|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Dec 9, 2011 7:40:58 GMT -5
according to Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Bryan Fischer, and other ultra- conservativestupid right wing idiots. It all started last week when the US Senate voted to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Just read the blog. I don't want to spoil the fun for you. ETA: I meant to put this in the P&G forum, but got it here by mistake. Perhaps a mod can boot it over there if so inclined. |
|
|
|
Post by ohjohnno on Dec 9, 2011 9:45:02 GMT -5
BRB joining the military so I have an excuse to fuck the local cat.
|
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Dec 9, 2011 10:52:09 GMT -5
They don't really believe it. They're just using it as an excuse to piss off people dumber than they are.
Right?
|
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Dec 9, 2011 11:08:30 GMT -5
The language Neocons use is weird. It sounds a whole lot like English. But so many of the words they have use different definitions. It makes translating difficult.
|
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 9, 2011 11:13:20 GMT -5
Okay, I know the Republicans are all upons their redundant rules about their various moral outrages. So even if there is something else in the military code that prevents bestiality, they won’t accept it. So what about re-wording it to keep out the bit about gay sex but retain that specific instance of banning bestiality? They’ll still howl about the gay sex bit, but at least it would help deprive them of this bestiality nonsense. Or have they already shouted too loudly and nothing will really stop them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Dec 9, 2011 11:37:15 GMT -5
Okay, I know the Republicans are all upons their redundant rules about their various moral outrages. So even if there is something else in the military code that prevents bestiality, they won’t accept it. So what about re-wording it to keep out the bit about gay sex but retain that specific instance of banning bestiality? They’ll still howl about the gay sex bit, but at least it would help deprive them of this bestiality nonsense. Or have they already shouted too loudly and nothing will really stop them? Yeah, I thought of the same thing. But let's look at this realistically. The rule against homosexuality didn't stop homosexuals in the military from engaging in gay sex, so why would this rule stop someone so inclined from doing bestiality? It isn't. Just because they did away with the rule doesn't mean somebody's going to go, "Hey, they did away with the bestiality rule. I think I'll go fuck a goat (or horse or camel or aardvark, et.al)" unless they were into that and doing it already. For the Repugs to say otherwise is the height of idiocy. And if there are people that actually believe them, then all hope is lost anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 9, 2011 12:11:56 GMT -5
Okay, I know the Republicans are all upons their redundant rules about their various moral outrages. So even if there is something else in the military code that prevents bestiality, they won’t accept it. So what about re-wording it to keep out the bit about gay sex but retain that specific instance of banning bestiality? They’ll still howl about the gay sex bit, but at least it would help deprive them of this bestiality nonsense. Or have they already shouted too loudly and nothing will really stop them? Yeah, I thought of the same thing. But let's look at this realistically. The rule against homosexuality didn't stop homosexuals in the military from engaging in gay sex, so why would this rule stop someone so inclined from doing bestiality? It isn't. Just because they did away with the rule doesn't mean somebody's going to go, "Hey, they did away with the bestiality rule. I think I'll go fuck a goat (or horse or camel or aardvark, et.al)" unless they were into that and doing it already. Well, you can say the same about any rule. Why have rules against murder and rape, since those don’t stop murders and rapes from happening? Right? What the rules do is allow you to apply legal consequences to the people that break them. |
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Dec 9, 2011 12:40:10 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought of the same thing. But let's look at this realistically. The rule against homosexuality didn't stop homosexuals in the military from engaging in gay sex, so why would this rule stop someone so inclined from doing bestiality? It isn't. Just because they did away with the rule doesn't mean somebody's going to go, "Hey, they did away with the bestiality rule. I think I'll go fuck a goat (or horse or camel or aardvark, et.al)" unless they were into that and doing it already. Well, you can say the same about any rule. Why have rules against murder and rape, since those don’t stop murders and rapes from happening? Right? What the rules do is allow you to apply legal consequences to the people that break them. Okay, apparently I didn't make the intent of my previous post clear because you're sort of going in the opposite direction of what I was saying. Simply put, I just don't think you're going to see any rise in instances of bestiality just because this rule has been removed. I would think that there aren't that many people that participate in this type of behavior to begin with, at least I hope not. And removing it certainly isn't going to entice someone that doesn't have the proclivity to screw animals to do it. But this is what it looks like the Repugs are claiming, that removal of this rule is going to cause bestiality to be rampant within the military ranks. I would not under any circumstances suggest that laws and rules are unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 9, 2011 12:56:02 GMT -5
Well, you can say the same about any rule. Why have rules against murder and rape, since those don’t stop murders and rapes from happening? Right? What the rules do is allow you to apply legal consequences to the people that break them. Okay, apparently I didn't make the intent of my previous post clear because you're sort of going in the opposite direction of what I was saying. Simply put, I just don't think you're going to see any rise in instances of bestiality just because this rule has been removed. I would think that there aren't that many people that participate in this type of behavior to begin with, at least I hope not. And removing it certainly isn't going to entice someone that doesn't have the proclivity to screw animals to do it. But this is what it looks like the Repugs are claiming, that removal of this rule is going to cause bestiality to be rampant within the military ranks. Yeah, I’m not suggesting that removing a rule against something necessarily leads to an increase in that something myself. I’m just wondering if leaving certain language in the rules would (1) get the fundies to shut up (unlikely) and (2) be acceptable, even if just for getting the fundies to shut up. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 9, 2011 20:01:39 GMT -5
The level of disconnect that Neocons have is frightening really.
Ironbite-and these people think they repersent America.
|
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Dec 10, 2011 7:34:30 GMT -5
Okay, I know the Republicans are all upons their redundant rules about their various moral outrages. So even if there is something else in the military code that prevents bestiality, they won’t accept it. So what about re-wording it to keep out the bit about gay sex but retain that specific instance of banning bestiality? They’ll still howl about the gay sex bit, but at least it would help deprive them of this bestiality nonsense. Or have they already shouted too loudly and nothing will really stop them? I don't believe that the law ever actually said anything about bestiality, because I don't trust the Republicans any farther than I can throw them anymore. I honestly think that "bestiality" is being used by these people as a synonym for "homosexuality," because they have demonstrated time and time again that that is the sort of thing they do. |
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Dec 10, 2011 8:13:40 GMT -5
Okay, I know the Republicans are all upons their redundant rules about their various moral outrages. So even if there is something else in the military code that prevents bestiality, they won’t accept it. So what about re-wording it to keep out the bit about gay sex but retain that specific instance of banning bestiality? They’ll still howl about the gay sex bit, but at least it would help deprive them of this bestiality nonsense. Or have they already shouted too loudly and nothing will really stop them? I don't believe that the law ever actually said anything about bestiality, because I don't trust the Republicans any farther than I can throw them anymore. I honestly think that "bestiality" is being used by these people as a synonym for "homosexuality," because they have demonstrated time and time again that that is the sort of thing they do. Yes, Article 125 actually did, while not using the word bestiality, mention sex with an animal: It's just that the Repugs know they are losing the battle on gays in the military and are grasping at the one tiny mention of something that is generally considered reprehensible and blowing it way out of proportion. Because to them, if there isn't a law or rule against it, then everybody's going to engage in it. |
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Dec 10, 2011 10:15:09 GMT -5
Not to mention, since we're all part of kingdom Animalia, anyone who has had sex with another human being has technically had sex with an animal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Dec 10, 2011 10:25:22 GMT -5
Not to mention, since we're all part of kingdom Animalia, anyone who has had sex with another human being has technically had sex with an animal. A really bad pun came to mind after reading this concerning sex with animals, splitting hairs, but I won't go there. Oops. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 10, 2011 10:34:36 GMT -5
I'll show them, I'll have sex with a tree instead.  |
|
