Is having sex with an animal a crime or even wrong?

[jeager106]

I read recently a 20 year old woman had been having sex with her dog since age 13.
She made selfie and Fido video and showed her boyfriend who was shocked and turned her into cops & she was charged with beastiality, later amended to
a crime against nature.

An odd charge in light of global warming, pollution, rising ocean levels and no one is charged with a criminal offense of a crime against nature.

Should she be criminally prosecuted & is this a crime in your opinion?
No one has commented on Fido's response, or if Fido was in fact willing.
Does Fido need psychological counseling or simply shot in the head as has been the practice for centuries?
Kidding aside tho is this an issue of morality or sexual preference?
Is it a moral AND criminal issue or a morality issue only?
Should the boyfriend feel his g-friend cheated on him? (moral & emotional response?)
Should the b-friend have gone to the cops?
What is a crime against nature? Should the woman be charged criminally with anything?
There are a lot of really keen minds here & I respect them so.
I value those opinions.

If you must have documentation there are many on line articles.
Here's is but one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/2 ... 12694.html

[Lionofthetribeofjudah]

[Replying to post 68 by Lionofthetribeofjudah]

Do you have anything more than bible verses?

Why would I need anything other than Bible verses to prove what is right or wrong in conduct??? If all I offered was my own opinion or the opinions of some other man/woman then the conversation would be limited to our fleshly mortal minds.

Wisdom of Solomon 9:14,16

"For the thoughts of mortal men are miserable, and our devices are but uncertain."

"And hardly do we guess aright at things that are upon earth"

But seeing that neither one of us is the creator of ourselves...

Psalms 100:3

"Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves"

I think that it would only be intelligent to get the information about what is right or wrong from the source of all life and knowledge. And, for clarity purposes... that's GOD!

The God of the Bible which is JESUS CHRIST!

THE VERY NAME OF THIS WEBSITE SUGGEST THAT SOMEONE SOMEWHERE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT WHAT GOD SAYS IN THE BIBLE.

It is becoming clear to me that that person is ONLY going to be me.

I am not concerned about whether or not you, or anyone else believes in the bible.

I will only offer to you what is written.

Also, I can only say to you that you will believe it when you see it.

[Divine Insight]

I am not concerned about whether or not you, or anyone else believes in the bible.

I will only offer to you what is written.

Many of the people on this site have already read the Bible. We have rejected it as being obviously false and unintelligent.

If all you have to offer is what is written then you are wasting your time here. We already know what is written.

The purpose of this site is to debate why anyone should believe anything that's written in the Bible. You can't just assume that the Bible is the word of God. You need to make an argument for why anyone should believe that claim.

For example, you quoted as the wisdom of Solomon:

"For the thoughts of mortal men are miserable, and our devices are but uncertain."

Why should anyone believe that?

Moreover, why should anyone believe that the Bible wasn't written by men, like this Solomon fellow?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 71 by Lionofthetribeofjudah]

So I am expected to take it that you agree with the following too?

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-- you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.

Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

[Beyonder]

That's without the doubt the most disgusting act against anything known to man....no matter how humanoid the animals body parts its still a nasty idea.....

[Bust Nak]

That's without the doubt the most disgusting act against anything known to man....no matter how humanoid the animals body parts its still a nasty idea.....

Really? Worse than violence against each other?

[Eternity]

[Replying to post 7 by jeager106]

"It is surprising to discover that analysts sometimes fail to distinguish between that which is deviant and that which is delinquent. This is particularly manifest in the field of sexual deviation." Perversions & Near-Perversions in Clinical Practice, New Psychoanalytic Perspectives, Gerald I. Fogel, M.D. & Wayne A. Myers, M.D., 1991, p. 187.

"When an analyst, or any other individual, proclaims that this or that theory, practice, or person is "perverse," he may in fact be saying: "Don't look at me, the very model of normality, but cast your eyes over there." The pervert is always someone else! If analysts fail to interpret their own splits and projections with the same assiduity as that required for analyzing the projections of their patients, they may easily appear a sententious and moralistic community." Ibid., p. 188.

"Homosexuality and the other perversions remain mysterious, the causes in dispute. In that respect they are like heterosexuality, for what it is that makes one straight is equally, so far, inexplicable. Given the importance we attach to questions of sexual identity and the thrashing about of experts, one can forgive the layman for taking matters into his own hands. Whatever it sources, I, the Jury [novel] is a fantasy, or more precisely a stimulus to fantasy, that is impatient of mysteries--which in this novel are detected not to be solved but to be denied, unless violence is a solution. The reader who participates in the fantasy sees one unknown achieve definition by conflict with another, which also gets defined in the process. To establish his masculinity, which by definition is straight, the detecting hero must turn himself inside out and destroy what comes to light. The implication follows that masculinity is not given, but achieved, and at some cost. Form the outside, no doubt, the achievement seems gratuitous, absurd, suspended over the void. But that much can be said about the many human values. Whether masculinity is to be valued and perversion therefore devalued is one more question for which psychoanalysis has no answer, not to the extent that psychoanalysis is a science. Mickey Spillane does--thus, I would suppose, his popularity." Ibid., p. 253.

"Our look around for the source of Hammer's attitudes toward perversion have led us everywhere and nowhere--that is, back to the eye of the beholder, which is as it should be. For every act of interpretation reveals as much about the interpreter as about his text. You could say that, I guess, so long as you applied the maxim to yourself while you were interpreting me--or better yet, while you were interpreting I, the Jury. If you did, you would find, I believe, pretty much what I found, that aside from the psychomachia of perverts and straights, aside from the psychodrama of Hammer's attempt to straighten himself out, there is little to keep you turning the pages. For straights, and not just for straights, perversion is an itch that will not go away, whatever its source. Turning the pages of I, the Jury and other novels of its ilk is one way to scratch it. Writing essays such as this one is another. Few readers of this essay, of course, will overtly endorse Mike Hammer's violent way of defining himself in opposition to perverts, if only because anyone old enough to read this essay, pervert or straight, has already in his own way defined himself, and will continue to define himself, through a sustained and covert psychomachia with his own opposing self and its uncanny projections."

The simple of the above quotes and this book relates to what defines a perversion. Robert J. Stoller, M.D. puts it this way: Perversion, the erotic form of hatred,* is a fantasy, usually acted out but occasionally restricted to a daydream (either self-produced or packaged by others--that is, pornography). It is a habitual, preferred aberration necessary for one's full satisfaction, primarily motivated by hostility. . . ." Ibid., p. 37.

Society and individuals have their own perceptions of what is a deviation and a perversion. Feelings, do not define truths nor are they facts but, then society/personal opinions all to often defining what becomes psuedo-truths. Psychology is as much a progression of a discipline as Christianity is a progression of ideals. One does psychoanalysis, the other does salvation. "In other words, sin. That is the excitement comes from an awareness--conscious or unconscious--that one is harming, needs to harm, wants revenge for one's having been humiliated." Ibid., p. 37. If one understands the focus of Christianity one then sees that Psychology is based on the same premise. Christianity is 2000 years old and Psychology is less than 200 years old. The asterisk above is footnoted, clarifying that hatred is not quite the right word, instead "I think, hatred or rage." Stoller's words.

This then defines what is a perversion. There is a formula that fits such a definition and it is, hatred or rage. The Bible says the same.

[Strider324]

Leviticus 18:22-23

"[22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
[23] Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion."

You can't be serious with this question!

Why is it that these verses are always trotted out while verse 19 is completely ignored?

"Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period."

This verse tells us that having sex with your wife during her period is the exact same abomination as bestiality and homosexuality. Why is it never mentioned? Is it because so many Christians engage in it? Do Christians only judge others for certain abominations while excusing their own?

[Eternity]

[Replying to Strider324]

My take on the why is that Christians don't understand Scripture. Your point is a valid one. I've learned that people do not like to be asked why, it challenges their opinion or belief. Understanding Leviticus or Deuteronomy is to understand that the laws are not about sin but about what Israelites were uncomfortable with. The actual use of the word abomination is mostly used, except in a couple of instances, without identifying God as the one that is offended. All others are about taboos, about culture. There is only one sin in the Bible and that is idolatry. For the most part, the Bible is about relationships and love of your neighbor. Not even the passages quoted about male-male sex is about sin, just about Israelites trying to increase their population.

[SailingCyclops]

But just perhaps it violates the natural order .....

Please define "The Natural Order". Think first though. Have you ever had a dog hump your leg? That would be inter-species sex, yes? Anyone who has lived around animals know this sort of thing is not uncommon between species. Oh, and while you are at it, explain how this poor dog, without a soul, will burn in hell for committing the sin of ??????