Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Farmhand arrested for having sex with a miniature donkey claims it's his constitutional right to get himself a little ass   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 88
    More: Followup, Carlos R. Romero, bestiality, Ocala Star-Banner, constitutional rights, Caroline Wozniacki, Human sexual activity, animal cruelty, Friendly's  
•       •       •

4771 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Dec 2012 at 2:59 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-12 08:26:23 PM  
"Florida" tag beats "Follow Up" tag.
 
2012-12-12 08:30:40 PM  
i1079.photobucket.com 
"Why, that's not just a farmhand, son..."
 
2012-12-12 08:37:11 PM  
Poor Fricky.
 
2012-12-12 08:40:00 PM  
Why I'd not last long at writing headlines...

Yankee diddled Doodle dandy!
 
2012-12-12 08:59:47 PM  
Guess he wasn't man enough for a full-size donkey.
 
2012-12-12 09:07:10 PM  
He's an asswipe-and damn proud of it.
 
2012-12-12 09:08:54 PM  
Miniature donkey pick up lines...
 
"Can I give you a lift?."
 
"I'm hung, like a tiny donkey."
 
"I want you to bear my teeny centaurs."
 
"We're a match made in heaven.  You're name is Doodle, and I'm a dude who'll do ANYTHING!"
 
2012-12-12 09:15:17 PM  
So, he's single?
 
2012-12-12 09:19:31 PM  
Came for Clerks 2 references. Leaving disappointed this time.

\is the dude's name Kelly?
 
2012-12-12 10:14:23 PM  
Well, if you cross a zebra with a donkey, you get a zonkey. The farmhand was probably just trying to create a honkey.
 
2012-12-12 10:16:07 PM  
This is bad news... for Obama.
 
2012-12-12 10:30:12 PM  
I defy any of you to resist this cute face!

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-12-12 10:32:40 PM  
Why oh why did this thread have to happen while I was away from my office computer?!

I'd show you a few pictures of little asses!!
 
2012-12-12 10:37:40 PM  
Here is a picture of the victim:
www.mrouse.com
 
2012-12-12 10:46:33 PM  
"Romero was taken into custody at the Ocala farm where he was employed after reportedly admitting to police that he becomes aroused when seeing animals in heat and mating."

In fact--he's thinking about it RIGHT NOW

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-12-12 11:24:02 PM  
The motion argues that the law encroaches on Romero's due process rights, according to the Ocala Star-Banner.
The paper reported that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which was the basis for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, has been violated in Romero's case.


If this actually works, it's going to be a free-for-all in Florida. I'm pretty sure he's trying to claim a violation of the bolded part below without actually reading the rest of the amendment (underlined):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Unless they're going to argue that the donkey falls within jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws and wasn't granted it with the bestiality laws, which just sounds insane.

Actually, the linked article in the Daily Fail explains the whole thing in great detail. I was off the mark completely.
 
2012-12-12 11:25:49 PM  
He'll have plenty of time to mule it over
 
2012-12-12 11:40:58 PM  

Snarfangel: Here is a picture of the victim:
[www.mrouse.com image 634x591]



Cock a Doodle DON'T.
 
2012-12-12 11:43:25 PM  

Lsherm: The motion argues that the law encroaches on Romero's due process rights, according to the Ocala Star-Banner.
The paper reported that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which was the basis for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, has been violated in Romero's case.

If this actually works, it's going to be a free-for-all in Florida. I'm pretty sure he's trying to claim a violation of the bolded part below without actually reading the rest of the amendment (underlined):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unless they're going to argue that the donkey falls within jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws and wasn't granted it with the bestiality laws, which just sounds insane.

Actually, the linked article in the Daily Fail explains the whole thing in great detail. I was off the mark completely.


He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.
 
2012-12-12 11:57:38 PM  

PhiloeBedoe: [i1079.photobucket.com image 480x360] 
"Why, that's not just a farmhand, son..."


+1
 
2012-12-13 12:00:02 AM  
So that's how they make Guy's Donkey Sauce...
 
2012-12-13 12:01:06 AM  
i1214.photobucket.com
APPROVES.
 
2012-12-13 12:19:32 AM  

BravadoGT: Lsherm: The motion argues that the law encroaches on Romero's due process rights, according to the Ocala Star-Banner.
The paper reported that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which was the basis for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, has been violated in Romero's case.

If this actually works, it's going to be a free-for-all in Florida. I'm pretty sure he's trying to claim a violation of the bolded part below without actually reading the rest of the amendment (underlined):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unless they're going to argue that the donkey falls within jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws and wasn't granted it with the bestiality laws, which just sounds insane.

Actually, the linked article in the Daily Fail explains the whole thing in great detail. I was off the mark completely.

He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.


You've realized you've just proved the anti gay marriage people right about the slippery slope.
 
2012-12-13 12:37:58 AM  

BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.


"Rational basis" is the lowest level of review. The government need only hypothesize a reasonable connection to a legitimate interest. The rational basis doesn't even have to be the government's real reason for outlawing an activity.

Bestiality can be cruel to the animal. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. Therefor bestiality laws have a rational basis even if the real reason for them is "ewwww."

Equal protection is subject to intermediate scrutiny. A court considers whether the statute involves important governmental interests and whether the law is substantially related to the achievement of important government objectives.

Preventing animal cruelty is an important government interest, particularly when it involves sexual gratification because serial killers, arsonists, child and spouse abusers, etc., often start that way. Statutes forbidding bestiality are substantially related to this important government objective.
 
2012-12-13 12:56:25 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Preventing animal cruelty is an important government interest, particularly when it involves sexual gratification because serial killers, arsonists, child and spouse abusers, etc., often start that way.


I think you're conflating two different issues. Animal abuse and sexual gratification from violence towards animals aren't the same thing.

But it doesn't matter, because psychologists can't agree on abnormal behavior, anyway. This case won't go anywhere, but in 20 years someone is going to make progress.
 
2012-12-13 01:39:23 AM  
It wasn't HIS donkey, or else it would be okay. Or, if he did it in another area code, jackass.
 
2012-12-13 02:46:04 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Bestiality can be cruel to the animal. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. Therefor bestiality laws have a rational basis even if the real reason for them is "ewwww."


While animal cruelty is OK if the real reason for it is "mmmmm".

vegasbuzz.com
 
2012-12-13 02:48:13 AM  
p2.la-img.com

/obligatory
 
2012-12-13 03:06:34 AM  

PhiloeBedoe: [i1079.photobucket.com image 480x360] 
"Why, that's not just a farmhand, son..."


Tell me Hitler at least took that donkey to a Leafs game first.

(The sketches for that show must've started as a game of Mad Libs.)
 
2012-12-13 03:11:34 AM  
I thought we were supposed to pretend that this is ok because he was born this way, and all of that crap.
 
2012-12-13 03:13:10 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: Why I'd not last long at writing headlines...

Yankee diddled Doodle dandy!


Was going to attempt a paragraph contaning the phrase 'yank a Doodle donkey', but yours is better.
 
2012-12-13 03:15:51 AM  

Snarfangel: Well, if you cross a zebra with a donkey, you get a zonkey. The farmhand was probably just trying to create a honkey.


Lol...
 
2012-12-13 03:17:34 AM  
Poor Doodle took a guy's noodle up his kaboodle...
 
2012-12-13 03:22:36 AM  

Satanus Maximus: Poor Doodle took a guy's noodle up his kaboodle...


th00.deviantart.net


Still a better love story than Twilight.
 
2012-12-13 03:32:10 AM  
And Abbey will be the rest of his life.
 
2012-12-13 03:34:47 AM  

BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.


Animals lack the intellectual capacity to give consent.
 
2012-12-13 03:36:41 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

"Rational basis" is the lowest level of review. The government need only hypothesize a reasonable connection to a legitimate interest. The rational basis doesn't even have to be the government's real reason for outlawing an activity.

Bestiality can be cruel to the animal. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. Therefor bestiality laws have a rational basis even if the real reason for them is "ewwww."

Equal protection is subject to intermediate scrutiny. A court considers whether the statute involves important governmental interests and whether the law is substantially related to the achievement of important government objectives.

Preventing animal cruelty is an important government interest, particularly when it involves sexual gratification because serial killers, arsonists, child and spouse abusers, etc., often start that way. Statutes forbidding bestiality are substantially related to this important government objective.


Bestiality is not cruel to any animal sheep-size and up. Sorry, but as long as we're not talking chickens, the reason is 'eeewww' and 'eeewww' only.
 
2012-12-13 03:37:32 AM  

BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.


No. One good reason for outlawing bestiality is because the animal cannot give consent and while a human penis in a donkey may not hurt the animal much do you simply write the law based on animal weight?

Well, you can fark your donkey or your cow, but we're going to have to weigh that sheep before we decide if what you did to it was legal or not.

How about this. No, you can't fark animals. It is disgusting and offensive, but more than that it is animal cruelty. Why don't you just go jack off in private?
 
2012-12-13 03:39:13 AM  
He wanted to wish the donkey Buon Natale in a very special way.
 
2012-12-13 03:39:27 AM  

Gordon Bennett: Animals lack the intellectual capacity to give consent.


Duck rape is worst rape.
 
2012-12-13 03:43:15 AM  
HOTY candidate?
 
2012-12-13 03:43:24 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

"Rational basis" is the lowest level of review. The government need only hypothesize a reasonable connection to a legitimate interest. The rational basis doesn't even have to be the government's real reason for outlawing an activity.

Bestiality can be cruel to the animal. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. Therefor bestiality laws have a rational basis even if the real reason for them is "ewwww."

Equal protection is subject to intermediate scrutiny. A court considers whether the statute involves important governmental interests and whether the law is substantially related to the achievement of important government objectives.

Preventing animal cruelty is an important government interest, particularly when it involves sexual gratification because serial killers, arsonists, child and spouse abusers, etc., often start that way. Statutes forbidding bestiality are substantially related to this important government objective.


I'm pretty sure you're trolling...
 
2012-12-13 03:43:58 AM  
Ethically, it poses an interesting question. Bestiality or zoophilia can be viewed as unethical because non-human animals lack the capacity for informed consent. However, if animals are to be treated as incapable of consent in the same way minor humans are, normal livestock breeding and any human induced animal-animal breeding could also be seen as a form of rape because of lack of consent (as it is illegal and unethical to induce minors to engage in sex with eachother). I think the most logical view is to prosecute it as a form of animal abuse, although in some cases it might be difficult to prove criminal harm if the animal seemed unaffected.
 
2012-12-13 03:45:05 AM  

Gordon Bennett: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

Animals lack the intellectual capacity to give consent.


So do intoxicated women, but that still tends to be a legal argument (IIRC) on a state by state basis
 
2012-12-13 04:07:27 AM  
Daily Mail?

Save your time reading the article. Generate your own headine and make a story up in your head based on the output. The net result of ingesting something relevant will be about the same.
 
2012-12-13 04:11:38 AM  
I'm afraid to go back and look upthread, is there actually somebody in here saying that farking a donkey should be legal?

Just, no. A whole lot of reasons, just no. No.
 
2012-12-13 04:13:09 AM  
He should have gone to Columbia.
 
2012-12-13 04:30:01 AM  
Looks like the bronies are skipping the real doll version step.
 
2012-12-13 04:32:07 AM  
Disgusting.

ah well. If anyone needs me I'll be in the lab
 
2012-12-13 05:06:54 AM  

Happy Hours: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

No. One good reason for outlawing bestiality is because the animal cannot give consent and while a human penis in a donkey may not hurt the animal much do you simply write the law based on animal weight?

Well, you can fark your donkey or your cow, but we're going to have to weigh that sheep before we decide if what you did to it was legal or not.

How about this. No, you can't fark animals. It is disgusting and offensive, but more than that it is animal cruelty. Why don't you just go jack off in private?


You write the law on slaughter of an animal based on its weight. I don't see what's so different.
 
2012-12-13 05:09:47 AM  

Insatiable Jesus: I'm afraid to go back and look upthread, is there actually somebody in here saying that farking a donkey should be legal?

Just, no. A whole lot of reasons, just no. No.


Yes. Because any law, any law is a sign of human weakness, any law is taking away freedom, any law means that we couldn't just do some thing and all agree on it. Any law is defeat.
 
2012-12-13 05:17:33 AM  

Metalithic: Ethically, it poses an interesting question. Bestiality or zoophilia can be viewed as unethical because non-human animals lack the capacity for informed consent. However, if animals are to be treated as incapable of consent in the same way minor humans are, normal livestock breeding and any human induced animal-animal breeding could also be seen as a form of rape because of lack of consent (as it is illegal and unethical to induce minors to engage in sex with eachother). I think the most logical view is to prosecute it as a form of animal abuse, although in some cases it might be difficult to prove criminal harm if the animal seemed unaffected.


Excellent point.

Also, even if there is non-consensual harm done, it would be less than what you see in those PETA videos at the meat plants.

I see no valid reason to outlaw his actions.
 
2012-12-13 05:23:29 AM  
i240.photobucket.com

/oblig
 
2012-12-13 05:32:53 AM  
Western society is completely schizophrenic when it comes to laws dealing with animals. We shred millions upon millions of male chickens, a few days after they've hatched, we skin animals alive for their fur, we have pigs that never see the light of day, we have the ability classify the same animal respectively as a pet, a pest, meat, testbed, or as a zoo- or circus-inhabitant (rats, snakes), we have laws that protect certain animals from being harmed based solely on their perceived 'nobility', we have completely arbitrary regulations when it comes to species and their hunt- and/or slaughterability. Yet we cry foul when someone drowns a litter of cats. Or sticks his johnson in a cow.
 
2012-12-13 06:06:01 AM  
Coming on a Bicycle
I agree that western society is farked with duality
but deliberately killing what are traditionally pets is farked up
(though I'm not really a cat person)
and mating with yer livestock is just gross.
this includes rosie o'donnell

..when do we skin animals alive for their fur?
or do you just have a unique hobby
what are arbitrary regulations for the animals we've hunted on this continent since the landbridge opened up?
 
2012-12-13 06:14:58 AM  

PhiloeBedoe: [i1079.photobucket.com image 480x360] 
"Why, that's not just a farmhand, son..."


MISTER "Farm" Hands to you...
 
2012-12-13 06:52:01 AM  

BravadoGT: the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive.


I'm thinking that animal welfare may have something to do with it as well. Just a thought.
 
2012-12-13 06:58:17 AM  

Silly Jesus: Metalithic: Ethically, it poses an interesting question. Bestiality or zoophilia can be viewed as unethical because non-human animals lack the capacity for informed consent. However, if animals are to be treated as incapable of consent in the same way minor humans are, normal livestock breeding and any human induced animal-animal breeding could also be seen as a form of rape because of lack of consent (as it is illegal and unethical to induce minors to engage in sex with eachother). I think the most logical view is to prosecute it as a form of animal abuse, although in some cases it might be difficult to prove criminal harm if the animal seemed unaffected.

Excellent point.

Also, even if there is non-consensual harm done, it would be less than what you see in those PETA videos at the meat plants.

I see no valid reason to outlaw his actions.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be prosecuted, either. It's not something I would care to defend. It just appears tricky to define animal consent or lack of consent, and to assess non-physical harm in these cases. If the donkey was physically harmed, then its straightforward animal cruelty, but if not then the issue revolves around the animal's emotional or psychological response, and that is difficult to judge. We know that child molestation causes non-physical harm because even small children can communicate their feelings, but who can tell what donkey is thinking? I can't imagine it was pleased, though.
 
2012-12-13 07:01:03 AM  

doglover: Gordon Bennett: Animals lack the intellectual capacity to give consent.

Duck rape is worst rape.


Oh, I imagine it would be like water rolling off a... something.

By the way I think it is very brave of you indeed to be posting in this thread with that handle of yours.
 
2012-12-13 07:30:13 AM  
The donkey was only two years old, clearly that's sexual assault of a toddler.
 
2012-12-13 07:37:37 AM  
Oh, Florida...there you go making an ass of yourself again.

Link
 
2012-12-13 07:43:20 AM  

Gordon Bennett: By the way I think it is very brave of you indeed to be posting in this thread with that handle of yours.


Why does everyone think that about this handle? I care deeply about animals, especially dogs. I don't tolerate any abuse.

Humans cannot successfully mate with canines, anyway. The closest they can come is a horrible kind of sexual abuse the punishment for which would fall somewhere between 100 lashes and a full on keel haul if I was a judge in charge of making the law. Not sure how effective that last one would be in landlocked states. Maybe we'd have to import barnacle encrusted ships or something. Cheese grater?
 
2012-12-13 08:03:04 AM  
How the hell did Caroline Wozniacki make the "more" list?
 
2012-12-13 08:12:48 AM  
We test cosmetics on animals without their consent (maybe we don't anymore because of public opinion but the point is, it's not illegal). If we're allowed to put lipstick on a rabbit and spray cologne in its face, why can't we also fark it?

/defending bestiality at 8:00AM at work
 
2012-12-13 08:16:01 AM  

Happy Hours: No, you can't fark animals.


So, only plants and fungi, then? (Maybe protists and bacteria for the particularly poorly endowed?)
 
2012-12-13 08:18:04 AM  
i1180.photobucket.com


i1180.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-13 08:20:33 AM  
i1180.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-13 08:22:18 AM  

doglover: Why does everyone think that about this handle? I care deeply about animals, especially dogs. I don't tolerate any abuse.


Normally I wouldn't. This thread does sort of force a different context. As for the others, I would expect that they were also extracting the urine.

It's fine, don't take my comment or the others seriously.
 
2012-12-13 09:01:24 AM  
Sex with an animal, at least animals big enough to not be harmed, is a victimless crime. If people can slaughter pigs and cows without their consent, why can't they boink one?

/ewwww is not a reason
 
2012-12-13 09:27:47 AM  

doglover: Satanus Maximus: Poor Doodle took a guy's noodle up his kaboodle...

[th00.deviantart.net image 850x529]

Still a better love story than Twilight.


Came for thatneither of those two things, leaving happy to go to work.
 
2012-12-13 09:29:10 AM  

doglover: Humans cannot successfully mate with canines, anyway.


Tell this guy that.
 
2012-12-13 09:33:13 AM  
As long as he can convince the donkey to come to him it is no business of anyone else what two consenting sentient beings do.
 
2012-12-13 09:59:56 AM  
No wonder Eeyore was so depressed.
 
2012-12-13 10:04:50 AM  
Is it just me or does anyone else find this guy temptingly punchable?

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-12-13 10:11:03 AM  
Please don't be from GA, Please don't be from GA, Please don't be from GA

*click*

whew. thanks squirrelworld.lincatz.com  !!
 
2012-12-13 10:22:14 AM  

Gordon Bennett: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

Animals lack the intellectual capacity to give consent.


So do inflatable dolls. Your point?
 
2012-12-13 10:32:21 AM  

Coming on a Bicycle: Western society is completely schizophrenic when it comes to laws dealing with animals. We shred millions upon millions of male chickens, a few days after they've hatched, we skin animals alive for their fur, we have pigs that never see the light of day, we have the ability classify the same animal respectively as a pet, a pest, meat, testbed, or as a zoo- or circus-inhabitant (rats, snakes), we have laws that protect certain animals from being harmed based solely on their perceived 'nobility', we have completely arbitrary regulations when it comes to species and their hunt- and/or slaughterability. Yet we cry foul when someone drowns a litter of cats. Or sticks his johnson in a cow.


You make an excellent point. In addition to this, with many farm animals they are artificially inseminated for reproductive purposes. So in addition to all of this, its perfectly legal to penetrate the animal with a giant metal probe that shoots semen... or for a person to inseminate them via putting their hand in there and manually depositing it... So I'm not sure how what this guy is doing is really any different / worse. I suppose its because he is getting gratification from it, and that makes it wrong somehow in our society.

All in all though, If the animal is indifferent to it happening, i highly doubt its abuse or cruelty. If an animal such as a donkey did not want you doing that, it would mule-kick the shiat out of you and that would be the end of it.

I think it really reflects on our backwards view of our society: That violence and killing is ok, but sex is dirty and bad.
 
2012-12-13 10:50:22 AM  
i1197.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-13 11:30:02 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: You've realized you've just proved the anti gay marriage people right about the slippery slope.


www.fugly.com

Turtles, dude. You were warned.
 
2012-12-13 11:34:41 AM  

BravadoGT: "Romero was taken into custody at the Ocala farm where he was employed after reportedly admitting to police that he becomes aroused when seeing animals in heat and mating."

In fact--he's thinking about it RIGHT NOW

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 317x391]


Looks like the guy from Thanks Smokey.
 
2012-12-13 11:43:28 AM  
cdn.motinetwork.net
 
2012-12-13 11:50:20 AM  

Happy Hours: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

No. One good reason for outlawing bestiality is because the animal cannot give consent and while a human penis in a donkey may not hurt the animal much do you simply write the law based on animal weight?

Well, you can fark your donkey or your cow, but we're going to have to weigh that sheep before we decide if what you did to it was legal or not.

How about this. No, you can't fark animals. It is disgusting and offensive, but more than that it is animal cruelty. Why don't you just go jack off in private?


The Bible says masturbation is a sin.
 
2012-12-13 12:16:10 PM  
Boy...surprised at the number of "animal lovers" in this thread. Look...there's just "right and wrong". It's wrong to fark your sister, your mom, and animals.
These actions are just unacceptable by society.

If you need a real medical reason, think about the resistance farm animals are building to diseases thanks to overuse of antibiotics. Junior's barnyard encounters may spawn something that makes AIDS look like the common cold.

On top of that, it wasn't even his animal. Surely property laws would protect the owner.

And if that isn't enough for you weirdos, I don't know what to tell you. I hope the lure of animal sex doesn't lead to you getting shot by an angry farmer
 
2012-12-13 01:25:32 PM  

Slam1263: Happy Hours: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

No. One good reason for outlawing bestiality is because the animal cannot give consent and while a human penis in a donkey may not hurt the animal much do you simply write the law based on animal weight?

Well, you can fark your donkey or your cow, but we're going to have to weigh that sheep before we decide if what you did to it was legal or not.

How about this. No, you can't fark animals. It is disgusting and offensive, but more than that it is animal cruelty. Why don't you just go jack off in private?

The Bible says masturbation is a sin.


i don't believe u. the bible would NEVER advocate abstinence (until the inevitable rape/marriage)
 
2012-12-13 04:10:33 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: Slam1263: Happy Hours: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

No. One good reason for outlawing bestiality is because the animal cannot give consent and while a human penis in a donkey may not hurt the animal much do you simply write the law based on animal weight?

Well, you can fark your donkey or your cow, but we're going to have to weigh that sheep before we decide if what you did to it was legal or not.

How about this. No, you can't fark animals. It is disgusting and offensive, but more than that it is animal cruelty. Why don't you just go jack off in private?

The Bible says masturbation is a sin.

i don't believe u. the bible would NEVER advocate abstinence (until the inevitable rape/marriage)


That's why I have perfected a method for microwaving cantaloupes.

It's all about the vegan lovestyle.
 
2012-12-13 05:30:48 PM  
The state I live in has a law that says it is legal to have sex with an animal as long as it is under 45lbs. How did they come up with that? Some lawmaker have a chicken fetish or something?
 
2012-12-13 05:57:50 PM  

LazerFish: The state I live in has a law that says it is legal to have sex with an animal as long as it is under 45lbs. How did they come up with that? Some lawmaker have a chicken fetish or something?


[requisite Republican joke goes here]
 
2012-12-13 11:21:06 PM  

Terrible Old Man: Looks like the bronies are skipping the real doll version step.


Hah, you wish. pnsfw

/link goes to the lyra plushie with hole, there are some other versions more anatomically correct.
 
Displayed 88 of 88 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report