Texas Senators Vote to Legalize Sex with Animals in National Defense Authorization Act | Texas GOP Vote

You are here

Home » Blogs » David Bellow's blog

Texas Senators Vote to Legalize Sex with Animals in National Defense Authorization Act

The National Defense Authorization Act will allow the President to use the military to detain Americans on American soil without a trial. I am completely in support of detaining terrorists that we have caught on the battlefield, but detaining Americans on American soil with no trial is just outrageous! Every US citizen should be given due process and a trial.

That is not the only outrageous part of the NDAA. The NDAA also now legalizes bestiality!

Members of the military are pawns of political experiments. Instead of focusing on being a well oiled fighting machine without political distractions, the military has to wade through political experiments hurled their way. Soldiers are told to be completely uniform with no distractions. When politicians want to push an agenda they make soldiers on the battlefield the test subjects. The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is an example. It was commonly understood that the repeal was a way to open the door to pushing other social experiments on soldiers when politicians know they cannot push these things on the general population. You see, soldiers are looked down upon if they complain. Soldiers are taught to follow orders. So where regular Americans would not allow something to happen, soldiers just have to accept it.

The United States Senate (including most Republicans and both Texas Republican Senators) has just passed a bill (the National Defense Authorization Act) which strips away the military ban on Sodomy and Bestiality, according to CNS News.

The National Defense Authorization Act includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.
It states: "(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Wow, sex with animals now in the Military.

It is imperative for America to stand up for the Christian, Moral foundation of America. As we get away from the principles that America was founded on, the foundation of America begins to erode and America will see more problems. I was very happy to see Presidential hopeful Rick Perry attend a prayer rally, the Response, in Houston earlier this year. Historical Documents show that the Founding Fathers of America would have approved and likely attended this Prayer Rally. I sure hope the next President can stop using the military as pawns in their political agenda.

Related Content: National Defense Authorization Act, Slight Return - Imprisonment without a trial?

at Dec 5, 2011 9:00 AM
Posted under:
       

Comments

Submitted by Texas GOP Vote on Mon, 2011-12-05 11:54

Make sure to check out the comments on Facebook.

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2011-12-05 13:23
You sir are an idiot. They didn't vote to legalize bestiality. Service members are still held to the same standard as you are on this issue. Is it legal for you to perform bestialty? No, the same goes for servicemembers. The UCMJ goes above and beyond state and local laws. It doesn't supersede existing federal and local laws. Dummy.

Submitted by David Bellow on Mon, 2011-12-05 20:59
it is legal in florida. repealing the military ban on beastiality allows soldiers on a base in florida to have sex with animals..... the truth is shocking sometimes....

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2011-12-06 01:08
How many people do you think this actually effects? How many soldiers out there were just jonesing to have sex with an animal but were waiting for the punishment to go away? 0. That's how many. Your psycho right-wing "Christian" ideals are clouding your logical thinking. The problem was that they stupidly grouped sodomy with beastiality, so when they did away with sodomy they had to wipe the whole article out. Think for once you brain dead sheep (pun intended).

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2011-12-08 09:46
Thank You!

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2011-12-06 03:35
Just because it isn't specifically referenced in UCMJ as illegal does not make it legal. There are general articles in which they can literally prosecute you for doing just about anything. Your faulty logic does not work in this instance. Just say you don't agree with the repeal of don't ask don't tell. I don't agree with it either.

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2011-12-07 13:42
Earlier this year, bestiality was made illegal in the state of Florida... finally.

Submitted by Focus503 on Sun, 2011-12-11 10:53
Like someone said about Texas, you guys have a big problem with that down there in Florida?

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2011-12-07 13:44
As of May this past year, bestiality is illegal in Florida.

Submitted by David Bellow on Sat, 2011-12-10 02:40
well the law was passed in May but it did not go into effect until September

Submitted by David Bellow on Wed, 2011-12-07 20:58
I used Florida as an example of one of the MANY states that legalize beastiality. Last I heard was that Florida had twice rejected a ban on beastiality. I did hear that they banned it as of September of this year but they sure have. Thank you for the correction! Hopefully the other states will do the same.

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2011-12-08 12:02
I wonder if the previous bills failed because of language? Did they group bestiality with other 'immoral' acts like wearing white after labor day or wearing a mini skirt to class. Those bills fail because they try to attach to many things in one bill. I'm ALL for one law, one change. Sounds like micro managing, but when you have 3-300+ million people, you can't make broad laws like that. You have to break it down so that each 'rule' of the law can be challenged successfully without putting the whole law on the chopping block. Some judges won't take a case because the broadness of the law means overturning it for the hurtful parts may actually hurt people in other more meaningful ways by removing the positive aspects of it as well.

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2011-12-08 09:45
The issue isn't whether service members can engage in sexual acts on base or not, they are adults, so the military should stay out of their bed time activities as long as it doesn't impact performance. Although, sex with animals won't really impact performance, but that's another post... You SHOULD be pissed off that Florida has made sex with animals legal. NOT that the military is getting their hands out of deciding how people share their 'inner feelings'... I am all for the military making the code of conduct simple and simply telling service member to 'don't do anything you can't do at home!' Simple.

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2011-12-05 14:21
Is it not disengenous that you are tying to extend such vote to mean allowing bestiality? Why not come forward and say you oppose overturning DADT and you disagree with Democrats. But to assume overturning such law was intended to allow bestiality is to assume Democrats have intent to sleep with animals, which is just not a honest, civil assumption. You can disagree with your opponent, but dont stretch your argument to the point of making it silly.

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2011-12-08 09:40
Well said. Nice to see common sense hasn't escaped the tubes completely.

Submitted by David Bellow on Mon, 2011-12-05 21:11

you are right, the Senate did not technically vote to legalize beastiality. They voted to repeal the ban and punishment for beastiality. That effectively legalizes it. With the ban against beastiality in the UCMJ, all soldiers were punished for doing it no matter what state they were in. By repealing the ban, soldiers are no longer punished for it by the military. If it is against state law then they could be punished by the state but not all states ban it.

For instance, Florida does not ban beastiality. Therefore, soldiers on a base in florida can have sex with animals on base and not be punished because now it is not against military regulations and it is legal to do it in florida.

I did not stretch the truth. The truth is that the Senate has voted to remove the ban on beastiality. REPUBLICANS voted for this too so I was not just trying to make stuff up about Democrats. I am not happy with my Texas Senators for doing this either.

 

 

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2011-12-06 11:49
As it stands right now under the UCMJ it's illegal for my wife to give me a beej. Read Art. 125 again. That's what this repeal does away with. The government is not sanctioning beastiality you nimrod.

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2011-12-06 19:37
are you saying they couldnt not have still banned beastiality when they repealed sodomy between 2 people? Of course they could have kept the beastiality ban in the UCMJ but they didn't

Submitted by Helpful Friend on Tue, 2011-12-06 20:12
If it's illegal for her to do you, then could she do me?

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2011-12-07 15:13
It is obvious why the ban was lifted.  Not to encourage bestiality, but to disconnect homosexuality from bestiality, which is good.  You seem to be very concerned about the bestiality aspect though.  Anything you want to share with us?

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2011-12-06 12:26
So, the GOP is now supporting sex with Animals ?, as if men's airport gay sex wasn't enough ?. I'll never vote GOP again.

Submitted by Revered Doctor ... on Tue, 2011-12-06 21:49
That actually doesn't happen. It's only been in the news three times because those are the only times anyone's ever been caught doing it...........Because people don't do that. That and Gay Men are notoriously clean and wouldn't ever do it in a bathroom especially a public bathroom... In fact the only people that do do it in public bathrooms are married couples and transgendered sex workers.......... because non hermaphrodite sex workers always go to hotel rooms, expensive hotel rooms, since there are no longer hourly motels that specialize in "whores" In fact the only "Whores" that still exist as opposed to a high priced sex worker are in business simply because they're being abused and forced into the work. A True Prostitute does not work the street and doesn't answer to a pimp. But a Transgender does not have that luxury. But they are small in number so you always see the same ones in the same area.

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2011-12-08 09:47
I stopped reading after said it didn't happen then said it did.

Submitted by Andy on Tue, 2011-12-06 13:07
The removal of the ban on bestiality here affects less than 1% of the population. 3 million active and reserve US troops out of 380 million people gives a number like .07% of US citizens who are covered by UCMJ. There aren't laws that concern it at a Federal level, so I'm not really sure why you aren't simply outraged at the lack of bestiality laws on Florida's books, since that means 18 million people can 'legally' do it there regardless of the NDAA passing or not. 
Wait, nevermind, I am pretty sure why you're not. Probably because like you, I couldn't help but notice that this section you're making a stink about also happens to be the one banning sodomy, which FYI is the way gay and bi men and lots of adventurous straight men and women like to get down sometimes. What with the repeal of DADT, the military probably feels it shouldn't be quite so strict on back-door entry. 
But don't buy into their big gay agenda. Between DADT's repeal, and when I got back from my last tour, war zones and military bases were basically just turning into huge gay orgies. Not disciplined, effective, stressful environments like you might imagine. All that soldier stuff just fell by the wayside because everybody was way too busy just getting gay with each other. Way hard. Now that this, the last small barrier to unlimited, wanton bestiality on the part of the military is going away, I can only imagine how bad things will get. I mean, obviously these people serving who are actually affected by the UCMJ aren't f*cking heroes that fight for your country every day, even fighting for bigots who want you to fight wars for them while they sit in 'christian' judgement of you. Clearly the more reasonable assumption is that we're all just perverted sex maniacs who, barring the UCMJ ban, will just start having sex with every animal in sight. That's basically your point here, right?

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2011-12-07 01:25
I was under the assuption that the sodomy part was understood and the bestiality provision was to make sure the Marine Corp was included.

Submitted by TimF on Wed, 2011-12-07 09:23
the image of a giant disco ball hanging in the armory with Village People playing made me LOL  :)

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2011-12-21 16:51
So I guess this means that now the troops helping to grow and guard
the opium, can now have sex we the cow? Thats doing the plowing talk
about mind games, we really need to take a look at where we are going
with this kind of krud.......If it has no real meaning ,then why put it in the bill?It shows you where the goverments mind is ,not a nice place to be.

Submitted by TimF on Tue, 2011-12-06 13:33
You're missing the point here.. if there were a law on the books that said "It is illegal for women to either drive a car or shoot heroin into the soft spot of a baby's head"... overturning that law so that women could drive would not be indicative of your desire or intent to shoot heroin into the soft spot of a baby's head
Removing a law that outlaws specific sexual acts that do not harm others is called forward progress and societal evolution.  A good thing.  The bestiality variable comes into play because of the archaic mindset that people had when Article 125 was written. To lump bestiality and  homosexuality together is ridiculous
Also, what social experiment is being forced on the soldiers that we as American citizens would never stand for?  The toleration of others and fair consideration of their rights?  Sounds pretty American to me

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2011-12-06 19:32
that is something being forced in American Soldiers. Would men in the real world be forced to shower with gay men? Would women beforced to shower with men? Of course not. Soldiers are pawns of political experiments and there is nothing they can do about it

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2011-12-07 23:28
Because previously they were NOT showering with gay guys? Get a clue? There have always been gays in the military, they just weren't out. 

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2011-12-08 01:23
But they had to do that before, the gay guys just weren't allowed to reveal themselves.  It's not as though the repeal of DADT has legalized rape or anything; if a gay soldier is found to be harassing others he'll be thrown out just like a heterosexual soldier harassing the opposite gender would.

Also, the repeal of bestiality wasn't the intent.  The repeal of the banning of sexual activity was.  Note that it isn't even necessarily about gay sex, it say "the same or opposite sex".  This is simply the Senate updating an old law that has become outdated in general.

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2011-12-08 09:24
Hey, guess what - straight men shower with straight men all the time.  Straight women shower with Gay women all the time.  Ever go to the gym?  Yup - gay people go too!  Ever use a changing room at a public pool or something similar?  Guess what - gay people have been doing it too!  IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE PEOPLE FIRST - and gay second.  It has already been happening because for years Gays and Lesbians have been forced to live their lives in secret.  But seriously, how many people have publicly stated "my life was ruined because of a shower with other people".  Come on now, unless you're a 13 year old in a physical ed. class, this is a non-issue.  It just goes to show you that the fight is dwindling down for the side that chooses to be espoused with bigotry and hatred.  Your day is over - enjoy holding on to the sinking ship of intolerance as it takes you down.

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2011-12-07 04:52
Bestiality is forward progress? Go hump a cow faggot.

Submitted by TimF on Thu, 2011-12-08 09:44
What do words look like to a warped person like you?  your brain awash in years of fantasy..  Is it just a garbled mess for the most part?  with a few highlighted keywords?  all you took away from what I said was I am pro-sex with animals??
I'm NOT pro-bestiality.. I AM pro-letting people live their lives as they choose (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone).. much like how we let you live your life as you choose.. see how that works?
Whether you are disgusted by the thought of two people of the same sex kissing or not.. that thought should not immediately lead to having sex with a cow!!
If you ARE interested in what it will lead to.. look into how interracial sex and marriage was addressed over the years.. there were many who cried that a black man and a white woman would be the jumping off point for society to fall into an orgy of sin in the streets.. guess what didn't happen?!
Interracial couples did not herald the end of innocence.. nor will same sex couples.. regardless of your personal attitude toward them.. and how much you would LOVE to justify your confusion and hate with confirmation that they will in fact end the world.. but, they won't

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2011-12-07 13:40
its not about the beastiality......
if you allow gays in the military but forbid them to stick it in each others butts..... 
its a bit disingenuous, lol.

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2011-12-06 19:35
I knew it would not be long for the pro-gay people to get on here and defend beastiality. They have to defend it because it beastiality was repealed in the same paragraph as sodomy. This is exectly why it is important to protect traditional marriage. Once the door is opened for a man to marry a man then it is just the beginning.

Submitted by TimF on Thu, 2011-12-08 09:06
you know.. the topic of bestiality doesn't really freak me out so much.. or at least, let me say that the act of it suddenly not being against military law doesn't strike me as all that major of a thing
Maybe that's because I would never consider having sex with an animal!
You, however, seem to have given it a lot of thought.. and it appears to be at the forefront of your mind.. what does that say about you?  Why is it that when you think "kinky weird freaky sex" your brain comes back with "dude and a sheep"?
I would happily raise my family around my many gay friends before ever intentionally exposing them to people like you with your twisted concepts of others.. I wouldn't want my daughter to learn such hate

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2011-12-30 14:46

A big amen to you! I want to marry my cat and my horse and the tree in my front yard, then I will demand that I be allowed to take out life & health insurance policies on them, and then I want them to be eligible for Social Security benefits as my dependents

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2011-12-07 08:43
Before ranting about the threat why not look at the history. How many Article 125 court martials have been held in the last 10 years for bestiality? As far as I can tell there have been none recorded. NON-ISSUE

Submitted by Greg Tremblay on Wed, 2011-12-07 11:43
I'll defend your right to be offended by homosexuality, I don't share it, but I'll defend it.  
What perplexes me is this:
You spent 400 words decrying the outrage of "legalizing" sex with animals and equating it with homosexual partners. . .
. . . and 50 on the fact that the new bill authorizes military detention of US citizens . . . on US soil.
.  .  . seriously?  Of the two of these, the random possibility that someone might bang a sheep, and the horror that two stable adults whose parts happen to be the same might sleep together. . . that's the one that freaks you out?
. . . really?

Submitted by David Bellow on Wed, 2011-12-07 20:48

A Fellow TGV blogger already wrote about that other aspect of the law dealing with the President being given the authority to detain Americans on American soil with no trial. I put a link to that article at the very beginning of my article. There was no need to write a brand new article about that issue when a fellow TGV blogger already wrote an article about that extremely serious issue.

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2011-12-08 10:04
I like you.

Submitted by seen-it-before on Wed, 2011-12-07 11:49
This has been the intention of the administration since the DADT repeal.  That section applies to on or off-base activities, therefore anyone who does anything other than missionary position in the military can essentially be disciplined or court-martialed.  Of course, because this is an old part of the code, it lumps beastiallity in with sodomy.  Repeal of this means you can't be disciplined for fooling around with someone off-base.  Or, you can't be fired for being gay because of a loop-hole in an old code that's not enforced for anyone else.  And repeal of DADT is not a social experiment.  It is catching the military up to societies current standards.  After all, most places won't fire you or kick you out if you are openly gay in the US. 

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2011-12-07 20:59
a job is very different from the military and battle. In the military there has to be complete uniformity and as little distractions as possible. This causes distractions. Why have uniformity at all if this curve ball is trown into things? Also, in the military you have to sleep and shower together. There is no problem working with a gay person at a regular job because you are not forced to shower with that person. Military members are being forced to shower with gay guys. How is that different from making a man and a woman shower together?

Submitted by DavidPinSD on Fri, 2011-12-09 14:53
You are making a false assumption that military folks are not professional adults, and you are assuming that showering with other men will encourage gay men to engage in sex acts with others.  In the real world, that doesn't happen.  Just because gay men will shower with straight men, it doesn't mean the straight men are vulnerable to inappropriate behavior.  It's a huge falsehood that allowing gay men to shower with hetero men will allow unwanted sexual behavior to happen.  All of these men are professional and have a job to do.  They will remain that way.  Oh, and by the way, gay men and straight men have been showering together (without incident) forever -- in high schools, colleges, gyms, and in the military.  The repeal of DADT does not sanction bad behavior -- if a man has inappropriate sexual contact with a WOMAN or a MAN, it's cause for discipline (whatever is relevant in the military).  That hasn't changed because of the repeal.  What has changed is American citizens are no longer denied their civil rights because of who they are.   It's time people stop using fear and blatant lies to justify un-American practices of discrimination.

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2011-12-30 14:43
Being a straight member of the military, my concern is not being "vulnerable to inappropriate behavior". It's because I, being female, would NEVER shower with a male, whether or not he found me attractive, I would NEVER shower with a gay male, nor do I want to shower with a female who is attracted to females, whether or not they're attracted to me.

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2012-01-03 13:42
You just gave away your sexual preference.

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2011-12-07 15:15
It is odd that you focussed on the bestiality aspect of this.  Does this go on a lot in Texas?

Submitted by Jim Cox on Wed, 2011-12-07 21:21
Good God people! The scary part of this Senate action is the detaining of Americans without due process! This is so typical of whats happening in our country. Instead of discussing the real and dangerous actions of our goverenment, we focus on the stupid fluff! How can Congress take any action regarding "due process" of American Citizens? Don't we have a division of power as the basis of our constitutional rights? Either way,to detain an American without being charged with a crime or given the opportunity to defend themselves goes against everything America stands for! I will take the risk of terrorist action in any situation vs. giving up any of our constitutional rights! For those of you who have been spending your time concerned about gays, I suggest you use that time investigating the way Citizens are being stripped of there freedoms. Bush and his Homeland Security BS have stomped on our constitutional rights and the detention of American Citizens without being charged or allowed due process is just a continuation of our loss of  freedoms and rights as provided for in our constitution. They do this under the guise of protecting us from forgein invaders, yet millions of illegals (mostly Mexicans) continue to sneak into our country every day. They are undermining our job market, depleting social services paid for by Americans, that were intended to be used to help Americans. They bring there own language and customs and show very little interest in becoming Americans, obeying our laws or enbracing our beliefs. This influx of illegals (not immigrants) is a far greater threat to our nation then gays, terrorists or anyone wishing to have a relationship with an animal. Wake up Americans while you still have a country to wake up in!

Submitted by David Bellow on Thu, 2011-12-08 17:30

A Fellow TGV blogger already wrote about the President being given the authority to detain Americans on American soil with no trial. That is a very serious flaw in this law. I put a link to that article at the very beginning of my article. There was no need to write a brand new article about that issue when a fellow TGV blogger already wrote an article about that extremely serious issue.

Pages