Netherlands outlaws animal sex
The Dutch Parliament has changed the law, after two years of debate, to make sex with animals a crime.
Previously it was only a crime if the animal was mistreated. How the hell does a court determine that? Call the horse to the dock to testify? Forensic evidence of bruising? Or does it mean no flowers the next day?
I note with amusement that the “Party for the Animals” opposed the Bill. I think they are for the animals in exactly the same way that a country which calls itself a democratic people’s republic, never is.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: bestiality, Netherlands
March 18th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
The fact that we can appalud this change indicates just how far gone ‘liberal’ Dutch society is.
I understand they are also having another look at the prostitution and drugs laws in Amsterdam. Now, some serious reform there would be a cause for celebration.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
well i know one Dime thats cancelling his holiday over there now
March 18th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
“AFTER two years of debate ” Say no more, say no more. Stupid tulips.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
No doubt these guys are already negotiating a lucrative distribution deal.
It seems to be a trend. Australia has a “Liberal” party headed (until recently) by an arch-conservative. NZ has a “Progressive” party headed by an obsolete relic. Perhaps we should (re-)form the NZ Conservative Party, and preach anarchy
March 18th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Maybe the same way we work out if an aminal has been wilfully mistreated under the Animal Welfare Act?
March 18th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
No doubt the socialists will be up in arms about this.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
There goes another sex tourism trip for farmers in the Manawatu-Horowhenua…
March 18th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
That’s terrible news, dime. It’s getting so a man and his donkey can’t go anywhere for a romantic holiday without meeting the ignorant prejudices of the ill-informed.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
What does Basil Brush have to say about this?
March 18th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
llew, do you really have to ask? He says “Boom! Boom!” of course
P
March 18th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
the most important news was not mentioned in the link but was quoted in the dutch newspapers ” two of the biggest disturbitors of aminal sex dvd’s are planning to sue the Dutch government for millions of euro’s because of missed revenue, they estimate that the ban will cost them approx. 100 million euro over the next 10 years”, however this is a translation out “De Telegraaf”, a dutch newspaper close to the same level as the UK’s Sun…..
March 18th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Of course!
March 18th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Anyone would think you are Mr Ed llew , the horse of course – of course!
March 18th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
It would be interesting to know if the Dutch criminal code ever outlawed this in the past. Perhaps in the past it was considered by most people morally unacceptable and this may have been sufficient to contain the moral ‘mischief’. But changing attitudes may have resulted in people doing it quite openly especially to the disgust of owners of animals ‘violated’ in this way.
There was a recent NZ case involving a goat and it was noted that it carries 3 years jail maximum, it used to be life imprisonment years ago.
Presumably some English prosecutor convinced a judge centuries ago that it was a ‘common law’ crime and in the late 19th century was codified into an Act of Parliament in UK and later in NZ when it enacted its own Crimes Act.
There are quite a few people who are surprised to hear it is a crime, but it is, and someone seems to be caught at it every few years.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Outlawing sex with animals? F#@k a duck!
March 18th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
And its a crime why….? If you own the animal or have its owners consent,and the animals not being injured in any way then who cares…? Let dodgy Dutch people do what they want to…
March 18th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
This is good to see, and it’s great to see that the Dutch might be realising after all that unbridled, indiscriminate tolerance and liberalism doesn’t have a reset button. Allowing moral cancers like bestiality & BDSM to enter the sexual mainstream can only lead to complete societal meltdown. ..Slippery slope, thin end of the wedge an all that..polygamy, incest and paedophilia would be next.
Dont believe me ? There are probably some libertines out there ready to condone the actions of these two dysfunctional freaks – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes – because they were consenting adults operating behing closed doors.
Welcome to the mad hatter’s tea party.
[DPF: Bestiality should be illegal as animals can not give consent. Likewise for paedophilia. BDSM and polygamy are done with consenting adults and I don't see how they are moral cancers]
March 18th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
seems that having sex with your friend’s wife is worse than your own horse. nay?
March 18th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Yet noone on this blog would bat an eyelid if you shot the animal and ate it.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
James – I suppose that it was a crime originally as it ‘outraged public morals’ at least from the point of view of those who ran society at the time. Even though some question why it should be a crime, there is no real groundswell of public opinion to repeal this law, and it would seem unlikely tht it would be repealed as a significant cross section of society would consider it repulsive (hey! this is why it is a crime now). Someone could try and launch a referendum petition, but they would probably get the horse-laugh.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
“Call the horse to the dock to testify? “
Well they did in ‘Blackadder the First’ series. Witchsmeller Persuivant (sp?) episode I believe. Great courtroom drama!
March 18th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
It would be interesting to know if the Dutch criminal code ever outlawed this in the past.
On the continent, Bestiality was considered a religious offense rather than a civil one and hence criminal penalties for it were abolished under Napoleon’s influence. The single exception were the German states where they like to regulate everything. As for the argument that it is cruelty to animals because the animal is incapable of giving consent, the argument becomes slightly implausible in the case, for example, of certain shows reportedly popular south of the US border.
Here, there was a case several years back (it might have been at least ten – before [ref]usenet in any case) of someone’s house being burgled and the thieves took a video of an Auckland prostitute having sex with a dog (among other sex films). Upon watching the video (and finished laughing themselves senseless), the thieves tried to blackmail the original owners. The owners went to the police who promptly caught the thieves. They then watched the video and concluded that since no animal cruelty was involved, no charges would be laid (but the tape was still destroyed on the grounds of obscenity). There was a fuss kicked up by somebody in the RSCPA who wanted to watch the film to in order to ascertain that the police were really telling the truth that no cruelty occurred. To which my reaction at the time was “well he would say that, wouldn’t he?”
March 18th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I remember the infamous dog sex tape case – and dear old Bob Kerridge of the SPCA’s wish to view the tape.
At the time it was described in the Herald as featuring “a large cross-bred dog with an Auckland prostitute.”
I did wonder if they’d got that the right way around.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
didnt labour float the idea of making this legal in the late 80′s? same sorta way they floated the idea of lowering the age of consent to 12?
leftists – all victims of some sorta abuse..
March 18th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Frankly animals can give consent as is rather obvious with the predominant form of bestiality which is dogs having intercourse with women – you can’t make a dog do that. I know a woman who when she was young would let the then family dog pleasure her orally, the dog made a dive for “that place” when she was getting changed and she wasn’t going to stop him, yet it is a criminal offence. The point is if it is someone else’s animal, property rights are adequate to treat it as a trespass, if it is cruelty then there are laws against that.
If in NZ animals have to give consent to what people do with them then it is time to give up on the agricultural sector, after all is it more invasive to let a dog fuck a human than it is to hook up machines to cows’ tits everyday and take their milk.
It’s a “yuck” factor, not an objectively defined crime.
Like MikeE said, if you shoot and eat animals that’s ok, but don’t dare have pleasure with its body in a way that doesn’t involve ingesting it!
March 18th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
the Dutch realised they had a problem when you could walk down the streets and see sheep standing in the windows.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
“Like MikeE said, if you shoot and eat animals that’s ok, but don’t dare have pleasure with its body in a way that doesn’t involve ingesting it!”
I’ve shot plenty of pigs and deer, and eaten them. But to equate that with a depraved carnal desire to fuck them ? Are you completely insane? You Uber libertines just don’t get it do you ? … The fundamental concept that humanity is elevated above that of the animal kingdom. We are talking about bestality for fuck sake ! Have you no decency or magnificence ?
March 18th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
I don’t want to have sex with animals Grant, I just don’t see why someone should go to prison because a dog had sex with them. Some people think it is depraved to shoot an animal that doesn’t threaten you. What did it do to you? What depraved desire is there to end an innocent life just because you can? Have you no decency that can let you just be at peace with creatures who did nothing to you?
See I wouldn’t put you in prison for shooting an animal for the pleasure of it. I eat meat, but I hardly think it is something brave to go out shooting animals for pleasure, it’s rather sick in fact.
Like it said, it’s the “yuck” factor. That’s all it is. You can’t get over the fact you don’t like it, but it is someone more glorious to send someone to prison for it.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
DPF says. “Bestiality should be illegal as animals can not give consent.”
What evidence do you have to support that?
[DPF: Woof woof]
March 18th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Grant S says:
That that list can be reeled off in the same breath (let alone mentions of cannibalism, which of necessity is prefaced by murder) shows why the credibility of the conservative right has been reduced to almost non-existent. Does it really need to be explained that BDSM and polygamy are harmless (well okay the masochist might not think so but you know what I mean…)
As libertyscott somewhat colourfully points out, not all forms of bestiality are forced upon an animal and therefore it could be argued that only animal welfare considerations need concern the law. Even what is broadly termed incest (between, say, adult cousins) is arguably not the purview of law. That’s not to say it’s something that ought to be promoted or even widely accepted, it’s just I’d prefer not to have a bunch of (flawed, as Eliot Spitzer has reproven of late) lawmakers getting on their high horses (no pun intended) and deciding what consenting people can do with one another.
It’s one thing for society to say “eeew, don’t do that, and if you do, we won’t accept you” and another entirely to say “get thee to a penitentiary”.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
“Like it said, it’s the “yuck” factor. That’s all it is. You can’t get over the fact you don’t like it, but it is someone more glorious to send someone to prison for it”
You eat meat, but as long as someone else kills it, and not you, it’s OK – copout. Lets face it, it would be funny, just maybe if it wasn’t so heartachingly tragic, that there are people out there who are so dysfunctional as human beings that they’d prefer to have a relationship with an animal – oops, forgive my slip into political correctness – rape an animal, than forge a relationship with a fellow human being.
“As libertyscott somewhat colourfully points out, not all forms of bestiality are forced upon an animal and therefore it could be argued that only animal welfare considerations need concern the law”
Once again, oleaginous moral relativism at play. The Nazis at Nuremberg argued that they were only acting out what was legal unger Nazi law. Doesn’t mean it was right though. And therein lies the problem – People like you lack objective morality.
..And just in case you still don’t get it, we’re talking about a human beings raping animals. What the fuck has happened to your moral compasses. It’s WRONG for fuck sake, dare to make a judgement like I do.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
“That that list can be reeled off in the same breath (let alone mentions of cannibalism, which of necessity is prefaced by murder) shows why the credibility of the conservative right has been reduced to almost non-existent.”
You Uber-libs would’nt know what the “conservative right” was if they bit you in the arse. You Libs are totally useless as a political force (which is why you can only muster 1000 votes in a general election BTW); you’re all to concerned with carving out a political niche for yourselves by shitting on conservatives.
Shit, I have to wonder who are worse, Liberty Scott & Rex Widerstrom vs phil U & Paul – at least Phil & Paul don’t attempt to sell their potential allies down the river, they don’t have an inner struggle with ideological purity like UberLibs do.
No wonder why the West is lost.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Why should consensual bestiality be illegal?
March 18th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
“Now, some serious reform there would be a cause for celebration”
Yeah the Dutch having a smoke and a trip to a hooker is a big issue and concern for Kiwis.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Grant, you’re so evasive you should be in a slalom. Change the topic and avoid the central issue.
The cases I outlined are not by any stretch of the imagination rape – a dog enjoying giving oral pleasure to a woman, or choosing to hump a woman. You’re talking about murdering animals. You can’t evade this. Would you rather be a dog shot or a dog that humps a woman?
I’m not arguing to ban eating meat, but you’re arguing that it is worse to let an animal have sex with a human being than it is to eviscerate it and ingest its flesh – that’s laughably ridiculous.
Grant, you want the woman I know to go to prison because she let her dog give her pleasure orally every day for some years. Go on admit it, you think that is worse for the animal than if you got a gun and shot it. Truly bizarre.
I also don’t give a damn about whether conservatives are offended by me or not. I am not one. I don’t like those who sat back and did nothing while men were imprisoned for consensual sexual acts, or who cheer on the censorship of sexual material involving consensual adults, or cheer on the imprisonment of peaceful people smoking cannabis on their own property. Leave peaceful people and their bodies alone. Funnily enough some on the left understand that better than conservatives.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:04 am
“. . . the Dutch having a smoke and a trip to a hooker is a big issue and concern for Kiwis.”
You bet. Helen Clark should be tried for treason eh.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:28 am
“You can’t evade this. Would you rather be a dog shot or a dog that humps a woman?”
Firstly, I’m not a dog, but if I was, I’d go for the woman. Hang on, I’m falling into the trap of moral relativism now; I just think bestiality is sick, and should in no way be legitimised, women who do this need psychological help.
“I’m not arguing to ban eating meat, but you’re arguing that it is worse to let an animal have sex with a human being than it is to eviscerate it and ingest its flesh – that’s laughably ridiculous”
I’m sure the slaughter vs raping numbers don’t correlate. You think it’s a plausable argument, but that’s because your ‘argument’ lacks proportion & relevance. PPCS Finegand in Balclutha alone probably knocked off 12000 sheep today – on day shift, how many ruminants have you and all of humanity porked today in order to balance the equation? Get a handle FFS.
“Grant, you want the woman I know to go to prison because she let her dog give her pleasure orally every day for some years. Go on admit it, you think that is worse for the animal than if you got a gun and shot it. Truly bizarre”
Remind me again, where did I ever made that claim ? I’ll I’ve stated is that I believe bestiality is a moral cancer. That is my claim. Don’t you libertines ever get sick of pretending to embrace ‘freedom of expression”, ‘liberty’& “individualism” whilst having to maintain strict doctrinal subservience to presubscribed, politically correct social codes?
“Leave peaceful people and their bodies alone. Funnily enough some on the left understand that better than conservatives.”
Leave animals out of all human sexuality you warped freak. Funny how you make the distinction between dogs licking fannys vs animals getting butt raped. Once again, desensitization & relativism.
Clearly, I’m still sitting at the mad hatters tea party !
March 19th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Not banning something doesn’t “legitimise” it, you can eat cigarette butts, get any part of your body pierced, drink urine (from any creature), do all sorts of things that are legal, but the state has no view on it. It’s called freedom, it’s called leaving peaceful people alone. You can argue women who do this need psychological help, but you want them in prison – nice.
By the way I haven’t porked ruminants or ever wanted to, and I don’t see why killing lots of sheep makes it ok to imprison human beings who have sexual contact with animals.
I am not pretending to embrace freedom, there is no subservience to letting peaceful people do as they wish as long as they do not harm others. You clearly DO want criminal charges and prison sentences for those who engage in sexual contact with animals by the whole tone of the thread.
I’m not the warped freak, I’m just an adult who objectively sees what different people do with animals. Some keep them as pets, some kill them for pleasure, some eat them, some have sex with them passively or actively, some hurt and harm them. I don’t have any time for those who inflict cruelty upon them, but I don’t know why you think you know what’s best for human sexuality.
The law at the moment makes it a crime for dogs to “lick fannys” as well as sodomising cattle or the like. I’d argue that any cases of sexual contact that are cruel should not be allowed for the same reason we dont let people torture animals. So raping any animal smaller than a human isn’t on, but passive activity is.
My concern over animals is cruelty and property rights. You decide what you do with your animals as long as you are not cruel with them – the criminal law has no business policing sexual activities purely because they are “yuck”.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:03 am
“You clearly DO want criminal charges and prison sentences for those who engage in sexual contact with animals by the whole tone of the thread”
I’ve never said that. In fact, DO I HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT AGAIN ? I HAVE STATED THAT IT IS MORALLY WRONG FOR HUMANS TO ENGAGE IN ANY FORM OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH ANIMALS… and people who do it need psychological help. Take a look.. your condoning bestiality, and by doing that, earmarking it a a bonafide form of human sexual expression, whereas I’ll say it’s not, I believe it is completely repugnant.
As I said earlier, it is tragic that there are people out there in our society who are so dysfunctional as human beings that they’d rather (and am expanding on your euphemisms) masturbate or have cunnilingus with animals, than forge normal, healthy relationships with fellow humans.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:06 am
I’m not condoning it, I just don’t think it is a matter for the criminal law.
Presumably you would support it being legalised. If not, then you support the status quo which is for people to be imprisoned for it.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Paul:
Yes, drug abuse and prostitution are a concern for Kiwis and, I should imagine, for anybody with a sense of what is right and what is wrong. I’m suggesting drug abuse and prostitution are the latter.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:51 am
The only reason this discussion can take place is because no one is interested in morals they can’t decide for themselves anymore. People are happy with the concept that there is no one or no thing more powerful than the ego. That’s the liberal way. As someone said earlier: Have you no moral compass?
March 19th, 2008 at 8:04 am
No that’s the moral relativist way, the liberal way is that human beings have the right to do as they wish with their own bodies and property, as long as they respect the same in others. That’s a moral compass – do not inflict force or fraud upon other adults. Like I said, I don’t condone bestiality, I simply think it is not for the criminal law to be involved, or should it be a crime to commit adultery, or a crime to lie or a crime to insult someone? None can be condoned, but they are not matters for the law.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Well this thread is an eye opener isn’t it.
Who knew so many police officers were commenting on DPF’s site.
Put the chooks down you freaks.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Don’t quite agree, DPF. It’s about rights, not consent, although the two are related. As children will eventually evolve to a point where they can consent, they possess a gradated set of rights, realizing in a full set upon adulthood. Because an animal will never be capable of consent in any rational sense, it does not have the same set of rights. The ethical/political paradigm that permits us to butcher them, force them into labour, or “enslave” them as pets cannot then say we can’t have sex with them. Animals either have rights or they don’t. (They don’t.) That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t treat them humanely and kindly, but those are moral issues, not legal ones.
Usual tiresome but evidently necessary disclaimer: I have no desire to have sex with animals.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I suspected we would get to this — what’s wrong with sex with animals anyway? DPF says it’s all about consent. Presumably that means if the animal consents then it’s okay? I guess he is making the distinction between consensual sex with an animal and rape of an animal?? Unfortunately consent means that there is really no moral barrier. If the animal consented presumably that is okay. I guess that means if the 12-year-old consented that is okay as well? Now you might argue that but it is now an argument that would be debatable. Whereas previously it was seen as shocking and unthinkable. Because once upon a time in the not so distant past we believed in the 10 Commandments. That enabled us to have a decent and law-abiding society.
It is incredibly sad in my opinion how well educated people have no moral sense and condone evil and depravity shamelessly.
To me it shows the utter depravity of mankind without God.
Once you decide there is no God then there is no moral law that is objective and binding for everyone. As the Bible says “everyone does what is right in their own eyes.”
So what we have are people with no moral compass whatsoever. They live their lives entirely without God doing whatever they think is okay. Is it any wonder that our society is going backwards?
March 19th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Bestiality should be illegal as animals can not give consent.
Does that mean that eating meat should also be illegal, as animals also cannot give consent to be killed and eaten?
March 19th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Unbelievable comment Danyl. What can one say about you.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:25 am
The other supposition that needs to be accepted for this discussion to happen it that sex is no more than a physical act.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Danyl hits the nail on the head again. DPF states that it is wrong for people to have sex with animals as they cannot consent. Does this mean that he thinks it is wrong for us to do all the things that we do to animals when they cannot consent. They cannot consent to being eaten (and presumably would not consent) so therefore it is wrong for us to eat them. Logically this makes sense, but something tells me that DPF is willing to make an exception when his stomach is involved in the equation.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:29 am
“So what we have are people with no moral compass whatsoever. They live their lives entirely without God doing whatever they think is okay”
Once you bring god or religion into the equation you cannot imply that one man’s immoral actions have no effect on the larger group.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:36 am
If you eat meat you could be said to be following an edict from a christian god, who after “the great flood” allowed man to eat animals. According to the christian god, animals will do what he says, they are lesser beings than humans. His consent is their consent. They will always give consent and always have since the story of Noah and the ark.
Making up a pick n choose unofficial philosophy of animals that have human consciouness and personal will, mixed with christianity and any other liberal idea you can muster to defend a point, may confuse you.
Just because you can fold two modern ideas together does not mean they have any value.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Do radar and Danyl share the same thick glass lens? Talk about a couple of nerdy wallies.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Once you bring god or religion into the equation then the secular state is gone, and those who don’t believe in the chosen religion get oppressed in one way or another ala Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. Frankly few things are more nauseating than the string of religious people who think them and their kind are morally superior – how many Graham Capills in their midst has to convince them there is nothing special about having a religion? Get over yourselves. There are millions and millions of atheists who don’t steal, murder, rape, molest kids or defraud people. In the golden age when “people followed the 10 commandments” there was much that was good, but women who were beaten up by their husbands had a Police that ignored them, women who cried rape were often never believed, kids molested by parents were often never believed. You don’t want to have been a woman or of an ethnic minority trying to get ahead, because sexism and racism were de riguer.
Scott you make a bizarre comment that “Unfortunately consent means that there is really no moral barrier”. Ok so if I punch your lights out vs if we were boxing that isn’t a line?
You, like most of the self-appointed moral guardians on here try to divert the issue from the central point by raising strawmen like children (who may nominally consent but don’t understand the nature and consequences of what they consent to so are deemed not to be able to consent).
Should adults be imprisoned for sexual activity with an animal that isn’t cruel? If so why and what other activities would you imprison people for?
Having something legal doesn’t mean it is endorsed – it is legal to do millions of rather distasteful things, but doesn’t mean it is endorsed. It’s called freedom funnily enough.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:34 am
LibertyScott I do not agree with you in so many areas that is hard to know where to begin. If being a moral guardian means that I abhor bestiality and try and warn people of the consequences then so be it. You yourself are being a moral guardian by saying that it is okay. One of us is wrong and I daresay it is you. I am arguing for decency and you are arguing for bestiality.
The attitude towards religion is typical. In fact it is Christianity that gives us freedom. Otherwise we are imprisoned by sin and do horrible things with our bodies — such as contemplating sex with animals.
Everyone is appalled by what Graham Capill did. However he is condemned because of hypocrisy and because he violated God’s commands by interfering with children. Jesus warned strictly about this — ” MT 18:5 “And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
A final comment about freedom. In a world without a moral compass there is no freedom. In fact today we have more rules and regulations and less freedom simply because we just do not know how to behave. 50 years ago we were guided by 10 rules — the 10 Commandments. We had less police, much less crime and much less violence. That is because we had God’s law in our hearts. At the moment we have more rules. Those who do not have the law within will have it imposed from without.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Someone is always oppressed, or thinks they are. Choose: Religious state, Secular state, State run by athetists. One type wants the other gone. If I find one liberal that is a criminal, does that mean that no liberal is worthy of respect based on that one man? And if I find a thousand criminal liberals can I match them up against christians who did wrong and start tick sheet style evaluation to see which philosophy wins?
Turn emotions off, engage brain.
“Frankly few things are more nauseating than the string of religious people who think them and their kind are morally superior”
you can replace “religious people” with “self righteous people” and expose the hypocrisy of the statement.
“In the golden age when “people followed the 10 commandments” there was much that was good, but women who were beaten up by their husbands had a Police that ignored them, women who cried rape were often never believed, kids molested by parents were often never believed. You don’t want to have been a woman or of an ethnic minority trying to get ahead, because sexism and racism were de riguer.”
Hmm. Were woman concerned with geting ahead in the golden age, or do you own a time machine? Nothing is more halarious than over emotional liberals projecting modern concepts onto ancient man. Very funny.
“Should adults be imprisoned for sexual activity with an animal that isn’t cruel? If so why and what other activities would you imprison people for?”
If you have to ask why, either you don’t know or are ignoring it so you don’t have to change your flawed philosophy.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am
If you eat meat you could be said to be following an edict from a christian god, who after “the great flood” allowed man to eat animals.
Deciding that your God says its okay to eat animals doesn’t really progress the debate. Someone else can just announce that THEIR God (eg Brahma) doesn’t want us to eat animals (like, say, Cows). Some other sect might decide that their God specifically told them to have sex with animals.
Drafting laws based on the instructions of people’s invisible friends is not a very sound way to proceed.
Just for the record, I like eating meat and don’t want to have sex with animals – I’m just curious to see if anyone can come up with any compelling moral or logical reasons why we should do one and not the other.
Deciding that animal sex is disgusting is not an acceptable argument. Many vegetarians consider the consumption of meat disgusting. And I think the idea of very elderly people having sex is disgusting but that doesn’t mean it should be outlawed.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Scott: I don’t care if people engage in bestiality or not, unless it is an animal I own. You’re far too patronising, imprisoned by your own religion to think that people can be good without holding your beliefs in the supernatural.
You don’t need religion to know that Capill was immoral, he was immoral because he inflicted force and fraud upon a child unable to understand the nature and consequences of what was going on. That is immoral because if you value life (which rationally must be the highest value as everything else depends upon it), then the initiation of force and fraud is the antithesis of that. It is a complete nonsense that a moral compass can’t exist without religion. I have one – you might think imprisoning people for sexual contact with animals is really important, i happen to think initiating force against another human being is what the criminal law is about.
“50 years ago we were guided by 10 rules — the 10 Commandments. We had less police, much less crime and much less violence. That is because we had God’s law in our hearts” Well yes, you’re probably right in many cases – yet how do you explain how much more prevalent domestic violence was then, or how children who were abused in institutions were not listened to or believed? How do you explain the incarceration of gay men for consensual sex? (sorry i forgot you like owning other people’s bodies, you cheered that one on I am sure).
What gives you any right to decide what people do with their own bodies, as long as they respect the same in others or their property?
March 19th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Goodgod: Ok, let’s make it easy for you. Would you imprison my friend because she let, as one put it, a dog lick her fanny, repeatedly? Don’t evade like others have with examples of cruelty. She committed a crime, should she have gone to prison for it? In fact while we’re at it, if a farmer is caught porking his cow, should he serve a year in prison?
I tend to find a secular state oppresses no one, as it is neutral on whether you believe in ghosts and which ones – leaving everyone to choose for themselves – but setting rational rules of human interaction that protect us all from each other hitting, raping, murdering, stealing and defrauding each other. States based on religion set rules based on what those who believe in those ghosts think people should do, not caring a jot that they ban or compel those who believe in other ghosts or don’t believe in ghosts to do what they think.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Scott, you speak about “freedom from sin” in the same way that the left argues for “freedom from poverty” or “freedom from ignorance”. This invariably becomes a rationalization for any kind of legislation or government program that tramples more fundamental rights (property in the case of the left, liberty in the case of the conservative right.) To be meaningful, freedom can’t be defined so broadly.
I agree that we need some form of moral compass, but religion, with its primacy of faith over evidence, seems a very poor one.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Bugger – I’d book a trip over there too. I’ll have to hurry………….
March 19th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Liberty Scott — I do not agree with the point about domestic violence being more prevalent 50 years ago. Domestic violence is huge right now — I would be interested in police statistics because I understand they spend a huge amount of time on it. Children being abused in institutions is awful and whether it happens now or 50 years ago it is wrong — I think we have agreement on that. I have no comment to make about gay men being incarcerated — apart from my understanding that generally the law over the last decades before 1986 has been to turn a blind eye to homosexuality.
I think I understand this comment — “What gives you any right to decide what people do with their own bodies, as long as they respect the same in others or their property?” But the problem is you have been arguing that sex with animals is okay and I am arguing that it is not. And given that it is a crime and given that the vast majority of people think its abhorrent then the onus is on you to prove that it’s okay. I am arguing for the status quo — it’s you that is arguing for a redefining of depravity as good.
However the crux of your argument appears to be that morality can exist without religion. Indeed Graham Capill is a good moral case to try out this theory. He inflicted force and fraud — we agree on that. I have attempted to show that what he did was a violation of Christianity. We know that Jesus loved the little children and how many adults still tearfully remember that wonderful old song “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so. Little ones to him belong, they are weak but he is strong. Yes Jesus loves me…”
However sadly without Christianity and without God there is only atheism which gives us little moral guidance. Indeed using atheism as our guiding principle who can say that force is wrong? An atheist believes in evolution and evolution, if it is about anything, is about the survival of the fittest. The strong survive and reproduce, the weak die out.
I’m sorry but arguing from atheism is not a good way to convincingly argue morality.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Scott: Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of a belief in ghosts. You are right, by and of itself it does not form a basis for morality. However, reason does.
It goes like this. Without life, nothing else matters for human beings, therefore the precondition for all other values (and everything) is life. The highest value should therefore be life. In order to sustain life human beings must apply their minds to the environment, this is to do everything from the simple such as catching fish, hunting, seeking out fruit, growing crops, building or seeking shelter, building weapons to protect from aggressors. Without reason, human beings will die. If reason is applied, human beings can apply their minds to the environment and can create, innovate, discover why and how things happen and can plan around nature, and change nature. They can grow more food, build better shelters, fight diseases, create clothing to protect from sun, wind and rain. Failing to apply reason risks death.
So if the highest value is life, reason is needed to survive, extend and enhance life. Ultimately the application of reason means that the sustenance of life becomes so easy that there is leisure time and more time to further enhance life. Part of this is human interaction, as people can specialise and combine their talents and what they learn, it is to their mutual benefit. This is all the application of reason. Argument, debate and discussion is also the application of reason – using the mind to resolve disputes and learn and debate ideas, theories and concepts.
However, the use of force is the antithesis of this. Force denies the brain, it is the tool of the animal or the brute that cannot or refuses to understand. Force states that another human being or whatever that person produces can be used and taken over for your benefit – which of course is self defeating. Those who purely employ force against other humans to survive will either kill off those who produce or enslave them, heavily reducing their ability and incentive to produce or innovate. So the only answer to force is self defence. Force produces nothing, it destroys and confiscates. By contrast, human beings interacting voluntarily are free to innovate, produce, create and enjoy life – when leisure exists they create art, music, sport, literature. They form social attachments which are, of course, most valuable when mutual.
So from this, reason and the value of life, the initiation of force, and its corollary fraud (which is force with delayed impact) is morally repugnant because it is anti-reason and anti-life. Violence is abhorrent because it is by its nature destructive, and is only legitimate in response to violence – in self defence against an aggressor.
You say it is my obligation to assert that sex with animals is ok because it is currently illegal. It is NOT the obligation of a person in a free society to argue why what they do is ok and should be allowed, but the obligation of someone to say something is NOT ok and shouldn’t be allowed. Why is it ok for you to eat shellfish? the Bible says it is not.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I feel it important to point out the obvious here – that the post is not about the morality of bestiality, but the legality of it. It is fine for Scott to believe bestiality is morally wrong – he has asserted that at length. What he has not done is argued why it should be illegal and/or an imprisonable offence.
As a Christian myself, I find it very odd to argue that because something is sinful, it should also necessarily be illegal. Just because we have a spiritual law to adhere to, it doesn’t necessarily mean that this should form the basis of any temporal law.
I have faith that at the end of the world God will judge the living and the dead. That seems plenty punishment enough for anybody. For a Christian therefore, when we discuss earthly laws and judgements, it is pointless to assume the place of God in judging our peers. To paraphrase Jesus, the law was made for man, not man for the law. Bestiality therefore becomes a practical issue – does it hurt or harm anyone other than the pervert themselves? If the answer is no, then we have no business making a law against it when God’s law is entirely sufficient.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
“I’m just curious to see if anyone can come up with any compelling moral or logical reasons why we should do one and not the other.”
People don’t need to eat meat. Slaughter is cruel – cutting the throat, factory farming practices etc. Therefore, we can avoid cruelty by not engaging in the eating of meat. How’s that? That’s the reason I am a vegetarian. If we can avoid cruelty, we should.
“Bestiality therefore becomes a practical issue – does it hurt or harm anyone other than the pervert themselves? If the answer is no, then we have no business making a law against it when God’s law is entirely sufficient.”
It hurts or harms the perverts family through massive public shame. Presumably being raped would hurt the animal, physically and psychologically. Cruelty to animals is illegal (usually) so raping an animal would come under this law. Further, it is never enough to rely on what God might say about something, because not everyone believes in your invisible, imaginary, God.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Well then radar, if that’s the case then why not treat it as animal cruelty rather than a sexual crime?
And are you really arguing that family shame should be grounds for making something illegal? At that rate we’ll be arresting every Jewish male who fails the bar exam.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
radar you dropkick, how will halal slaughtermen get on under your insane ideology?
March 19th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
“Well then radar, if that’s the case then why not treat it as animal cruelty rather than a sexual crime?”
That’s what it should be. Animal cruelty.
“And are you really arguing that family shame should be grounds for making something illegal?”
No. You asked how it harms anyone but the pervert. I was answering your question.
“radar you dropkick, how will halal slaughtermen get on under your insane ideology?”
They won’t, which is the idea. And kosher slaughtermen can join them on the unemployment line as well. Hooray.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Thanks Liberty Scott for your post. I guess your argument rests on the ability of human reason to provide an adequate moral framework in and of itself. The trouble is when human reason has been applied over the years it has been found sadly lacking. Without the constraints of Christianity Western civilisation has often gone off the rails — communism in the soviet union, the Nazis in Germany are only two of the most recent examples.
At the moment you are arguing that bestiality is okay and reasonable. I am arguing that it is unreasonable and perverse. I do not agree that given two millennia of Western civilisation, the witness of the Bible and humanities instinctive understanding of sex with animals as perverse that the onus is on me. The onus is on you to argue why bestiality is okay. You are the one upsetting the status quo. You are the one wanting to make one more perversion okay.
However if I cannot convince you then I suggest that over the next week or two you discuss this with your friends and family. Convince them that bestiality is okay.
If they think it is perverse then it may be you might like to change your view.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
In reply to Blair M — as a practising Christian you must understand that the law comes from somewhere. Previously, in the not so distant past, the laws of the land were based on the 10 Commandments. At the end of the day the law will always be based on something. In the Soviet Union the law was based on atheism and communism. Currently in New Zealand our laws are departing from the Christian base that served us so well. The current ideological base of our laws seems to be feminism, radical Marxism, practical atheism and secular humanism. Probably also gay liberation.
So some religious position or another will always inform our laws — it depends which one. As a Christian I think you should stick up for Christianity. In this particular case to say that bestiality is okay as a legal position is clearly against God’s plan for our lives. Religion is the basis of morality, morality is the basis of the law.
Yes I agree that those who engage in the practice of bestiality will be judged at the end of time. However it is no good for us Christians to imply in any shape or form that the practice is okay.
Are we not just encouraging people to sin? How can we have a prophetic voice in the nation if we say, it doesn’t matter what the law is?
March 19th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
As a Christian I think you should stick up for Christianity. In this particular case to say that bestiality is okay as a legal position is clearly against God’s plan for our lives.
Scott, that is complete nonsense. Christian faith is a basis for personal governance, not an excuse to play God with the lives of others. Christianity teaches salvation by faith, not by force of law.
Putting someone in prison for a victimless crime just because you (or God) finds it personally distasteful is not part of God’s plan for anybody’s life.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
BlairM:
It’s refreshing to meet a Christian who appreciates the difference, Blair. Frankly, people like Grant S, who expect us all to bow down before a law which is congruent with his religious beliefs, would presumably be happier living under the Taliban (assuming they all converted to Christianity of course) since spirtual law enforced in a temporal court is exactly what they support.
And for your information, Grant S, I have a steady moral compass (if I didn’t, for one thing I’d've have kept my mouth shut and been carried into Parliament in 1996) it just happens to chart a different course to yours. I see defending the right of people not to be imprisoned for doing no harm whatsoever as objectively moral and even courageous, since when someone like libertyscott makes a point they’re inevitably pilloried (a particularly apt term under the circumstances) as a “warped freak” by people like yourself.
In the past, the churches’ pursuit of heretics whose only sin was to chart a different moral course and/or refuse to accept doctrine as law led to burnings and disembowelings. This debate is a reminder of how little many self-professed Christians have developed from those times. It’s a relief to know that when you start the flames start licking round my boots, at least Blair and a few others might be in the crowd saying a prayer for my soul
Oh and Scott? MT 18:5 might well imply a protective attitude to children. But I’d also direct your attention to Exodus 21:7-11 NLT:
So polygamy’s okay… and I don’t see anything there about an age limit on the daughter, either. Unfortunately Leviticus explicitly forbids bestiality, but if dime can’t take his donkey on a honeymoon perhaps you could point him to the nearest slave auction?
March 20th, 2008 at 8:06 am
“Frankly, people like Grant S, who expect us all to bow down before a law which is congruent with his religious beliefs, would presumably be happier living under the Taliban (assuming they all converted to Christianity of course)”
Bollocks. Arrogant and presumptuous on your part Rex. I’m not a Christian for starters, and even if I was, why would it matter? Check out the comments thread kiddo, it’s you who’s been banging on about God, jail and the Taliban, not me. I’m simply prepared to make a judgement of what I believe to be right & wrong based solely on my own gut instinct, that is all, and I’m happy to say it. If 40 years of turgid social engineering and exposure to post-modernist poison has precluded you from being able to make such a distinction that’s scarcely my problem. Your automatic association of the word “morality” with some phantom Christian dogma is clear evidence of that !
Answer me this, at what point along the continuum does indiscriminate tolerance be come void, if at all ? For example, how do you see the Armin Miewes case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes , because it happened behing closed doors, and they both consented, is what they did wrong ? Or was it merely a form of voluntary euthanasia or extreme BDSM, and therefore perfectly legitimate behavior – or at the very least behavior that we shouldn’t ‘judge’?
March 20th, 2008 at 8:25 am
In reply to BlairM — it is you my friend that is wrong. After discussion about the law and the spirit which I understand — but I understand it is also a fine theological discussion that make sense to Christians but probably doesn’t make sense to many others on this forum. You then go on to make your own value judgement from your own head, namely “Bestiality therefore becomes a practical issue – does it hurt or harm anyone other than the pervert themselves? If the answer is no, then we have no business making a law against it when God’s law is entirely sufficient.”
Dare I suggest you need to integrate your Christianity a bit more? God is the God of the whole earth and the God of all creation and he will judge everybody. Therefore it is not right for us to lead people into sin. Many people today take their moral guidance from the law of the land. If bestiality is made legal then they will think it is okay. Once again it is not okay — it is perverse and sinful.
However if you do not believe me then I suggest you go to your pastor and elders and say to them, “I think bestiality should be legal because it doesn’t hurt anybody else, what do you think?”
I suspect you may not hear an answer for a moment or two. The only sound will be that of jaws dropping.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:50 am
In reply to Rex Widerstrom — even the devil can quote the Bible for his own purposes. To interpret the Bible correctly what you need is a willingness to follow God’s plan for your life and the in filling of the holy spirit. Otherwise it just becomes a book for meaningless argumentation .
However this time I will play your game. With relation to polygamy God’s original plan was one man and one woman for life — Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was a blueprint for God’s good creation. However, after the fall of mankind it seems that God did at least tolerate polygamy in the Old Testament.
Now without having made an in-depth study of the subject, monogamy became the rule following the New Testament revelation. Particularly pertinent are rules about Elders being the husband of but one wife, for example — 1 Titus 3:1 ” Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer (elder), he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.”
With regard to your quote from Exodus — the more authoritative NIV translation reads thus — ” EX 21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.”
The point about polygamy I think I have dealt with. The point about the daughter being underage — I don’t see how you can get that from the above verses? But I would imagine that in ancient Israel interfering with children would be unthinkable.
In relation to your point about slavery — the above verses mitigate what was a universal practice in the ancient world. The girl sold as a servant is being granted the rights of a daughter.
We also know, and the film Amazing Grace shows this rather well,it was under the guidance of Christians such as William Wilberforce in the 19th century that slavery was finally abolished in the Western world.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:13 am
BBBEEEEPPPPPPP Too many words Scott. No ones reading them.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Dear Scott, you are still confusing morality with legality. Nobody is saying bestiality is “okay”. Gluttony is a sin too, but we don’t put people in prison for eating too much. Why is that Scott? Why do you think that is? I don’t hear you advocating prison sentences for overindulgence. Come on, Scott, be consistent.
I can only conclude that you believe either a) some sins are worse than others, or b) every sin should be punished by an earthly court of law. Neither seem particularly theologically defensible. God gave us brains to work these things out for ourselves and we should use them instead of seeking insight by rolling around on a church floor barking like a dog.