Washington Votes Forum

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. If Roach is genuinely concerned about protecting animals, then she would have sought to strengthen existing animal cruelty laws and not muddy the waters with silly laws which are based on personal morality and not scientific fact. The issue of consent often rears its head by those who argue against bestiality. To no surprise, these hypocrites who support this bill have used the consent issue once again. This bill was not created in response to the animal (stallion) not giving his consent. The stallion gave his consent when he plowed balls deep inside the man. But for those who argue that animals cannot give consent, consent is not really the issue. The issue is about legislating an act against two consenting beings because the act is morally distasteful. This is poor law-making. The proof is in the pudding. If consent is really the issue, then those who argue this point would not be so hypocritical as to otherwise completely ignore the issue of consent when it works against their own favor. Somehow standing in line at Mc Donalds consent no longer becomes an issue anymore. Amazing, isn't it?

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. :(

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.

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.

If I rape an infant, will I get a higher sentence then raping an animal?

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.

This denies us equal protection under the law, which is the whole point of legislation like this.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

> 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.

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.

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????

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nice article.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Bestiality is disgusting. I'm glad this law passed.