Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dsarker]

Don't bother coming here. Might want to try Spain, though.

[SalmonGod]

Gawker's 20 Things You Should Know About the Bill That Could Ruin America

[nenjin]

This whole situation is messed up, but this takes it to Defcon WTF.

I'm not sure how this fits in with the moral right's philosophy, but someone had better make the most convincing "small government" speech ever to justify why that provision has been struck.

[SalmonGod]

This whole situation is messed up, but this takes it to Defcon WTF.

I'm not sure how this fits in with the moral right's philosophy, but someone had better make the most convincing "small government" speech ever to justify why that provision has been struck.

What I see here, based purely on this article.

They got rid of a paragraph criminalizing sodomy.  The same paragraph defined sodomy as any form of sexual act between people of the same sex or sex with an animal.  So in removing a law persecuting gays, they also happened to remove some verbage which equated them with bestiality.  Now people are saying "Look!  They're saying sex with animals is ok!", when in fact they're saying that same-sex same-species relations are simply not criminal, and a completely new provision would have to be written in order to redefine and criminalize bestiality specifically.  What's sick here is that people are abusing legal verbage to twist people's sensibilities into defending a law criminalizing homosexuality.

[nenjin]

That seems like an awfully convoluted legislative plot. Strike one law to allow you to write two new ones? Would seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Also, why strike a law that ostensibly does exactly what they want it to, criminalize sodomy and bestiality?

[SalmonGod]

The provision was probably written in a much older cultural climate, where the two things were seen as roughly the same level of taboo.  Today they're not.  Since the law identifies the two completely different acts as identical, sharing one term (sodomy), and equally criminalized, you can't just strike out the part that criminalizes homosexuality and leave in the part that criminalizes bestiality.  You have to repeal the law and write a new one if you really think there's some epidemic of bestiality in the military that needs to be stopped because it's not so taboo that being caught at it might as well amount to suicide.

The unfortunate side effect is that homophobes with a hidden agenda can now get all up-in-arms about Obama legalizing sex with animals.

[Phmcw]

Not to  mention that... what's the point to criminalize sex with animals?
Ok it's a mental illness and may eventually fall under animal cruelty, but I don't see how sending the offender in prison may possibly be a good idea, and much less a priority.

[kaijyuu]

Bizarre fetishes are a mental illness? IMO strike that one too.


Yeah, if the animal's deemed to be harmed, mark it under animal cruelty and be done with it. Further punishment because "it's gross" is silly.

[Euld]

Gawker's 20 Things You Should Know About the Bill That Could Ruin America

Does the Senate begin with a prayer?  I think they should begin their sessions with this from now on.  They don't even need an evil Supreme Chancellor to make them really mess things up.

[Gregory Stroganov]

I read the Gawker article, so I guess I know what I'm talking about now. This stuff has been going on in the past, like they said. For example, al-Awlaki was an American citizen, and he was killed without a trial. But that's very different, because you can become a traitor to your country by joining the staff of a foreign government- a foreign terrorist organization may not qualify as a government under law, but the law is meant to prevent people doing exactly what he did and then shouting out their right to due process every time they stop to reload.

This is different, maybe? I don't know. I didn't read the bill. Sure sounds scarier. I hear they're going to legalize buggery!

[Sir Finkus]

The US government always has American's best interests at heart and are doing this to protect us from terrorists.  I mean there's no reason to worry about this unless you're an enemy of the state.  There's no way any of our incorruptible politicians would use this law to eliminate inconvenient political elements, nor would they ever make a mistake and incarcerate anyone who wasn't a terrorist.

Really folks, it's almost like you all think millions of people are going to be sent off in cattle cars to detention and forced labor camps only because they were determined "enemies of the state?"  The very notion is absurd. 

Just show the nice man your papers and get on with your life.  Nothing to see here.

[lemon10]

The US government always has American's best interests at heart and are doing this to protect us from terrorists.  I mean there's no reason to worry about this unless you're an enemy of the state.  There's no way any of our incorruptible politicians would use this law to eliminate inconvenient political elements, nor would they ever make a mistake and incarcerate anyone who wasn't a terrorist.

Really folks, it's almost like you all think millions of people are going to be sent off in cattle cars to detention and forced labor camps only because they were determined "enemies of the state?"  The very notion is absurd. 

Just show the nice man your papers and get on with your life.  Nothing to see here.

I can't actually tell if you are being serious or not, I would assume that you are, but its a bit hard to be sure.

[Gregory Stroganov]

The US government always has American's best interests at heart and are doing this to protect us from terrorists.  I mean there's no reason to worry about this unless you're an enemy of the state.  There's no way any of our incorruptible politicians would use this law to eliminate inconvenient political elements, nor would they ever make a mistake and incarcerate anyone who wasn't a terrorist.

Really folks, it's almost like you all think millions of people are going to be sent off in cattle cars to detention and forced labor camps only because they were determined "enemies of the state?"  The very notion is absurd. 

Just show the nice man your papers and get on with your life.  Nothing to see here.

I can't actually tell if you are being serious or not, I would assume that you are, but its a bit hard to be sure.

He is employing something known as sarcasm. It's harder to recognize over the internet.

[nenjin]

He is employing something known as sarcasm. It's harder to recognize over the internet.

You should listen to this man. His name is delicious.

[Sensei]

They got rid of a paragraph criminalizing sodomy.  The same paragraph defined sodomy as any form of sexual act between people of the same sex or sex with an animal.

You slightly misread the wording:

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

As it stood before, anal sex = court martial. So, anal sex was banned in the military, between anyone, at all. Or that's my interpretation of sodomy; it's more aptly anything the military deems "unnatural carnal copulation".

So naturally they pulled the whole passage and didn't decide to debate on a replacement for it. Notably, it doesn't legalize bestiality where there are already laws against it, IE, the laws that affect all citizens and not just soldiers.

TL;DR: They don't want to make special military sex laws.