• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Salon: A legal defense of donkey sex [W:18]

Bronson

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
3,195
Reaction score
1,192
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A legal defense of donkey sex - Salon.com

In a court motion, the defense claims that the state law against bestiality deprives 32-year-old Carlos Romero of his “personal liberty and autonomy when it comes to private intimate activities.

Where do we draw the line with depravity?
 
I don't have a good answer but would certainly suggest that it be drawn well out in front of donkey sex.
 
That donkey wasn't even good looking.
 
Salon: A legal defense of donkey sex

Someone misinterpreted "I wanna have sex with your ***."
 
A legal defense of donkey sex - Salon.com



Where do we draw the line with depravity?

Did you even bother to read the ****ing article? If you did, then you would have NEVER come to the asinine conclusions you have. Jeepers, are people so lazy, they can't put forth the 'effort' it takes to read a few paragraphs and instead, just jump to lazy conclusions? I'd be more worried about that then donkey sex. :doh :roll:


But it’s actually not quite as crazy a move as it might seem. The lawyers aren’t arguing that Romero necessarily has a right to sex with donkeys, or any other farm animals for that matter. They’re specifically targeting the language of Florida’s anti-bestiality law, which does not require proof that an animal has been harmed or “of the sexual activity being non-consensual,” or even of penetrative sexual contact.
 
Did you even bother to read the ****ing article? If you did, then you would have NEVER come to the asinine conclusions you have. Jeepers, are people so lazy, they can't put forth the 'effort' it takes to read a few paragraphs and instead, just jump to lazy conclusions? I'd be more worried about that then donkey sex. :doh :roll:

Why are you getting all emotional and irrational?

From the article:

In a court motion, the defense claims that the state law against bestiality deprives 32-year-old Carlos Romero of his “personal liberty and autonomy when it comes to private intimate activities.

It may be an opportunistic defense, sure, but it also brings up some interesting, if squirm-worthy, questions: Why should bestiality be illegal? Is it because it’s socially unacceptable or because it causes harm to animals? If it’s the latter, is it OK for people to have sexual contact with animals in cases where the animal isn’t harmed?

So where's the counter argument? It's sad that there is even a need for one. You'd think that banning sex with animals would be a no brainer. The lawyers are stating that having sex with animals is basically none of our business. I don't see the author of this piece disagreeing with that, or making any attempt at all to refute it. Do you?
 
Did you even bother to read the ****ing article? If you did, then you would have NEVER come to the asinine conclusions you have. Jeepers, are people so lazy, they can't put forth the 'effort' it takes to read a few paragraphs and instead, just jump to lazy conclusions? I'd be more worried about that then donkey sex. :doh :roll:


Ummm, What? What sepcifically in your bolded quote isn't clear to you that his lawyers are arguing the language of the Florida beastiality laws as needing to rewquire proof that the animal has been harmed, or that there need proof that the sex with the animal is non-consensual, or "penetrative".. LOL

So, what they are saying is that in order to find him guilty, they need to prove that it was harmful to the donkey, non-consensual, and or penetrative. :)

Now, who's the one with a reading problem?


Tim-
 
Did you even bother to read the ****ing article? If you did, then you would have NEVER come to the asinine conclusions you have. Jeepers, are people so lazy, they can't put forth the 'effort' it takes to read a few paragraphs and instead, just jump to lazy conclusions? I'd be more worried about that then donkey sex. :doh :roll:
Oh the irony. You routinely demonstrate that the reading, it ain't one of your better skills. You were just in a thread doing exactly this same thing the other day. And adding your idiotic "like" to other posters, who just like you, found it too laborious to actually *read* and comprehend what the English in the article in the OP actually means, just like this thread. The one eyed Canadian Beaver Troll embarrasses herself again and again. You should change your avatar to the Energizer Bunny, still going.............
 
Maybe the laws should be changed... Didn't "god" grant Adam and Eve dominion over all the fish in the sea, fowl in the air, and every living thing?

Heavy Petting, by Peter Singer
 
We need to draw the line on lawyers...they will do and say anything to win, then hide behind...everyone deserves a vigorous defense.
 
Of course donkey sex is a necessary activity.

If donkeys didn't have sex, pretty soon there would be no more donkeys.
 
Why are you getting all emotional and irrational?

From the article:



So where's the counter argument? It's sad that there is even a need for one. You'd think that banning sex with animals would be a no brainer. The lawyers are stating that having sex with animals is basically none of our business. I don't see the author of this piece disagreeing with that, or making any attempt at all to refute it. Do you?

Maybe I misunderstood your intent with this from your OP:

Where do we draw the line with depravity?

What do you mean by this? Who, IYO, is/are the degenerate(s) AND:

Salon: A legal defense of donkey sex

Was it your intent to make it seem that the author/salon think that donkey sex is a-okay?
 
Ummm, What? What sepcifically in your bolded quote isn't clear to you that his lawyers are arguing the language of the Florida beastiality laws as needing to rewquire proof that the animal has been harmed, or that there need proof that the sex with the animal is non-consensual, or "penetrative".. LOL

So, what they are saying is that in order to find him guilty, they need to prove that it was harmful to the donkey, non-consensual, and or penetrative. :)

Now, who's the one with a reading problem?


Tim-

Yes, I get that. I just want to make sure that Bronson does, and is not trying to point the finger at other people/entities. Heck, look at the thread title. Does that not strike you as a tactic straight out of James O'Keefe's playbook?
 
Of course donkey sex is a necessary activity.

If donkeys didn't have sex, pretty soon there would be no more donkeys.
Except the topic here is humans having sex with Donkeys. Try to keep up.

Maybe I misunderstood your intent with this from your OP:



What do you mean by this? Who, IYO, is/are the degenerate(s) AND:



Was it your intent to make it seem that the author/salon think that donkey sex is a-okay?
Could you be any more obtuse? The depravity he is quite obviously referring to is pretty obvious. But of course you are off an an idiotic tangent rather than addressing what the author of the OP did say. But then you have already demonstrated that just reading what was actually in the OP is far beyond your ability. Do you actually get paid something or just get some kind of tingle like pay off for being so obtuse with your trolling net?
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Let's leave the personal attacks, insults and off-topic stuff out of this shall we?
 
Has anyone actually considered the fact that his wife may just look like a donkey...
 
If the donkey doesn't get off too then charge him with animal cruelty hehe
 
Back
Top Bottom