# He can't help it, he was born that way.



## Big Don (Feb 21, 2008)

He can't help how he was born.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 21, 2008)

I do find it odd that you can slit the throat of an animal and eat it, force it to work for you on your farm on a daily basis, or perform medical experiments on it and everything is copacetic.  Have sex with it though, and suddenly you've committed a heinous crime...

Not very rational, but understandable given the sense of human disgust.  Maybe someday though we can stop legislating based on our feelings.


----------



## Fiendlover (Feb 21, 2008)

that..........................is gross.  :vu::jaw-dropping::barf::whip::xtrmshock:eye-popping::anic::erg:


----------



## LuzRD (Feb 21, 2008)

he was born having sex with a dog? ok sorry, serious time i guess.

while it is rather stomach turning to think about (thanks Big Don lol) i think it should be treated as any other mental illness. (yes i know that means i shouldnt make jokes, but i really want to)

what besides therapy does everyone think should be done? hes already been caught twice. i would think its the last straw before he should be locked up in a coffee house for a while. 

and on a personal note 





Fiendlover said:


> that..........................is gross.  :vu::jaw-dropping::barf::whip::xtrmshock:eye-popping::anic::erg:


 sounds about right


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 21, 2008)

It *is* gross, it* is* disgusting because it *is* two entirely different species of mammals we're talking about here. Also to the human psyche it's been ingrained as disgusting because way back when in the times of Moses and even before Abraham it was considered a mortal sin. Orthodox Jewish law dictates that both the human and animal must be put to death IMMEDIATELY. So when you have centuries of that dogma being spread around and not _just_ on the Judaism and Christian faiths but even Muslims find this as a crime punishable by death. I'm sure that even eastern faiths have laws and dogma condemning this act and probably make it punishable by death as well. Why? Because it's wrong. 
On a psychological level, yes, there is something very wrong with that guy's wiring (and any one else who consents to sexual acts with animals), or cranial chemical make up. Humans are the only animals on the planet who actually and actively try to copulate with other species (Capitan Kirk not-with-standing). Pictures of cross species mating are actually simulating & not really trying to "mate".  
To say that "he was born that way" is a huge misstatement. If this were true then it would be acceptable to us deep in our own psyches the same way that same gender sex is acceptable, though not always condoned. 
My guess is that he was taught in some way or another to do this act. Read about it, heard about it, saw it on one of those weird porno sites on the net or what/where/however! Just nobody is going to come forward saying "yeah, I told him about it." Or some other reason that he made this choice, but BORN? No, absolutely not.


----------



## shudokan-RN (Feb 22, 2008)

I am soooo glad I am NOT in Kansas any more

Poor TOTO

marci


----------



## stone_dragone (Feb 22, 2008)

Wow.  That is about all I can muster at this pint...or is it point...


----------



## Jade Tigress (Feb 22, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> It *is* gross, it* is* disgusting because it *is* two entirely different species of mammals we're talking about here. Also to the human psyche it's been ingrained as disgusting because way back when in the times of Moses and even before Abraham it was considered a mortal sin. Orthodox Jewish law dictates that both the human and animal must be put to death IMMEDIATELY. So when you have centuries of that dogma being spread around and not _just_ on the Judaism and Christian faiths but even Muslims find this as a crime punishable by death. I'm sure that even eastern faiths have laws and dogma condemning this act and probably make it punishable by death as well. Why? Because it's wrong.
> On a psychological level, yes, there is something very wrong with that guy's wiring (and any one else who consents to sexual acts with animals), or cranial chemical make up. Humans are the only animals on the planet who actually and actively try to copulate with other species (Capitan Kirk not-with-standing). Pictures of cross species mating are actually simulating & not really trying to "mate".
> To say that "he was born that way" is a huge misstatement. If this were true then it would be acceptable to us deep in our own psyches the same way that same gender sex is acceptable, though not always condoned.
> My guess is that he was taught in some way or another to do this act. Read about it, heard about it, saw it on one of those weird porno sites on the net or what/where/however! Just nobody is going to come forward saying "yeah, I told him about it." Or some other reason that he made this choice, but BORN? No, absolutely not.



Can't add much to this, Caver nailed it. (pun intended)


----------



## punisher73 (Feb 22, 2008)

We had a couple of different people convicted of this in the county where I work.

The first one's name (yes, he was tried and convicted not just accused) was Tommy Tucker.  Because of his crime and conviction he earned the nickname that went with him to prison, "tommy tucker the dog ****er" well you can figure out the rest.  He was also convicted in a different trial of CSC 1st degree.

The second one, was actually on Bob and Tom and other comedy shows.  Jeffrey Haynes was accused (and later convicted) of getting caught with a sheep.  When in trial he actually said "I'm not a pervert, it's not like I was doing things with kids".

I also remember awhile back, there was someone who was "catching" for a horse at some big ranch out west.  The man died from internal injuries sustained during the act.  They put up some stat that certain states didn't have bestiality laws on the books.  They charged it under "animal cruelty" if you were the one doing the act on an animal, but that wouldn't cover the animal doing the act.  That kind of shocked me, I thought it was a law everywhere.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 22, 2008)

It's sheep round our way too. I don't think anyone has ever been convicted though. Lots of jokes about it which I'd probably better not post....well alright just one, Why do Scotsmen wear kilts? Coz the sheep got used to the sound of zippers......
Apart from peadophiles I don't think we get awfully shocked really by anything to do with sex.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 22, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> It's sheep round our way too. I don't think anyone has ever been convicted though. Lots of jokes about it which I'd probably better not post....well alright just one, Why do Scotsmen wear kilts? Coz the sheep got used to the sound of zippers......
> .


 
First thing that made me laugh all day, thanks.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 22, 2008)

I used to work at a mini mart, one of the regular customers was an assistant DA.
One day he came in looking frustrated, so, I asked what was wrong, and he explained the guy who was arrested the week before for screwing his neighbor's Newfoundland refused to plea bargain so they went to trial and he was going to prison for 2½ YEARS. Behind him in line was a stereotypical looking gang banger, Bandana low to the shades, etc, he laughed and said. "They'll make him bark."


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 22, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> > Originally Posted by *Tez3  *
> > It's sheep round our way too. I don't think anyone has ever been convicted though. Lots of jokes about it which I'd probably better not post....well alright just one, Why do Scotsmen wear kilts? Coz the sheep got used to the sound of zippers......
> 
> 
> . First thing that made me laugh all day, thanks.


Well it's like: "Did you know that they've found a second use for sheep in Wyoming? It's called... wool!"


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 22, 2008)

This guy really screwed the pooch.   Setting aside the whole ickiness of the matter, what kind of idiot breaks into a room with a frickin' rottweiler in it?  He must have brought some good treats just to keep her from gnawing on his intestines.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Why? Because it's wrong.



That's a tautology.  Why is it wrong?  Certainly not because it is "unnatural" as you seem to imply (although not true, cross-species matings do happen.  Ever heard of a liger?).  Plenty of things are unnatural that are not wrong, including antibiotics, nylon and space travel.



MA-Caver said:


> To say that "he was born that way" is a huge misstatement. If this were true then it would be acceptable to us deep in our own psyches the same way that same gender sex is acceptable, though not always condoned.



I don't see how that follows.  Lots of people condemn same gender sex in the strongest possible terms, even using some of the same senses of disgust and "unnaturalness" to argue against it.  How do you know that "deep down" they are really OK with it?  If they are willing to beat a gay man to death for being gay, seems they are not OK with it.

Oh, and for the inevitable chuckleheads: I am not into animal sex, nor do I approve of it.  I would just like there to be some rationality behind the arguments more compelling than "ick!".


----------



## thardey (Feb 22, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Oh, and for the inevitable chuckleheads: I am not into animal sex, nor do I approve of it.  I would just like there to be some rationality behind the arguments more compelling than "ick!".



Never underestimate the power if "ick"!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 22, 2008)

Luckily, in cases of sexual assault and involving sexual predators

"He can't help it, he was born that way"

Is not a justifiable defense

But to the original post, I'm sorry but based on the other responses I do not think I am going to open the link and look. I had enough of this sort of thing one night working in a Hospital ER restraining a guy that just HAD to share his exploits with the canine variety. 

And ick is NOT a strong enough word to describe it.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 22, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> > Originally Posted by *MA-Caver *
> > Why? Because it's wrong.
> 
> 
> That's a tautology. Why is it wrong? Certainly not because it is "unnatural" as you seem to imply (although not true, cross-species matings do happen. Ever heard of a liger?). Plenty of things are unnatural that are not wrong, including antibiotics, nylon and space travel.


 A lion and a tiger are basically the same species just _different types_ of the *same* species... cats! Felines. 


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger The liger is a hybrid cross between a male lion and a female tiger (i.e, Panthera leo × Panthera tigris[1]). A liger resembles a lion with diffused stripes. They are the largest cats in the world, although the Siberian Tiger is the largest "pure" taxon. Ligers and tigers enjoy swimming, whereas lions do not. A similar hybrid, the offspring of a male tiger and a female lion is called a tigon.
> *Rare* reports have been made of tigresses mating with lions in the wild.[2] _Such mating may have occurred when, in uncommon circumstances, tigers were forced into ranges inhabited by the Asiatic Lion_, Panthera leo persica. However, it is generally held that such a combination of species in the wild would occur very rarely.[3] The present-day ranges of wild lions and tigers no longer overlap.[4]


Basically you're not going to see a zebra and a waterbuffalo mixing it up anytime soon, though they're similar they're different species; equine and bovine. That is what I'm talking about. One could argue that someone from Asia or Africa or an even an Australian Aborigine is a different species from a European/American Caucasian but they're both STILL human! You've heard of cockapoos haven't you? The cross between a cocker-spaniel and a poodle? But I'll be damned surprised if you show me a Persian-shepard; a cross between a persian cat and a german shepard. It doesn't happen. Why because genetically it won't happen... naturally without outside laboratory assistance. So c'mon, please, it's not tautology okay? It's a biological fact.  


Empty Hands said:


> > Originally Posted by *MA-Caver*
> > To say that "he was born that way" is a huge misstatement. If this were true then it would be acceptable to us deep in our own psyches the same way that same gender sex is acceptable, though not always condoned.
> 
> 
> ...


That is a surface psychology that causes people to react in a certain manner towards a particular act. Some people are fine with two men/women having sex and others choose to be violently opposed to it, still others choose to keep their opinions to themselves. But their opinions do not weigh in the fact that because the two men/women are human into their equation. They're only looking at the similarity of their sexes. 
Here we have (violent) reactions ranging from "gross!" to "ick" to :barf: because deep down inside they (we) know it's not a natural thing to do. So yeah, we're going to be expressing irrationally at this particular bit of information/story because it's irrational. Humans can mate with different types of humans, dogs can mate with different types of dogs, cats with different cats, whales with different whales and so on and so on. I think you're intelligent to know what I (and everyone else *meant*) when saying SPECIES. 


Empty Hands said:


> Oh, and for the inevitable chuckleheads: I am not into animal sex, nor do I approve of it.  I would just like there to be some rationality behind the arguments more compelling than "ick!".


. Well naturally there will be more compelling arguments beyond the initial "icks" "eww's" "grosss!" ... some folks need more time to get over the shocking (mental) image than others.


----------



## MBuzzy (Feb 22, 2008)

It also has to do with motive and ability....Humans are the only animals that really have a MOTIVE to have sex with anything that moves.  We do it for enjoyment.  Most of the animal kingdon does it for reproduction (as far as we know).  We also have the ABILITY to pull it off.  A zebra and a waterbufflo aren't going to get it on because things just aren't in the right place....and I really dont' think that they get along.  Humans are pretty creative, we'll find a way to make it work.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 22, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> It also has to do with motive and ability....Humans are the only animals that really have a MOTIVE to have sex with anything that moves.  We do it for enjoyment.  Most of the animal kingdon does it for reproduction (as far as we know).  We also have the ABILITY to pull it off.  A zebra and a waterbufflo aren't going to get it on because things just aren't in the right place....and I really dont' think that they get along.  Humans are pretty creative, we'll find a way to make it work.


Thank you. My point... it's psychological.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 22, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> A lion and a tiger are basically the same species just _different types_ of the *same* species... cats! Felines.


 
Plus, they can be bred for their skills in magic.  They're pretty much my favorite animal.  Gosh!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 22, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> A lion and a tiger are basically the same species just _different types_ of the *same* species... cats! Felines.
> 
> Basically you're not going to see a zebra and a waterbuffalo mixing it up anytime soon, though they're similar they're different species; equine and bovine. That is what I'm talking about. One could argue that someone from Asia or Africa or an even an Australian Aborigine is a different species from a European/American Caucasian but they're both STILL human! You've heard of cockapoos haven't you? The cross between a cocker-spaniel and a poodle? But I'll be damned surprised if you show me a Persian-shepard; a cross between a persian cat and a german shepard. It doesn't happen. Why because genetically it won't happen... naturally without outside laboratory assistance. So c'mon, please, it's not tautology okay? It's a biological fact.


 
YEAH RIGHT&#8230;Sure&#8230;you expect me to believe that&#8230;if that is true then how do you explain a Chimera or a Jackalope


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 22, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> YEAH RIGHTSureyou expect me to believe thatif that is true then how do you explain a Chimera or a Jackalope



(throwing hands up!) *Xue*! .... (hands over my eyes) sigh!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 22, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> (throwing hands up!) *Xue*! .... (hands over my eyes) sigh!


 
Sorry.. I just couldn't resist (hangs head in shame and skulks away)


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 22, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Sorry.. I just couldn't resist (hangs head in shame and skulks away)


S'ok... c'mon back over here... it's ok.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> A lion and a tiger are basically the same species just _different types_ of the *same* species... cats! Felines.



I'm sorry, this isn't true.  Lions and tigers are definitely different species.  Lions are the species _Panthera leo_, and tigers are _Panthera tigris_.  Housecats are a different genus even, _Felis domesticus_.  Lions and tigers do share some genetic similarity, which is why they can produce hybrids.  Similar to horses and donkeys producing mules.  However, they are still different species that do not normally reproduce together.

You also might want to rethink this logic a bit.  It would imply that it would be just dandy for humans to get it on with chimps or gorillas.  After all, we are all apes.



MA-Caver said:


> One could argue that someone from Asia or Africa or an even an Australian Aborigine is a different species from a European/American Caucasian but they're both STILL human!



No one couldn't.  Asians, Africans and aborigines all fit the basic definition of a species; "a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."



MA-Caver said:


> So c'mon, please, it's not tautology okay? It's a biological fact.


 
No, the tautology is in reference to your statement "Why? Because it's wrong!".  That is a classic tautology.

Also, producing viable offspring (a Cat-Dog as you say) is different from your original claim that different species never try to mate with each other.  That is manifestly untrue.  Even if it was true though, the "unnatural" argument doesn't fly for reasons I have already enumerated.



MA-Caver said:


> But their opinions do not weigh in the fact that because the two men/women are human into their equation. They're only looking at the similarity of their sexes.



I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here, but it seems pretty far away from everyone knowing "deep down" that homosexuality is OK.



MA-Caver said:


> I think you're intelligent to know what I (and everyone else *meant*) when saying SPECIES.



With respect, I'm not even sure you know what you mean by species.  Different whales are different species.  Different apes are different species.  Chimps and humans are not in the same species because we are both apes.

Even if we were though, as I have stated repeatedly, it still doesn't hold water as a rational argument against beastiality.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> We do it for enjoyment.  Most of the animal kingdon does it for reproduction (as far as we know).



Bonobos and dolphins have both been documented having sex for non-procreative reasons.  In bonobos particularly, it seems to serve a function as both recreation and a tool for social cohesion.

Many male animals will also use "sex-lite" such as mounting positions as a tool of dominance against lower ranked males.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 22, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I'm sorry, this isn't true. Lions and tigers are definitely different species. Lions are the species _Panthera leo_, and tigers are _Panthera tigris_. Housecats are a different genus even, _Felis domesticus_. Lions and tigers do share some genetic similarity, which is why they can produce hybrids. Similar to horses and donkeys producing mules. However, they are still different species that do not normally reproduce together..


 
Oh please 

Ok their the same genus Panthera that is made up from the species Leo and Tigris to name 2. The point I believe was, for example that a dog and a human a dog and a cat a fish and an aardvark are to different genetically to reproduce they are NOT the same genus

Panthera is a genus of chiefly large cats that includes the snow leopard, tiger, leopard, jaguar, and lion, most having the ability to roar


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Oh please



What?  They aren't the same species.



Xue Sheng said:


> The point I believe was, for example that a dog and a human a dog and a cat a fish and an aardvark are to different genetically to reproduce they are NOT the same genus



Actually Caver's point was difficult to determine, mostly I think due to a confused idea of what a species is.  Not all whales are of the same species, and a blue whale and a sperm whale (for instance) cannot probably successfully produce offspring, but he seemed to be indicating that they could.

In any case, I have already acknowledged this point, and refuted it.  The "naturalness" of an act has no bearing on the morality.  If it did, then you are immoral for taking antibiotics to cure your diseases or wearing a nylon jacket.  None of these things are natural, but (almost) nobody thinks they are wrong.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 22, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> What? They aren't the same species.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
If I am correct the supplied link, which I will not watch, was about Bestiality. Two COMPLETELY different genus as well as species and pretty much that is not considered natural by any authority on the subject of reproduction I know of. 

And morality is something ENTIRELY different that I am not even talking about here. But I will go out on a limb here and state for all to read that from a morality standpoint I don't think bestiality is considered moral at all nor do I consider it moral

But to be completely honest about where this post appears to be going now all I have left to say is I'm terribly sorry but this is now getting a bit too silly for me to continue. 

Have a nice day :asian:


----------



## arnisador (Feb 22, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Bonobos and dolphins have both been documented having sex



Wow, there's a mental image I didn't need. I hope the monkey is the one on top.



> Many male animals will also use "sex-lite" such as mounting positions as a tool of dominance against lower ranked males.



I sense a BJJ joke here...


----------



## SageGhost83 (Feb 22, 2008)

.....Ok, Empty Hands, you can bang the dog for crying out loud, now stop getting so mental on us :lol:!

Joking aside, and please don't pound my face in ..............:lol:. Seriously this time, I see what you are trying to say and I agree that there is a certain tautology in that case. I won't condemn it just becuase many say that it is an unquestionable wrong in their books. However, animals engage in many such activities including cannabalism of their own offspring. I would hope that humans have formed more developed social behaviors since leaving the wild. I personally don't approve of it because it just seems like an insane and a very heinous thing to do. It doesn't seem like the animals are against it though - did the dog try to fight back? How about the horse who was "pitching" (by the way, I heard about that one on Elliot in the morning - I think he said that the guy had a broken pelvis, too.) I still go with Caver on this one, though. ****ing animals? Suddenly *man's best friend* takes on a whole new meaning.


----------



## SageGhost83 (Feb 22, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Many male animals will also use "sex-lite" such as mounting positions as a tool of dominance against lower ranked males.


 
Ohhhh, so that is what UFC is all about :lfao::lfao::lfao:. Okay, I am done. Let me stop before I get in trouble.


----------



## SageGhost83 (Feb 22, 2008)

SageGhost83 said:


> Ohhhh, so that is what UFC is all about :lfao::lfao::lfao:. Okay, I am done. Let me stop before I get in trouble.


 
Poor Karateka never stood a chance against those uber-horny Gracies :roflmao:. Okay, seriously, I am done :lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2:.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 22, 2008)

SageGhost83 said:


> Ohhhh, so that is what UFC is all about :lfao::lfao::lfao:. Okay, I am done. Let me stop before I get in trouble.


Its only gay if you make eye contact.


----------



## SageGhost83 (Feb 22, 2008)

I apologize for the profanity gaffe in post #32 folks:duh::asian:.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 24, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> That's a tautology.  Why is it wrong?  Certainly not because it is "unnatural" as you seem to imply (although not true, cross-species matings do happen.  Ever heard of a liger?).  Plenty of things are unnatural that are not wrong, including antibiotics, nylon and space travel.


Animals can't give consent.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 26, 2008)

Marginal said:


> Animals can't give consent.



Why is consent necessary for sex, but not necessary for killing and eating, working, or medical experimentation?  For humans, informed consent is the cornerstone of any medical experimentation, so that issue is directly comparable.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 26, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Why is consent necessary for sex, but not necessary for killing and eating, working, or medical experimentation?  For humans, informed consent is the cornerstone of any medical experimentation, so that issue is directly comparable.


As long as you use immature humans (kids) in the comparison, it follows quite closely. 

Swift aside, there are ethical guidelines wrapped around animal use/abuse. It may be arbitrary, but then so are all our social rules if you insist on going down that road. Does having sex with an animal do it any favors? Probably not. So I figure that's reason enough to discourage the practice. (A reason that is not, "it's icky.") Not to mention the potential public health issues a beast of burden with two backs can give rise to.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 26, 2008)

Marginal said:


> Does having sex with an animal do it any favors? Probably not. So I figure that's reason enough to discourage the practice. (A reason that is not, "it's icky.")



Pretty close, really, considering that death doesn't do the animal any favors either.  I'm just not satisfied with arbitrariness as a standard for law making and punishment.



Marginal said:


> Not to mention the potential public health issues a beast of burden with two backs can give rise to.



The fully human version has far more disease related health risks, actually.  Zoonotic diseases of any stripe are fairly rare and usually difficult to catch.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 26, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Pretty close, really, considering that death doesn't do the animal any favors either.  I'm just not satisfied with arbitrariness as a standard for law making and punishment.


There's a difference between eating an animal or torturing it. 



> The fully human version has far more disease related health risks, actually.  Zoonotic diseases of any stripe are fairly rare and usually difficult to catch.


They're not usually things humans especially want to catch though. Cow pox etc.


----------

