Huh, and there are those out there that suggest there is absolutely no parallel between the two. Must have been a cooincidence.
I'd be willing to bet that the law in question was similar to article 125 of he UCMJ:
Quote:
?(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 by punished as a court-martial may direct.?
And rather than rewrite the law, they simply repealed it.
Contrary to the beliefs of knee-jerk reactionists who opposed the removal of unenforceable sodomy laws from the UCMJ, eliminating Article 125 in its entirety does not make sex with animals lawful. Article 134 says:
Quote:
?Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.?
Furthermore, the UCMJ is only one code of law. Troops are also bound to Federal Laws, as well as state/local laws or Status Of Forces Agreements that incorporate the laws of the host nation.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
......... eliminating Article 125 in its entirety does not make sex with animals lawful. Article 134 says:
Furthermore, the UCMJ is only one code of law. Troops are also bound to Federal Laws, as well as state/local laws or Status Of Forces Agreements that incorporate the laws of the host nation.
I think that the article is saying that they had to make sex with animals illegal (also "pimping" animals...). That means it must have been legal (after the law change in the 60's).
My point is only that homosexuality and bestiality are not entirely unrelated... Both are down the same road, or behind the same door..... Anyway, the fact that they were legislated together should tell us something.... I am not saying "homosexuality should be illegal" because I agree that it is not something really enforceable. I do think it has implications as to the down the road effects of embracing it however.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
I think that the article is saying that they had to make sex with animals illegal (also "pimping" animals...). That means it must have been legal (after the law change in the 60's).
Article 125 doesn't explicitly prohibit homosexuality. It prohibits sodomy, without regard to the genders of the participants. Heterosexual oral sex is considered sodomy under that law. Homosexual handjobs would not be considered sodomy, nor would homosexual kissing be prohibited under Article 125. The ancient Greeks practice of homosexual intercrural sex ("between the thighs") would not be prohibited under Article 125.
But, Article 125 is typically read as "prohibiting homosexual activity". The page you cited (and the one it cites) does not specify exactly how homosexuality and bestiality were simultaneously legalized. I suspect that the law that was repealed in 1969 was a sodomy law that included a wide variety of sexual behaviors, without regard to whether those behaviors were heterosexual or homosexual.
Quote:
My point is only that homosexuality and bestiality are not entirely unrelated... Both are down the same road, or behind the same door..... Anyway, the fact that they were legislated together should tell us something....
If the law in question was comparable to Article 125, then anal sex, oral sex, and bestiality were legislated together. But as I've mentioned, there are a wide variety of activities that would be considered homosexual but could not be considered sodomy under Article 125.
I think your argument that "they would be legislated together" would be opposed by everyone who appreciates the art of the blowjob.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
In summary, it is a very old law with some translation issues from old german to english but the original text from May 15, 1871 is as follows (translated):
Quote:
"Unnatural fornication, whether between persons of the male sex or of humans with beasts, is to be punished by imprisonment; a sentence of loss of civil rights may also be passed."
So don't worry... Those things that many of us enjoy in a natural sexual relationship would still be legal...
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
In summary, it is a very old law with some translation issues from old german to english but the original text from May 15, 1871 is as follows (translated):
So don't worry... Those things that many of us enjoy in a natural sexual relationship would still be legal...
Hey, good link! Thanks! Let's explore Section 175 a little more in-depth:
Quote:
Paragraph 175 (known formally as ?175 StGB; also known as Section 175 in English) was a provision of the German Criminal Code from 15 May 1871 to 10 March 1994. It made homosexual acts between males a crime, and in early revisions the provision also criminalized bestiality. All in all, around 140,000 men were convicted under the law.
The statute was amended several times. The Nazis broadened the law in 1935; in the prosecutions that followed, thousands died in concentration camps. East Germany reverted to the old version of the law in 1950, limited its scope to sex with youths under 18 in 1968, and abolished it entirely in 1988. West Germany retained the Nazi-era statute until 1969, when it was limited to "qualified cases"; it was further attenuated in 1973, and finally revoked entirely in 1994 after German reunification.
Hmmm. Questionable input on the legislation, but just because Hitler liked apple pie doesn't mean we should cut down all the apple trees.
Quote:
English has no concise, non-obscene verbal phrase equivalent to Unzucht treiben: in a sexual context, Unzucht treiben specifically suggests a person doing something to another.
The 1935 statute removed the previous qualifier widernat?rlich ("against nature"). In the 1871 statute, in combination with widernat?rlich, Unzucht clearly meant anal sex. However, Unzucht without the qualifier could be interpreted in a much broader sense simply as "lewdness", leading to the possibility of punishment for acts as mild as kissing, fondling, or mutual masturbation that previously would not have been considered criminal. This was not merely an aberration of the Nazi era: the courts in the Federal Republic (West Germany) understood the term similarly.
As I suspected. "Sodomy" refers specifically to anal sex, but as used legislatively, "Sodomy" refers to a wide variety of sexual acts that do not necessarily refer to homosexual acts. This just confirms that Article 125 is very similar to the Nazi-era law.
Again, just as the elimination of Article 125 would not legalize bestiality under the UCMJ, it's not likely that bestiality was legalized by the 1969 adjustment of Section 175. Bestiality simply remains illegal under other laws.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Did you read the first article? They had to make besteality (and animal pimping) illegal at the urging of animal rights people.... So why would they do that if it was already illegal???
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
See this article also.... It is evidence that over there, they have made homosexuality mainstream.. Now, they will be pressured by "ZETA".. You read their statement and it almost sounds like a pro gay group...
Quote:
Pro-animal sex group Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information (ZETA) has led a campaign against the measure. “We will take legal action against this,” chairman Michael Kiok told Spiegel Online. “We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification. We don’t force them to do anything.” Kiok has an Alsatian named Cessie.
It's just nasty. Right now, most of you would agree with me saying it is "nasty"..... Give it 5-10 years of homosexuality being mainstream and widely accepted and then people will be arguing with folks on here about whether sex with animals is nasty....
__________________
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
Linear Mode
