Vermont Legislature considering a bill that would legalize beastiality, polygamy etc.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Associated Press

 

MONTPELIER, Vt. —  The Vermont Legislature is considering a bill that would legalize so-called “beastiality,” polygamy, necrophilia and incest among consenting adults.

Beastiality refers to sex between humans and adults.  Polygamy refers to having multiple spouses.  Necrophilia refers to sex with a corpse and incest means sex between closely related relatives.  Under current laws, participants of those acts can be charged with crimes against nature, but lawmakers are considering a bill to legalize the consensual acts between adults (or corpses or animals, as the case may be).  

Supporters told The Burlington Free Press they don’t want to condone the behavior but they don’t think adults should be prosecuted as sex offenders for consensual conduct.  They argue that so long as the animals are not harmed, animals need not “consent” to what we adults do to them.  And they argue that corpses are no longer living and need not give consent. They also point to so-called “Durable Power of Attorneys” and Wills that can give consent to a spouse or a loved-one after death. 

The bill passed the state Senate earlier this month. The House Judiciary Committee will hear testimony on it this week.  One Democratic law maker, who asked not to be identified, claimed that this is just the natural result of legitimizing homosexual marriages. He claimed that we just can not keep discriminating against persons based soley upon their sexual proclivities performed in private between consenting adults. Meanwhile, he blasted “social conservatives” for trying to foist their moral beliefs upon him and  his favorite sheep. He pooh-poohed the “slippery slope” argument that all forms of perversion will now be de-criminalized: “We are going to keep NAMBLA out of the mainstream. For now…”

Meghan McCain, the presumptive (and slutty?) heir to the Republican Party leadership quickly proclaimed her support for the new bill: “Of all the causes I believe in and speak publicly about, this is one of the ones closest to my heart.  At the most basic level, sexual orientation should not be a factor in how you are treated. If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-pervert rhetoric. As you can imagine, the road for perverted Republicans hasn’t been an easy one. Most seem to find the words “beastiality” and “conservative” inherent contradictions, much the same way so many people can’t seem to reconcile fiscal conservatism and the big-tent philosophy of freedom and justice for all. A dear friend of mine who’s both a sheep lover and Republican told me, “I find myself constantly being asked how I can reconcile who I am as a person with a party that lately has had such a pervert-unfriendly message. Where I stand politically doesn’t begin and end with my sexuality.”

UPDATE 4/27/09: pssst. Ok, this is a parody of what I believe will be happening in a few years. when the people of a country or a state have no morals, there is no level to which they won’t stoop. and the mere fact that so many believed it shows how plausible it is already…]

Somali Pirates’ famous last words: “We are not afraid of the Americans…”

“MOGADISHU – Somali pirates holding an American hostage on a drifting lifeboat vowed on Friday to fight any attack by US naval forces stalking them at high sea.

“We are not afraid of the Americans,” one of the pirates told Reuters by satellite phone on behalf of the gang holding ship captain Richard Phillips in the Indian Ocean. “We will defend ourselves if attacked.” 

Unless we get our brains blown out first. Next?

And Beldar’s Blog says what I consider to be the final word on the entire affair [some writing is too perfect not to lift from another blog]:

:UPDATE (Sun Apr 12 @ 8:45pm): If you’re wondering why I’ve been so churlish in not extending even a nod of appreciation to our Commander in Chief, read this paragraph tucked away near the end of the New York Times’ account of the rescue:”

“The Defense Department twice asked Mr. Obama for permission to use military force to rescue Captain Phillips, most recently late on Friday night, senior defense officials said. On Saturday morning, the president agreed to permit action, they said, but only if it appeared that the captain’s life was in imminent danger.”

“Then tell me: When, exactly, during this entire episode was Captain Phillips’ life not in imminent danger? Why did Barack Obama have to sleep on the decision whether to permit our military commanders on the scene to use their own judgment as to whether to kill pirates who had attacked an American vessel and were holding its captain hostage? If this paragraph from the NYT is correct, then even if our forces had clear shots at all of the pirates simultaneously prior to Saturday morning, they lacked Obama’s permission to take them. And that is outrageous and, on the part of our nominal Commander in Chief, pathetic.”

“Yes, I suppose Obama could have been more pathetic — he could have refused permission altogether….”

Go read the entire article. Definitely a must read.

The Richmond Democrat–juvenile cheerleader for D’Ohbama

Oooooooooh!  Obama “authorized the use of force“! [Yeah, if the Captain’s life was endangered–how tough of a choice was that?] OOOOooooooh! The Captain was freed by the Seal sharpshooters! [Yeah, after the Captain dove out of the boat–for the second time.] Oooohhhhh! Obama saved the Captain! Go, D’Ohbama! Go D’Ohbama! GOOOOOOOOOOOOO TEAM!

p.s. I’m glad they shot those bastards. I’m glad D’Ohbama authorized the use of force. But if the Captain had not jumped out of the boat for the second time, does anybody believe D’Ohbama would have done a damn thing about it by now? Anybody? Bueller? Buellllllller?