The state Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing Tuesday on SB 6417 "Prohibiting sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal". The bill offers the following definitions:
"Animal" means every creature, either alive or dead, other than a human being.and
"Sexual contact" means any contact, however slight, between the sex organ or anus of a person and the sex organ, mouth, or anus of an animal, or any intrusion, however slight, of any part of the body of the person into the sex organ or anus of an animal, for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal of the person. Evidence of emission of semen is not required to prove sexual contact.I'm glad they cleared that up, but I guess it still boils down to what the definition of "is" is. Should the bill pass, by the way, Sexual Contact with Livestock will be considered a more serious crime than Theft of Livestock. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 30, 2006 10:34 PM | Email This
REALLY? What about contact between the mouth of a person and the sex organ or anus of an animal?
SB 6417 needs to be amended to eliminate this loophole and bring Democrats to justice.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 30, 2006 11:10 PMBut what do you mean by: "SB 6417 needs to be amended to eliminate this loophole and bring Democrats to justice." How would this bring Democrats to justice?...
On another topic:
For Stephan and fans
WHAT IF THE NON-HUMAN COMPANION WAS A NON-PERSON PRESENTING THEMSELVES AS COMMODITY ALLOTMENT WITHIN A BUSINESS DOCTRINE!!! WOULD THEY THEN FALL UNDER THE DEFFINATION OF SEX CARE PROVIDER??
AND WOULD THE OFFENCE FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE POLICE OR THE AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT???
I GUESS IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO HOW YOU BOVINE...ERRR...I MEAN...DEFINE "IS" !!!
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on January 31, 2006 12:25 AMSeriously, where will it all end? Deviants will push and shove until they destroy any and every semblance of morality and decency in society. This bill is just a crumb to show social conservatives that "even us democrats have a limit".
Go for it, Tim Eyman! Where do I sign?
Posted by: Saltherring on January 31, 2006 05:53 AMYOU ARE AN ANIMAL!
Does that mean I can't have sex anymore?
Posted by: Me on January 31, 2006 07:28 AMPlease stop pimping your blog here. It's the lowest form of threadjacking.
Posted by: jimg on January 31, 2006 08:53 AMSo according to the lib creed, babies in the womb... you know fetuses they claim are not human creatures must therefore be animal creatures.
No wonder they can't get elected.
Randy
lifted from somewhere on the internet: The phrase screw the pooch first came into (public) popularity after the book The Right Stuff came out. The original expression was "f**k the dog" and meant to waste time or loaf on the job. It was military slang.
"F**k the dog" appeared in print for the first time in 1935 and over time the meaning shifted (from wasting time to screwing up badly, as Jim put it) and the "screw the pooch" wording took the place of the original phrase.
If you scan through the comments of any given post at HorsesAss.org, there's a lot of people there who seem to be pretty aroused by be$tiality. Heck, there is one guy who thinks he is a rabbit.
Why do we need a law on this?
Posted by: swatter on January 31, 2006 10:04 AMAnd what about those poor people that go to a friends house and their dogs humps their leg? I guess that is OK since no mouth or anus...but if the dog blows his load then what? That would show sexual contact.
Posted by: Dengle on January 31, 2006 10:13 AMWow !!! Will they now dictate whom we have sex with?
Posted by: Chris on January 31, 2006 11:27 AMNO MORE MESSING AROUND WITH THE HORSES'ASS.ORG!
Posted by: rossi too on January 31, 2006 12:02 PMSince "Animal" means every creature, either alive or dead, other than a human being and the VC or STD known as "crabs" involves a small creature that lives in the pubic zone and feeds through it "mouth?" off the host; anyone with "Crabs" might just be involved with Bes*iality.
Yes, by all means have them reported to the police or have the Doctor loose his/her license for not reporting such crimes.
Bes*iality should be illegal, not stupidity.
Posted by: Bob on January 31, 2006 12:28 PMHow about plants? Don't plants have feelings too? Of course we make a habit of eating the sex organs from most plants anyway, but who is to say what is normal. Stop abusing the sex organ of the apple tree.
Posted by: Huey on January 31, 2006 02:33 PMWe can get IN FRONT of this issue and support the Bes.tia.lity community. After all sooner or later this is going to be fully legal and "mainstreamed" anyway. So why fight the trend. We don't want to seem "behind the times.
Right guys. After all we must get "into the 21st Century".
The Best.iaility people are in play. Let's show some forward thinking on this.
Posted by: Alex on January 31, 2006 02:53 PMApparently you don't read very well. I am NOT in favor of the gay pride bill for the same reasons that Stefan listed.
I'm also against this bill because it's a waste of time. I don't believe people should be having sex with animals, but it's like sodomy, how is anyone going to find out in most of the cases? We've got far more pressing problems like inadequate roads, high taxes, and too many Democrats in power in this state.
So exactly WHO was Goldy threatening with "outing"? I don't think it was the senator that everyone thought it was.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 31, 2006 08:59 PMWashington State is progressive enough to celebrate the sexual love between two men or two women, yet isn't enlightened enough to recognize the special bond that can exist between species??? Quel horrible! Would our politicoe's be more supportive if it were interspecies love within the same sex??? A man and his stallion, a woman and her sow???
Posted by: Cartman on January 31, 2006 09:49 PMDoes this mean that the dog and pony show in Olympia will have to be shut down???
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on February 1, 2006 11:07 AMOh, and my "I love boobies" t-shirt, too (the blue-footed kind).
I mean, how can I prove my love for animals is purely platonic? Especially if someone overhears me drooling for a huge hunk of dripping hot steer meat? Or the way I love-talk to my puppy?
Posted by: Starboardhelm on February 1, 2006 06:01 PMhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/257658_zana31.html?source=mypi
Looks like the “gay civil rights” policy already in effect in King County is going to be costing us taxpayers something in the seven figures in damages to the family of Mohammed-Imad “Dimitri” Harb (who was murdered with Deputy Zana’s gun and King County’s bullets) and to the young man who Deputy Zana’s “domestic partner” handcuffed at gunpoint and anally raped while the deputy was in the apartment.
Unfortunately for King County taxpayers, the Sheriff’s Office felt it could not do anything to discipline or fire Deputy Zana based on his relationship with Bistryski, since Bistryski was his “domestic partner” and they did not want to be viewed as discriminatory:
“The Sheriff’s Office did as much as it could by warning Zana,” said sheriff’s spokesman Sgt. John Urquhart in an e-mail message to the P-I. “There is only so much any employer can do (especially a government employer) to delve into the private life of one of its employees. There is a limit on our authority to control the off-duty relationships of our deputies, like spouses, domestic partners or children. Remember, Chris (Bistryski) wasn’t just a roommate. He was Zana’s domestic partner, much like your wife or girlfriend.”
Records show Bistryski had medical insurance from the county as Zana’s domestic partner.”
I really don’t think much discrimination exists against gay people, and certainly don’t approve of people who discriminate solely based on straight or gay sexual orientation.
But these so-called “gay civil rights” bills really go way too far when they basically prevent employers from firing potential dangerous employees like Ferenc Zana.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 1, 2006 07:04 PM