that. Laws have to pass constitutional scrutiny. This bill has passed into law now but it will be defeated in the courts at some point. The Supreme Court took care of that problem, all it will take is someone with the guts enough to challenge it.

What matters is the Constitution, and this law violates it.
Reply New Comment

Line

66) abuse [by Anonymous Citizen on February 14, 2006]
I really tired of people hiding behind the constitution thinking it somehow justifies all kinds of sick behavior

it doesn't

abuse in any form is still abuse

Reply New Comment

Line

67) - [by Anonymous Citizen on February 14, 2006]
...and non-abuse is non-abuse...
Reply New Comment

Line

68) Not quite... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2006]
QUOTE - Just because you find something distasteful doesn't mean you get to pass a law about it.

No need to try to make me out to be someone who is trying to have laws passed because I don't like the behavior. I think it's CRIMINAL behavior. I find it distasteful when people smoke in restaurants, but guess what - I don't agree with the laws banning smoking in restaurants. Common sense will tell any human being who isn't mentally retarded that having sex with animals is not only distasteful, but it is also criminal. An animal cannot consent. Neither can a child. It's really as simple as that.

QUOTE - You probably want felony laws passed against all sexual acts you don't consider "normal".

If you are referring to gays, I don't condone it, but what two consenting adults do in their own home is not my concern. BUT, if anyone has sex with a child or an animal, or anyone without their consent, then that IS my concern. As well it should be every decent, moral person's concern.

QUOTE - This bill has passed into law now but it will be defeated in the courts at some point.

That remains to be seen.

QUOTE - The Supreme Court took care of that problem, all it will take is someone with the guts enough to challenge it.

I have a good idea - why don't YOU challenge it? Make your name be known that you want to defeat a bill that protects innocents.
Reply New Comment

Line

69) Inappropriate law proposal [by Anonymous Citizen on February 8, 2006]
To say "conduct X is animal cruelty" is valid if, and only if, conduct X is substantially animal cruelty. As a researcher in this field, I assume that such a law is based upon due diligence of research. In which case one must ask why a lawmaker constructs such a law despite some 50 years of research by psychologists, sexologists and ethologists which say its fundamental premise (that conduct X is of necessity cruel) is fatally flawed [1].

Most significant sexual information sites strongly differentiate this activity from animal cruelty activities [2] and make clear that "the quality of the interaction and the relationship - that may be loving, neutral, or violent - and not the fact of a sexual interaction is important." [3].

I also refer the lawmaker to the decision not to prosecute the other person present in the notorious Enumclaw case. Their reason directly contradicts the premise of this case; no evidence of cruelty or harm to the animals involved in the Enumclaw case could be found. [4]

In the light of the above, the rationale for building the claim into law as a legislated assumption, is of great doubt, and seems to represent a preconception of a non expert and lack input from experts. This is a poor basis for law, and building this premise into legislation will (as experts at the Kinsey Institute said of human-animal sexuality in 1999) doubtless "destroy the lives of many citizens" [5].


References:

[1] Information indicating how professionals knowledgable in the field, view this activity, is linked from sections 4, 5, 7 & 13 at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&oldid=38208106 (permanent link: Feb 2006). Peer reviewed research contradicting this assumption Includes Masters Ph.D. (1962), Miletski Ph.D. (1994), Weinberg/Williams (Kinsey Institute, University of Indiana) (1999-2003), Beetz Ph.D. (2002).

[2] Information linked from: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoosadism
which states "Sexology information sites (if sufficiently detailed) are usually careful to distinguish zoosadism from zoophilia" and lists several sites exemplifying this.

[3] Cited from Andrea Beetz Ph.D. "Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals" (2002), which also states categorically:

"Former, as well as the here presented research, suggests that zoophilia itself does not represent a clinically significant problem and is not necessarily combined with other clinically significant problems and disorders, even if it may be difficult for some professionals to accept this."

[4] http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002568970_webhorse.html

[5] Professors Martin S. Weinberg, PhD and Colin J. Williams, PhD , of the Kinsey Institute, University of Indiana. They wrote in 1999 on a similar subject:

"As sociologists and sex researchers at Indiana University for over 30 years, and as professionals who are researching in [bestiality] ... we believe that given our academic disciplines, we write with the benefit of extensive knowledge regarding the consequences of attempting to legally control unconventional forms of sexual expression and the failure of legislators to distinguish between the objective harm resulting from these sexual acts and the displeasure they may feel with regard to them.

"No one can argue about the objective harm resulting from a behavior like rape. Such harm arises from the absence of consent and the trauma that accompanies and follows from the act. Opponents of a human having sex with an animal use a similar standard. While what constitutes an animal's consent is difficult to define, people are well aware when an animal is non-consenting. Our research suggests that forcing sex on an unwilling animal is rare [...]

"[Practitioners] appear to be extremely caring and concerned for their animal/s and people who know them would be hard put to claim abuse. Implicit in [creating legislation] is that sex with an animal in itself constitutes abuse. We believe that this merely reflects a negative attitude toward such a non-traditional form of sexuality. Disgust should not be a criterion for legislation; only objective evidence of harm should be, and there are sufficient laws against cruelty to animals to handle such cases [...]

"Remember that less than half a century ago, all states but one criminalized homosexual acts because many people were uncomfortable with the idea of sexual behavior with members of the same sex. This destroyed the lives of many citizens."
Reply New Comment

Line

70) how can you defend sex with animals ? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 9, 2006]
How can you defend sex with animals . I mean is there more important things to defend in this world ?
Reply New Comment

Line

71) Hey [by Anonymous Citizen on February 23, 2006]
Aren't there more important things to outlaw in this world? If it ain't important, you don't need to outlaw it, do you?
Reply New Comment

Line

72) How? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2006]
"How can you defend sex with animals . I mean is there more important things to defend in this world ? "

I can defend trashing this law and thinking it through a bit more using the same reasonong
that you are s it relly is not an issue that is all that important to make a whole new class of felons. When leg makes a law that goes for blood it usually screws innocents in ways they are not even aware of. THIS law has some SERIOUS problems. The forfeture of animals without conviction is a big problem. OK, they are relly being held and by the time a person is found innocent there is so much board the shelter basically owns them anyways and according to this the owner STILL has to pay board even if he is innocent.
So if I were a PETA fanatic, I could just point my finger and say I saw something and BAM, the poor victim of the law is as good as out of business or if it is a non-business, just screwed even if it is all made up and the accuser disappears or refuses to testify as i perfectly legal. What a revenge. Oh but none of these people who burn down reasherch labs would do something like this , huh?

The whole thing here is just because as far as I can tell just because of one inconent where the people got pretty much what they deserved from the law. One year probation and fines and now everyone points their fingers and the other one is dead. But somehow they want more. Maby we should just burn them at the stake. They used to do that with witches , or maby they still do.

This is the problem when you try to leglslate morality. Lets get some brains and think about this and make it so it doesnt screw the innocent.

To those of us who keep animals it is rapidly getting to the point where you have to hid from the public like you were criminals because someone will always find something wrong. The people sponsering this bill probablly dont have a clue to what I am talking about or even ever touched a large beast let alone shared a life with them. It will become where all the private animal owners are going to be extinct and there will only be abusive corporate farms. Not in my life, but it will happen. Too bad.
Reply New Comment

Line

73) I believe that does happen [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2006]
There have been such cases of breeders having their lives and livelihoods destroyed, or pet owners having animals destroyed, due to "seize first, return if found innocent" laws. Inevitably the animals safe return is dubious. Compensation for loss is tiny so its a no-brainer really. With the animal dead, evidence for the defence is destroyed too, and the only evidence is whatever the prosecutor's vet says.
Reply New Comment

Line

74) See above [by Anonymous Citizen on February 9, 2006]
If I were gay, I'd want *someone* to present accurate information if a law on gay sex was being considered. If I was Black, I'd probably hope someone would give a darn if a law that disproportionately affected black people was considered.

So my answer is, if I was a practitioner of bestiality, I would hope someone, somewhere would say, "I might not be one of them, but they should have accurate information presented too". Sex with animals is very emotive. From research quoted above and other research, the perceptions of those emotions are often knee-jerk and misinformed. This may be with the best intention... but it is well known what they say about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. A well intentioned but ultimately misinformed law is inappropriate.

This bill attempts to prevent harm, and preventing harm is a good intention. But it does so without due regard for information and will significantly affect certain people.

The "more important things" question... One could defend a million other things. That doesn't make the lesser represented voices less important. If anything it means they are likely to need more people to speak for them. Every law is important, including this one, every law needs careful thinking, because every law good or bad affects lives. You will notice that the views stated are not personal views, but solid research views, from multiple sources. I am sure, to those it will affect, who research says are being seriously misclassified under this law, people who research says are non-abusive who will be told under legislation they are abusive, who know in their hearts this is inaccurate and yet will have their lives destroyed by it, it is an important law that is proposed, and they deserve those who know the research and have no excuse to be unawares, to state their knowledge.
Reply New Comment

Line

75) Huh?? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 21, 2006]
I am sure, to those it will affect, who research says are being seriously misclassified under this law, people who research says are non-abusive who will be told under legislation they are abusive, who know in their hearts this is inaccurate and yet will have their lives destroyed by it..............

Just WHAT are you talking about? Can you be specific? The above sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo strung together to TRY and make a sentence.
Reply New Comment

Line

76) So Sad -DP- [by Anonymous Citizen on February 8, 2006]
I think what you law makers should do is spend your time passing bills that do some good. Lets be real here, If you think that this bill/law is really going to stop anyone from doing what they are doing in the privacy of their own homes already, you are wrong. Quit wasting the tax payers money!

Your morality is not everyone's morality. This is supposed to be a free country.

Whats worse is that a person can accuse someone of bestiality and get their aniamls taken away (if this bill passes). You are all looking for alot of problems from this I assure you.

Sometimes when I look around, I think the real terrorists are in politics.
Reply New Comment

Line

77) When we were closer to animals [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2006]
Years ago beastiality was something that people looked the other way about. The thinking was better to bonk betsy than to rape a human. Now they make it about the same so those who have been spending time in the barn might as well just come out and rape the child down the street as the penelty seems pretty much the same to me.

Yep pat yourself on the back at the stiff penelty, heck make it harsher and right up there with murder like oregon. When Oregon made their law it was less sever to strangle a person to death than to commit beastiality. Maby the legleslators need to sit down and chill out and think it through a little bit better and make the punishment fit the crime, or think about if it even is one or something that needs to be addressed.
Reply New Comment

Line

78) what's right [by Anonymous Citizen on February 14, 2006]
looking the other way doesn't make it right

people used to look the other way about all kinds of things

abusing their kids
beating up the wife

none of it is right

it wasn't right then
and it isn't right now
Reply New Comment

Line

79) Revised... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 14, 2006]
Right makes it right, but lets not concern ourselves with that.
Reply New Comment

Line

80) Oregon [by Anonymous Citizen on February 8, 2006]
Umm...the new bestiality law in Oregon is a low-grade misdemeanor only. I think you're referring to the felony animal-cruelty law.
Reply New Comment

Line

81) The OREGON law [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2006]
I tried to find the oregon law search page but no longer have the link.
I am sure the one that was passed with the animal abuse crap a few years ago made it a class c felony and up to 6 years in jail and $100,000 fine plus there is another unrelated law that kicks in and prohibits them from owning animals for 10 or 15 years.

As far s I can tell this package was quietly crammed down the throats of oregonians by a orginazation called itself animal legal defene fund or something like that sponsered by HSUS, most corrupt orginization and staffed by PETA.
After the law went through and enough people were screwed (test cases) they seem to have pulled out but you can be sure there was money exchanging hans and promises to get it through along with the lies.

Seems I smell something similar here. Someone is paying to get this in. Now you gotta ask why. The answer is there and it is full of hidden adgendas.
Reply New Comment

Line

82) Re: OREGON [by Anonymous Citizen on April 3, 2006]
February 15, 2001

The Honorable Peter Courtney, Chair
Senate Judiciary Committee
900 Court Street, N.E.
Salem, OR 97301

Re: Oregon Senate bill 227
Establishing the Crime of Sexual Assault of
an Animal

Dear Senator Courtney:

On behalf of our 4,021 members and supporters who reside in Oregon, I am
writing to express support for Oregon Senate bill 227. As you know, this
legislation will provide for a Class C felony charge for sexual assault
of an animal. Twenty-four states have already enacted laws that prohibit
this loathsome and disturbing practice.

The Doris Day Animal League believes that because sexual activity between humans and animals can never be mutually consensual, any act of
bestiality is animal abuse. The animals involved are often severely injured and sometimes even killed specifically to heighten the human’s sexual arousal.

The sexual abuse of animals is also linked to sexual abuse of women and children. An abusive spouse or parent may sexually abuse a beloved pet
to further control and humiliate his/her human victims.(1)
Research also indicates a connection between animal sexual abuse and other types of violent crimes.(2)

I commend you and the Senate Judiciary Committee for your leadership in
addressing this difficult issue.

Sincerely,
Sara J. Amundson
Deputy Director
Doris Day Animal League
Suite 100
227 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002

References:
(1) Kowal, Loretta. "Recognizing Animal Abuse: What Veterinarians Can
Learn from the Field of Child Abuse and Neglect." Recognizing and

Reporting Animal Abuse: A Veterinarian's Guide, American Humane
Association, 1998.

(2) Ressler, R.K., et. al. "Murderers Who Rape and Mutilate." Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 1: 273-287, 1986.

Reply New Comment

Line

83) Of course, you are completely oblivious to the fact... [by Trangle on April 20, 2006]
That this is Washingtonvotes.org, not oregonvotes.org, and that bill passed years ago.

I wonder how oblivious you are on the issue in question if you really are not aware of that simple fact... Do I dare ask if you've even read any of the arguements here?

I suppose it's no worse than any of the lawmakers though, that's why you guys always win...
Reply New Comment

Line

84) Another stab in the back of our constitutional rights [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2006]
Its discomforting to think that someone can come in and remove ones animals before actual being convicted of anything. Some of us animals earn our income, its a business. I have seen most people will screw someone for a buck and this just makes it easier.

I dont know but I dont want to give up "innocent until proven guilty" to solve a problem that doesn't exist which is what this law is.

Would I stand up and testify for it? No! To some it would say I was messing arround myself.
So the moralists win and we are all loosers.
Reply New Comment

Line

85) Can anyone say BSE? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2006]
Sounds like the BSE scare except this is the state, not the feds.
Reply New Comment

Line

86) 6417 [by Anonymous Citizen on February 8, 2006]
There is one thing missing to make this bill airtight that I think you lawmakers need to address. This is the right to beat a confession out of the accused.
Reply New Comment

Line

87) S.B. 6417 [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2006]
In view of the fact that judges usually tend toward leniency in animal abuse cases and hand down rather light sentences, I believe that the proper punishment for animal abuse should be a sentence of an absolute MINIMUM of 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
A MAXIMUM of 5 years would not be much of a deterrent since the actual sentence would probably be considerably less. Let's put some teeth in the law, publicize it well, and let the violators break the law if they dare.
Reply New Comment

Line

88) Not Abuse [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2006]
Sure, make animal abuse penalties severe. But this law would impose felony penalties for activities that are not abusive. Animal cruelty laws are already on the books. Strengthen them, but don't meddle in people's sexuality.
Reply New Comment

Line

89) disgusting [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2006]
If we as a society aren't willing to legally affirm that bestiality is just plain wrong, then God owes a big apology to Sodom and Gomorrah.
Reply New Comment

Line

90) Definition is the issue [by Anonymous Citizen on November 27, 2006]
one must realize the difference between 'beastiality' and 'zoofillia'. I don't condone beastiality because it can be concidered rape. zoos on the other hand *or paw* are emotionally attatched and CARE about the welfare of the other. *this goes in BOTH directions here!* must say YES to strengthening the laws ALREADY on the books as another said in this thread and leave the 'zoos' alone. it's their privacy.. I don't down others for THEIR paraphillia.

Reply New Comment

Line

91) shemales stories [by Anonymous Citizen on January 31, 2007]
Superb! (I wrote something else and then I read below that I aint supposed ter. So I deleted it.)
Reply New Comment

Line

92) A crule god... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2006]
Not everyone is a christian including me because I think the christian god does own humans a appology for sodem and gomorah and the tower of bable and the crap about the flood and noah and....

Its a crule nasty war monger god and even if it can beat up others, I choose to worship a nicer peacfull goddess who has EARNED my love and devotion, not my fear.
You are like that which you most worship.
Reply New Comment

Line

93) And what - pray tell... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2006]
...would your goddess do if a person or group of persons defiled and *sinned* against her?

What would your goddess do to those who sought and propagated the destruction of the earth and ...the abuse of her treasures and gifts?

...to those who would drown her babies in burlap sacks because they are unwanted, or let their pets breed out of control so as to create a whole industry out of lethal injections to reduce out of control populations?

...to those who poisoned her earth environment with toxic chemicals and insecticides?

I ask you...just how "kind and peaceful" would your goddess be then?
Reply New Comment

Line

94) Knee-Jerk Hypocritical Lawmaking [by Anonymous Citizen on January 28, 2006]
This proposed legislation making bestiality (or even videotaping it) a felony, is not only extreme, but hypocritical and basically the result of a hysterical senator embarassed at what happened in her district.

The fact is, there is no legal basis for this bill to pass. What arguments do you wish to present? Let's take them one at a time:

Consent: Please don't tell me that because an animal can't consent to or request sexual contact with a human (and that point is debatable), that it's OK to make a law prohibiting it. Are you going to outlaw the leather industry? How about making most of the McDonald's menu a felony? Not to mention this bill would still allow breeders to have sexual contact with animals! Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous that it's ok to sexually stimulate an animal for profit but would be illegal if the person enjoyed doing it?

Cruelty: Simply put: animal cruelty laws are already on the books. Yes, sometimes these acts involve cruelty, and I have no problem with strengthening those laws. But, as the case in Enumclaw demonstrated, not all of these incidents (and I would argue, very few) involve cruelty to the animal.

Safety? Forget it. There are far more people injured or killed by riding horses, shoeing horses, and training horses than are ever hurt by sexual contact, but I don't see Senator Roach attempting to illegalize any of those activities.

How about "crossover crime"? Yes, they're actually suggesting that people who have sexual contact with animals are more likely to molest children. Senator Roach and her fans at Pasado Safe Haven like to cite the Diagnostic Statistical Manual because bestiality is in there as a paraphilia. Well perhaps she's forgotten that just a few years ago, homosexuality and bisexuality were in that same book right along next to them. The very suggestion is ludicrous, and if they actually did their homework they would look at several studies which show exactly how ridiculous this type of claim is.

So what's left? Morality. And when the U.S. Supreme Court declared state sodomy laws unconstitutional, it stated decisively that you can not legislate personal morality.

End of story: this bill should be illegal itself. Senator Roach and her co-sponsors need to focus on where the real animal abuse lies and not in making yet more laws to regulate any sexual activity that embarasses her.
Reply New Comment

Line

95) Animal consent [by Anonymous Citizen on June 18, 2006]
Please stay away from nursing homes. While they can't consent - who's to say they didn't really want it from you? And, by the way - why is there a law in place to protect these people? You know, the ones that can't talk or speak? Maybe we should allow people to do that to our great grandparents and other helpless elders.

Having sex is not the same thing as nourishing your body with food. You can nourish yourself sexually, but you can't eat yourself.
Reply New Comment

Line

96) Animal consent [by Anonymous Citizen on June 18, 2006]
Please stay away from nursing homes. While they can't consent - who's to say they didn't really want it from you? And, by the way - why is there a law in place to protect these people? You know, the ones that can't talk or speak? Maybe we should allow people to do that to our great grandparents and other helpless elders.

Having sex is not the same thing as nourishing your body with food. You can nourish yourself sexually, but you can't eat yourself.
Reply New Comment

Line

97) Invalid Comparison... [by Trangle on July 15, 2006]
Animals are much more capable of expressing consent than any of your examples (provided the animal isn't that elderly anyhow). They are also much more capable of defending themselves, making "no" literally painfully obvious. Thus, your comparison is invalid.

When making such a comparison, one must remember animals mate everyday, and communicate their consent through their own methods. Not all communication is verbal. That is a human construct, and does not apply to the animal world. They can make things such as consent very obvious without the use of words. To believe otherwise is to deny the truth.
Reply New Comment

Line

98) Re: Knee-Jerk Hypocritical Lawmaking [by Anonymous Citizen on February 24, 2006]
Thank you for pointing out and reminding people of their hypocrisy.

You are correct. Any reasonable mind should see there is no basis for this bill. After all, this bill was not created in response to -any kind of animal cruelty-. This bill was instead created in response to a knee-jerk reaction to an act that some hysterical hack found offensive.
<