Elephant Ears

This blog is dedicated to the political happenings in the Valley and Southwest Virginia. As the the name implies, this blog will have posts based on what is heard by this elephant's (GOPer's) ears. It is also a great treat to get while at the county fair or a carnival.

Monday, November 21, 2005

Democrats Have Lost It

Thanks to Too Conservative for pointing this one out. The Massachusetts dems now think since they have gay marriage, they should allow people to commit beastiality.
I have always said if we allow gay marriage, we destroy what marriage is. After that, we cannot stop anyone from marrying anything.


  • At 11/21/2005 10:58 PM, Anonymous Skeptical said…

    O.K. Brandon,

    Here's the challenge.

    What is the current law and how does this change it?

  • At 11/21/2005 11:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Truth and logic don't mean a thing to you do they?

  • At 11/21/2005 11:15 PM, Anonymous Sherman said…

    I know, we should amend the constitution to make bestiality more against the law. We'll build the wall higher against screwing sheep! Kinda’ messes up your major of “Animal Husbandry” at the farm college though don’t it?

  • At 11/21/2005 11:29 PM, Anonymous dennis said…

    Stop picking on the ffa boy from broadway. If he think's it makes sense to find a heifer attractive, leave him alone. call it an exotic cross! how else would you get a brandon/angus? feed conversion would be great!

  • At 11/22/2005 12:10 AM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    I never thought I would see the day that people would defend this crap.
    Its really quite sad.

  • At 11/22/2005 12:19 AM, Blogger AWCheney said…

    Excuse me, but is there an opinion being expressed in these last two posts (Sherman and Dennis), or did a couple of children accidentally find their way here while perusing their porn sites? These remarks were in incredibly bad taste and certainly not worthy of an adult, much less an intelligent one!

  • At 11/22/2005 8:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It would be a great help to your readers to answer the first question:

    "What is the current law and how does this change it?"

    I have followed the link you have provided and must ask you the same question.

    You've thrown it out that Mass Dems want to legalize sex with animals. That's a pretty bizarre charge to make and it is your responsiblility to follow up with something factual.

  • At 11/22/2005 9:45 AM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    They are apparently trying to lower the penalty, I am not sure what that is.
    As usual, you liberals missed the point here. We have been saying if gay marriage is legalized, any "marriage" must be done so as well.
    This attempt proves that.
    I am just amazed that we have had 5 people defend this.

  • At 11/22/2005 10:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    No one is defending Brandon; several have picked on you for spouting/repeating an absurd statement. I agree that you need to verify your charge that< "since they have gay marriage, they should allow people to commit bestiality."
    The burden of proof is on the accuser. I followed your link to a far right site that also purposefully mis-states the proposal. Am I reading something wrong or does the bill allow a judge to impose a sentence of up to 20 years in jail, up to 30 months in the big house, and a fine of up to $5,000. Hardly sounds like anyone is trying to make bestiality legal as per your charge. And again, no one is defending as you also charge; they're picking on you for making such a claim as you have without any hint of verification.
    Does the proposal reduce the penalty or not? Answer that please.

  • At 11/22/2005 10:40 AM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Thats what the article says. The article doesn't say what the current charge is. It just says they want to lessen the punishment.

  • At 11/22/2005 1:12 PM, Blogger valley iconoclast said…

    Here is my questions? If gay marriage destroys traditional marriage why does Masssuchusetts have the losest divorce rate and Alabama the highest?

  • At 11/22/2005 5:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Here I thought that after the election you might get better and lose the blind partisanship. I see i was correct and have now taken onthe extremist hate hat!

  • At 11/22/2005 5:54 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Probably b/c Mass people never bother getting married unless they are very serious about it. On the other hand in Alabama people get married b/c they want to have sex (since they cant do before they are married) then it doesnt work out. In other words, they get married for the wrong reasons.
    The "Christian Values" only carry through until that "death do us part" thing. Then the say heck with them.
    Thats just a pure guess though.

  • At 11/22/2005 6:38 PM, Blogger too conservative said…

    Vally iconoclast-You're simply crazy.



    Alabama is not the highest in either of those two fairly recent data, up to 2002, the most recent I could find.

    You are right though GOPHokie, the South does have the highest because of..http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd111999g.html

  • At 11/22/2005 6:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…


    When do you expect to be able to tell what the bill in question does and doesn't do?

  • At 11/22/2005 7:08 PM, Blogger kilo said…

    The article clearly states
    "The bill would amend the Massachusetts penal code to give judges the option of imposing only a fine or an eighteen-month sentence in local jails for those convicted. It reads, “Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”

    Clearly a reduction in penalty from 20 years to 18 months in local jails if the amendment passes and democrats have their way.

  • At 11/22/2005 7:21 PM, Blogger kilo said…


  • At 11/22/2005 9:29 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Thats Kilo.

  • At 11/22/2005 11:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Ok Kilo,

    I had read the actual bill before I asked. This is where the article "clearly states" begins to go outside the boundries of shall we say, truth? Where in the bill does it say eighteen months? What was it before? I have read several articles attacking the bill that keep making it worse and worse in description but with virtually nothing of any factual nature to substantiate the claim.

    I'm not saying that it might not be there, but you Brandon, and I suppose Kilo, make the accusation. The burden is on you to research and prove the truth in what you accuse..... And Brandon, what you accuse the Mass Dems of is wanting to allow people to commit beastiality. Where Kilo and Brandon does the bill say that? Talk about avoiding the question!
    And back to the question:

    "When do you expect to be able to tell what the bill in question does and doesn't do?"

  • At 11/23/2005 12:18 AM, Blogger kilo said…

    Here's the existing law on bestiality...It is CLEARLY STATED IN THE BILL. If you cannot understand reading law, dont blame me.

    Section 34. Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.

    Here's what they want to change it to...

    Section 34. Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

    There are effectively two changes:

    1. To remove the phrase, "abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast". Notice that "mankind" was in this phrase. This removes the adjectives from the law, and makes it non-judgemental.

    2. Give judges more discretion on how to punish convicts.

    If you consider that liberals have been relying more heavily on judges to enforce law, then you can understand their rationale here.

    But the message that's really being sent is that bestiality is something people should not judge across the board. But rather, let a judge decide if an act of bestiality was "not that bad", or "was very bad".

    If you regularly take your dog to a groomer, and one day discover that an employee has been copulating with it, the new law can let that person go, almost scott free. The absolute most minimum punishment is a fine of $1.00. It all depends on the attitude of the judge. Take a look at it, and tell me if that's not true.
    A little doggie told me that.

  • At 11/23/2005 9:35 AM, Blogger valley iconoclast said…

    Kilo, point 1 isn't correct. The removal of "mankind" refers to acts of sodomy between adults. Sodemy between consenting adults is now constitutionally protected, so it has to be removed from the statute.

    The statute does appear to create a option of a different penalty if the convicted person is incarcerated in a "house of correction" as opposed to a "state prison." I don't know what the difference is but Mass must have both and a procedure to sentence to either.

    It is wrong to say that the statute permits a smaller jail sentence. Both version have a maximum and no minimum so the judge would have descretion in either instance to sentence under 20 years.

    The addition of a fine only option does create the lesser penalty.

  • At 11/23/2005 9:39 AM, Blogger valley iconoclast said…

    Also I stand corrected on the divorce rate statement. I read it somewhere but can't find it anymore. Appears that Mass has the second lowest rate and Nevada (shockingly enough) has the highest. Although the red states seem to do worse than the blue states in general. What danger does gay marriage pose to traditional marriage. Show me some statistic because it seems to me straight people are doing plenty to destroy marriage.

  • At 11/23/2005 10:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Marriage is an institution of the church not the state. If a church does not allow marriage of homosexuals because a little documnent called the BIBLE prohibits it...the state has no right to change that belief. So enough about the homosexual marriage debate.

    If the left wants to win this debate it should be based on rights not institutions.

  • At 11/23/2005 10:39 AM, Blogger kilo said…

    Valley you are wrong.
    The original law states up to 20 years in STATE PRISON. The amended law states same, but also 2 1/2 years in LOCAL JAIL AND OR FINE or BOTH.

    Instead of a state prison trip, They could just get fined or a weekend in jail.
    It is fair to say it lessens the time. How many state prison sentences are for a few weeks? Less than a year? None.

    You can argue it all you want, but a mandatory state prison sentence can now(if passed) be replaced with only a fine or weekend in local jail. Big difference.

  • At 11/23/2005 10:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Kilo, point 1 isn't correct. The removal of "mankind" refers to acts of sodomy between adults. Sodemy between consenting adults is now constitutionally protected, so it has to be removed from the statute."

    That is the most goofy thing posted so far.
    " So Scooby Doo, did you consent to...."
    "Ruff No...Ruff No"

    Bottom line is it weakens punishment.

  • At 11/23/2005 12:01 PM, Blogger valley iconoclast said…

    I agree that it weakens the punishment by allowing only a fine as punishment. However in terms of prison time the exact same range is available, the only change is location of imprisonment. I don't know if the location of imprisonment is a big deal. In VA most convicts want state prison vs. county jail because state prison is a facility with more freedom and more visitation. But who knows what Mass is like.

    Anon 10:46. What's you're point. Adults consent, that is what the statute meant. We have the same thing in VA.

  • At 11/23/2005 12:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Did scooby consent?
    Is sodomy the only type of beastiality?
    We are not talking about consenting adults....DUH

    I agree with Kilo. County time is nothing like state time. Your visitation theory sucks because you could be sent across the state to do your time. No one gets one week in state prison, but you can get one day in local jail. COMMONSENSE.
    Give this one up. You have lost.

  • At 11/23/2005 12:17 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    I appreciate your help on this one Kilo.
    I really never thought I would have but 2 or 3 comments on it.

  • At 11/23/2005 1:17 PM, Blogger valley iconoclast said…

    Anon 12:16 you make my point, the reason to add the ability to give county time is just that. It is no logistically feasible to give short sentences in state prison even though authorized by law. The new statute would not change that but would allow shorter periods of time to be served in county jail. In all likelihood that would save the state money. Range of prison time is the still the same.

    I am not sure what I have lost. My points were
    1. that removing the word "mankind" was constitutionally required
    2. the length of available time is the same
    3. changing location of incarceration is really irrelevant

    why do you atteck merely because I am pointing out a falacy in the argument. Especially, when I admit that the basic premise is correct. Are you so blinded by partisan zeal that you can't admit mistake or that there is another perspective. Is it that Democrats must be evil so everything they do is evil. Come on people lets raise the level of debate.

  • At 11/23/2005 1:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Save states money? Wrong. How much does it cost counties?
    Any fool can see that a law with guidelines that say no more than 20 years in state pen is far more harsh than than the added language in the amendment. Any fool, any convict, any lawyer can see that. To bad your party loyalty blinds a commonsense facter taught in high school.
    Your theory is not backed up ,,such as costs, etc.
    The 4 DEMOCRATS sponsering the bill are backed by the homosexual lobby and we can read between the lines.

    The facts are 4 DEMOCRATS sponsered a bill to REDUCE THE PENALTY FOR BEASTALITY. You should be proud to defend that, sense you can not dispute it.

  • At 11/23/2005 2:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This is one of the dumbest discussions I have ever witnessed.

    We now live on the Planet of the Apes and the Apes are the majority party.

    gophokie made the illogical leap at the beginning of this thread that, "The Massachusetts dems now think since they have gay marriage, they should allow people to commit bestiality."

    No such allowance is even hinted.

    It isn't that these folks think that sex with animals is being promoted, their problem is the removal of code regarding what they consider to be "abominable and detestable crime against nature" among consenting humans.

    The site originally cited for this article also tries to link oral sex to increased risk of cancer.

    The disconnect present is that the extreme social agenda these people pursue considers that every act other than hetro intercourse for the purpose of procreation is equally deviant and should be stamped out. Many of these same people think that ANY form of birth control is the same thing as abortion.

    These same people are so consumed with sex that it colors every aspect of their lives. They probably go to bed at night not being able to get the imagery out of their mind. I’d hate to know what dreams torment their sleep.

    Minding their own business is not an option. They must save everyone else from the demons that haunt and consume them personally.

    There is no point in attempting reasoned discussion with them because none is possible. They view reason and those who use reason as the enemy. Note that with the same breath they scream that more people should be imprisoned longer and then that prison costs too much. They never met a contradiction that they didn’t fall in love with.

    To paraphrase the old saying:

    "Don't try to teach a pig to think and see reason, it will only frustrate you and it will annoy the pig."

    And just so you know hokie, that doesn’t allude to any sort of relations with the pig…..

  • At 11/23/2005 3:17 PM, Blogger valley iconoclast said…

    Anon 2:30, I am beginning to see you point. My fault for trying to bring a level of sanity to the debate.

  • At 11/23/2005 3:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    If you are having sex with animals then

    there is something wrong with you.

    How many layers of this onion do we need to peel before you "progressive" "thinkers" see fit to stop excusing depravity?

    The message here is that society deems this sort of depravity to be of a lesser consequence. Worthy of less scruitiny. What microscopic constituency lobbied for this measure's enaction? I'm not talking about the whole bill here either. This aspect of it.

    Who are these citizens that somehow urged these elected representatives to do this? I would venture a guess that there was zero public testamony by persons that would be directly effected by this measure.

    In other words, the enaction of this dimwitted measure is part of a broader agenda. An agenda that seeks to dismantle any laws based on traditional morality and traditional values. There is no representation here other than the representation of a theoretical "progressive" Zeitgeist.

  • At 11/23/2005 5:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You see Iconoclast, how they can't get beyond a certain point?

    And don't fault yourself for trying.

  • At 11/23/2005 5:27 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    I am pretty sure we have eclipsed the record for comments on my site for this post.

  • At 11/27/2005 1:22 PM, Blogger too conservative said…



    Nice ammount of traffic here.

    To me there is not even a question, why would a legislator even spend time on this issue? Does Massachussetts not have enough taxes to raise, gays to marry, and money to spend without bringing this issue up?

  • At 11/27/2005 2:59 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    I guess not.


Post a Comment

<< Home