SUBMITTED: Prohibition of Bestiality

[Meekinos]

Any re-write would have to take into account the existing resolution which guarantees sexual privacy. Even if deviance was defined in a narrow scope, there is no need to cover the issue of non-consent. The issue of non-consent is already addressed, found in Article 3:

(c) All Nations shall enact and enforce legislation deeming unlawful and duly punishing all sexual acts involving or committed against non-consenting or invalidly consenting individuals, without prejudice to any immunities applicable to minors or persons otherwise incompetent for the purposes of criminal responsibility.

I'm surprised no one else noticed this. It seems there is already something on the books taking care of bestiality. If this is broadly interpreted then we realise that it could easily cover that topic. After all, isn't the whole point of Parthenon's proposal to target those who cannot consent?

The same resolution also defines consent.

(b) Consenting: giving full agreement by words or behavior with respect to all aspects of the sexual act or acts one is engaging in, while not being in circumstances that significantly impair judgement and seriously affect volition, including but not limited to any forms of coercion, deception, error on the identity of the partner; nor suffering from a severe mental illness.

Now, if you will all excuse this delegation, we have other proposals to go examine for profitability.

[Quintessence of Dust]

OOC: Personally, I'd rather the WA discussed an issue like this than "Bob is nice" commendations or "Jeff was mean to Jill" liberations. Voting on drek like this is the only way to keep the "GA" active.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: Personally, I'd rather the WA discussed an issue like this than "Bob is nice" commendations or "Jeff was mean to Jill" liberations. Voting on drek like this is the only way to keep the "GA" active.

(OOC: I suppose that if I were write something worthwhile, that would also keep us active... To the drawing board, then.)

[Morlago]

I would say that the WA has much more pressing issues than this.

[Omega Uliza]

Any re-write would have to take into account the existing resolution which guarantees sexual privacy. Even if deviance was defined in a narrow scope, there is no need to cover the issue of non-consent. The issue of non-consent is already addressed, found in Article 3:

(c) All Nations shall enact and enforce legislation deeming unlawful and duly punishing all sexual acts involving or committed against non-consenting or invalidly consenting individuals, without prejudice to any immunities applicable to minors or persons otherwise incompetent for the purposes of criminal responsibility.

I'm surprised no one else noticed this. It seems there is already something on the books taking care of bestiality. If this is broadly interpreted then we realise that it could easily cover that topic. After all, isn't the whole point of Parthenon's proposal to target those who cannot consent?

The same resolution also defines consent.

(b) Consenting: giving full agreement by words or behavior with respect to all aspects of the sexual act or acts one is engaging in, while not being in circumstances that significantly impair judgement and seriously affect volition, including but not limited to any forms of coercion, deception, error on the identity of the partner; nor suffering from a severe mental illness.

Now, if you will all excuse this delegation, we have other proposals to go examine for profitability.

Now, see that brings up my point from earlier though. Bend a woman over in front of a dog, and what are you likely to get in a few moments. Is that coercion? Then, by definition offering something would mean the same thing, which covers just about all situations.

Ok so maybe not. Guess I didn't know the exact defition after all. What do you know...

That still doesn't erase men and women offering themselves to animals or other beings of an intelligent nature.

[Ardchoille]

Good save, Meekinos! Nice catch!

[Meekinos]

Now, see that brings up my point from earlier though. Bend a woman over in front of a dog, and what are you likely to get in a few moments. Is that coercion? Then, by definition offering something would mean the same thing, which covers just about all situations.

Ok so maybe not. Guess I didn't know the exact defition after all. What do you know...

That still doesn't erase men and women offering themselves to animals or other beings of an intelligent nature.

If folks wish to do so, it wouldn't be an issue since it would be the animal making the choice. The individual would in theory be consenting.

As for bending over a woman, we don't know if she is agreeing to it or not. If she is, then her rights are certainly covered within the parameters of the resolution. After all, consent can be explicit and implicit.

Good save, Meekinos! Nice catch!

Why thank you. I remembered seeing a resolution on this earlier. It was a matter of going through and carefully finding what I needed.

[axmanland]

Axmanland protests this resolution in the strongest possible terms. Here we believe that what a person wants to get up to in the privacy of their own home or indeed publicly in the streets is entirely their own affair.

In fact last year our minister for culture married a Shetland pony and as far as i know they enjoy a happy healthy emotional and sexual relationship, our marriage laws are so all inclusive that many of our citizens have wed themselves to anything from animals to inanimate objects and a resolution such as this would destroy many happy marriages.................why do you hate marriage?

[The Palentine]

I oppose this proposal. I see no need to pass another law outlawing, or protecting people from gross stupidity. As the late great Freddie Blassie once exclaimed...."What the hell happened to the human race???" And people call me a deviant.....While I find the idea disgusting and repugnant, if you really want to roger some livestock, then who am I to judge.

<Cue the music>
Old Noah was mucking the Ark out one day
when he heard a great shriek from the neighboring stall.
Said he to poor Ham, who was hugging his loins,
"Ah, the hedgehog, my boy, can't be buggered at all."
Roll them all over and turn them around,
The hedgehog can never be buggered at all......

[Bergnovinaia]

1st of all I think this is more of a naional law, if any. 2nd, this propsal will only affect a small portion of the WA nations. 3rd, if this proposal isn't illegal and is actually considered important to the WA (which I doubt) it wont have much support when the votes are cast.

[The Palentine]

1st of all I think this is more of a naional law, if any. 2nd, this propsal will only affect a small portion of the WA nations. 3rd, if this proposal isn't illegal and is actually considered important to the WA (which I doubt) it wont have much support when the votes are cast.

Ahhhh! you haven't seen my chart on the voting habits of the festering snakepit have you....

80% Only read the title, and vote accordingly.
10% Actually read the entire damned resolution before voting.
5% Pay attention to and/or participate in the Forum debate before voting.
2% Vote by the warm and fuzzy feelings the resolution gives them.
2% use a magic eight ball to make their decision.
1% gut a sheep, and fondle the entrails, looking for a divine augary on how to vote.

[Bergnovinaia]

So why would people vote in favor of the proposal if its entitled "Prohibition of Bestiality." By the way, if the proposal was submitted, it was ejected.

[Ardchoille]

It was submitted, it was deleted: on technical, not on moral grounds, BTW. I left the thread open in case the author wanted to come back and start a rewrite, but, since he hasn't, I'll lock it.

If Parthenon comes along later and want to have another go, no probs, just start a new thread and tag it REDRAFT.