I do think there is one serious matter here however. Because of the "whatever floats your boat" nature of Court decisions, no one in Washington State argues that sex with animals dehumanizes the participant and the society of which he is a part and should be banned on that ground. There is no argument that such degeneracy can not be tolerated. Forget about even mentioning how unnatural it is, a definite "unnatural act" under the common law.
The real reason this is being banned, without any opposing views being presented I might add (where's Peter Singer when you need him), is that it's revolting and people want it stopped and strong disapproval registered. I can also guarantee that the real reason this law is being passed closely tracks my reasons above. However, no one in progressive Washington State will say so. The legislature is intimidated by statements of the Supreme Court on abortion and homosexual conduct (long banned by statute and the common law):
"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." (Casey and repeated in Lawrence)Now, why do I bring this up? Because of bans on smoking in bars. (Didn't see that coming!) Now, many smokers define themselves as such and think "the Great God Nic'Otine" as Kipling called it is necessary to their concept of existence. Congregating, drinking and smoking with those likewise inclined is, for some, the essence of the mystery of human life. It has a long history in this country and in Britain, so much so as to be warp and woof with American freedom. Yet the right of consenting adults to smoke where they drink is being eliminated in all the tony areas of the country where it's OK to boff the local equines. The risible claim is that second hand smoke injures the employees and other patrons (all of whom volunteered to be there much like the lover of equines). Is this fair? I say no.
I propose a truce. I shall abstain on votes on equine boffing if those against a bar owner allowing a cigar in his establishment do the same.
Ed. note - Many thanks to JJV for identifying the link between smoking bans and equine boffing. Apparently, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Also, although the ads change from viewing to viewing, the first time I looked at the article there was a banner headline at the top saying "Their love life isn't what it used to be" and an ad at the side with a picture of a dog and the words "Pets OK."
2 comments:
Since the link has now been made between between cigar puffery and horse buggery, methinks the second-hand smoke argument works in both instances.
Third parties have a legitimate claim of injury with both practices: smoking causes demonstrable damage to the lungs, just as researchers now believe that equine boffing was responsible for much deafness, dumbness, and blindness of pinball players in the '70s.
If either practice is to be allowed, even tacitly, both should be done far from fellow citizens.
I agree. Pinball playing should be kept out of sight of polite society. It leads to smoking and, as we now know, equine boffing.
Post a Comment