New Jersey police officer Robert Melia Jr. will not face criminal charges for allegedly having sex with five calves under a perfectly bizarre ruling by Judge James J. Morley. We previously discussed the case, here. Morley dismissed animal cruelty charges on the grounds that the cows may have enjoyed having sex with Melia.
Morley ruled that oral sex with cows cannot constitute animal cruelty since the cows aren’t talking and may not have been “tormented” or “puzzled” by the experience.
In a simply amazing exchange with prosecutors, Morley went into the uncertainties of man-cow relations: “If the cow had the cognitive ability to form thought and speak, would it say, ‘Where’s the milk? I’m not getting any milk,’” You are allowed to drop your coffee in amazement at this point.
Morley went on to explain that children are comforted by pacifiers and perhaps cows are equally pacified by police officers in these cases: “They [children] enjoy the act of suckling,” the judge said. “Cows may be of a different disposition.” You are allowed to throw up in disgust at this point.
Morley ignored that one cow head-butted Melia in the stomach and appeared far from happy. The prosecutor objected that the cows were “very upset” by Melia’s action and stated “I think any reasonable juror could infer that a man’s penis in the mouth of a calf is torment. It’s a crime against nature.” The problem is that New Jersey does not currently have a ban on bestiality as opposed to animal cruelty.
Morley did note “I’m not saying it’s OK. This is a legal question for me. It’s not a questions of morals. It’s not a question of hygiene. It’s not a question of how people should conduct themselves.” That is reassuring. However, since the cows can never complain about sexual abuse, Morley’s view would effectively end cruelty prosecutions absent physical injury. While “no means no,” “moo” means nothing in Morley’s court. Any defendant could use the Morley defense of “the cows enjoyed it.”
Melia is currently on suspension from the force in Moorestown. His girlfriend, Heather Lewis, is also accused in a case alleging sexual assault on three young girls. Child pornography was also allegedly found in his home.
Lewis is also accused of sexually assaulting a juvenile male.
Not does it defame “Jersey” cows everywhere, but Morley’s ruling gives Moorestown the unique claim to fame as the new vacation spot of choice for the bestiality set (New slogan: “You Can’t Say Moorestown Without Moo.”). I simply cannot understand the judge’s reasoning. While Melia will likely be put away on the other charges, Morley has created some disturbing precedent in this ruling that needs to be appealed by the prosecutors.
A man in Mumbai was less lucky with his judge. He claimed that he could not be charged with having sex with a dog because the dog could not swear out a complaint, here. The court rejected the claim.
This gives new meaning to mad cow dis ease.
methinks the judge may be speaking from personal experience
How now brown cow?
I’ve heard of stranger things, “Caligula married his horse”..
If your “girlfriend” looked like this, you may be turn “bovine” too
Let criminal defendants go because the victims might have enjoyed it?
By that logic, not a single pot smoker should ever spend a day in jail.
Analogy. It’s the first form of cognition for (a) reason.
(Hey, Judge Half-thought. Did you ever consider that since animals are chattel that cruelty to animals is a charge that devolves to a property and misuse without ownership issue because animals proper never have standing? That indeed the owner of said cattle should be entitled to assert cruelty as a misuse of his rightful property on their behalf to his benefit as owner in due course? Whether that’s just a statutory violation or a matter for damages should be up to a jury. But saying the cattle may have “enjoyed” it? I’ll just say I hope they don’t let you try sexual assault cases.)
New Jersey, Youngstown, OH, Sicily. Whats the difference when your name in an A, I E or O? Cows Head, Horse’s Head, your head (no pun intended)you might just end up dead.
I agree with the judge’s position (bear with me here).
From a legal point of view, the man can only be charged with animal cruelty. If it can be shown that the animals weren’t treated cruelly (by whatever standard that jurisdiction uses), then no crime has been committed.
The ‘they may have enjoyed it’ is, I think, a misleading paraphrase of the defence’s argument, but it still works: if the calves enjoyed it (or otherwise weren’t perturbed by it), then no animal cruelty took place. If the calves WERE disturbed and traumatised by it, then cruelty DID take place.
Obviously, this argument isn’t a catch-all. BuddhaIsLaughing mentioned that drug users could never be prosecuted under the ‘they may have enjoyed it’ defence, but that’s stretching the argument beyond its legal (and semantic) bounds: the crime of drug abuse is based on entirely different grounds than animal cruelty. We don’t penalise heroine addicts because they’re harming the poppy seeds, do we?
I think people here are getting too caught up in their own, personal disgust of bestiality. Whatever your feelings about its morality or hygiene, bear in mind that the law is under no obligation to take your personal feelings into account.
To bring in gay marriage: should we ban it because you personally find it icky? Of course not.
Teat for Tat…
“Morley ruled that oral sex with cows cannot constitute animal cruelty since the cows aren’t talking and may not have been “tormented” or “puzzled” by the experience.”
The visual is to much to calculate.:
Dave wrote:
I agree with the judge’s position (bear with me here).
_________________________________
Dave, best leave that *bear* with you alone; theys mean uns when you invite them on a bear skin rug…they et a guy not fur frum whar I wuz a’ pannin’ fur gold ’bout 3 moons ago.
this gives new meaning to the term “hot beef injection”
That is just so wrong, B.
Buddha:
but was it funny?
my jaw’s on the floor
was laughing ’til the last part
now i just feel sick…
Thank You?
Cheers All!
The ariculture futures market for veal tongue will tank/crash when wall-steeters hear this news.
And you thought pork bellies n’ chitlin’ futures trading was gross…
To Dave:
How can a gay marriage be equated with a human having sex with cows? A gay marriage is a union of two consenting “human” adults of the same sex. Do you think Officer Melia can communicate with bovines? Do you suppose he got the cows’ verbal consent before he had sexual relations with them?
This guy is disgusting. The judge is obviously trying to cut him some slack ’cause he’s a cop (as we know cops never do anything wrong). If he were Joe Farmhand he’d be serving time by now. Where’s PETA on this? These defenseless animal(like small children) have no voice of thier own and no way to complain.
Elaine M.
I would assume, that if he is having sex with cows, he herd her say Ok.
To Elaine:
I’m not equating gay marriage with bestiality, per se. I’m using it as a example that, just because you may find something icky, doesn’t mean it should be made illegal.
As you rightly pointed out, the issue is consent: two adult humans can give informed consent, and so it is not a problem if they have sex, regardless of gender. The problem with bestiality (if we at least try to be rational about it) is consent: can animals give consent?
If a dog mounts a woman, has the dog given consent?
I’m not saying bestiality is right, or that the calves gave consent. I’m just saying that, from a legal point of view, there is no crime if the judge finds that no cruelty was committed.
Dave,
I just want to echo what Elaine said. That you would equate bestiality with homosexual sex is just offensive, as well as incredibly inaccurate. Now maybe you meant it as an innocent analogy, but after years of hearing about how gay marriage will lead to incest, child abuse, and bestiality it doesn’t come across that way. I suggest thinking through your choice of words a little more carefully in the future.
To Gyges:
Read what I wrote to Elaine. I was not equating them, insofar as I’m not saying that to have sex with another man (or woman) is as immoral as having sex with an animal.
You’ll notice that it was a single line at the end of my post. I find it interesting that people latch onto a single throw-away statement. If it offends your sensibilities, then replace it with, say, interracial marriage, or omnivorism.
And, for what it’s worth, I’m a gay man myself. I’ve heard the insults too, y’know.
Dave,
Can a 14 year old human give consent to a 30 year old human? Seems like they’ve got a lot higher decision making abilities then dogs.
Hmmmmmm
Dave,
The point is that it’s not a matter of “icky” it’s a matter of abuse.
Like I said, you should consider your word choice a little more carefully in the future. If you consider something a throw away statement, perhaps it’s not really worth saying.
Gyges,
Like bestiality, paedophilia is a question of consent. Can a minor give the informed consent necessary for sex with an adult human to be legal? I don’t believe so; I believe that the age of consent exists for a reason, and that reason is to protect those who cannot yet make an informed decision.
Animals, on the other hand, are different. If we say that an adult dog is less capable than a human child to make decisions, surely that would render ALL sex between animals (dog-dog sex, not just dog-human sex) as statutory rape.
The question of consent is a tricky one. Do YOU think that a 14-year-old human can give consent? Do you think an adult, sexually experienced dog (say) can give consent when it has sex with another dog? Can it give consent with it has sex with a human?
On the lighter side: I think this might be a good case to bring up in moo-t court.
Byron,
Oh yeah, it was wrong in the funny way.
Judge Morley’s ruling is utterly ridiculous.
Of course the calves were moolested by Melia.
Who may or may not have consent from their owner.
To CCD:
I think you mean “udderly” ridiculous.
Dredd,
I am not sure if this is good news or bad, but I had *exactly* the same first thought that you wrote…great minds, I trust….
Bravo Byron!
Said Girlfriend’s mug shot: Cow wearing a gray “Jersey”.
Case Dismissed by reason of analogy.
More “chins” than a Peking phone book..
Why does one see others wearing a Jersey but never a Guernsey? I guess I’ll never understand fashion.
Elaine:
Thank you, you are most generous and correct.
Welcome to the finest cyber classroom on the planet.
“that to have sex with another man (or woman) is as immoral as having sex with an animal.”
Dave,
Are you or are you not implying that homosexual sex is immoral, if less so than bestiality on the morality continuum?
Re: This story, I search my consciousness and the message it’s sending back to me is:
Help! I’m trapped in Bizarro world and it’s becoming weirder, and weirder, even though I’ve turned pro!
Classic buddha!
I couldn’t resist writing a little love poem in the voice of officer melia:
I’m in love, I’m in love
With a creature divine…
A ruminant fair.
How I wish she were mine.
She’s a sweet, lowing voice.
She’s got limpid brown eyes.
She swishes her sleek tail
At hovering flies.
She’s a beauteous bovine,
A cow of great charm.
I’ve been trying to court her
Out here on the farm.
Buddha, ol’ buddy,
Somehow I was acutely aware of your fashion sense, given your *eye* for colors
Ms.M,
You are a brave and liberated woman a’vistin’ this thread. Very good poem.
To FFLeo:
Some topical stories provide much inspiration for us inveterate versifiers.
Inveterate versifier indeed, Elaine you fit right in.
I always thought a Guernsey was that which they would stretch and strap a Jersey on while being wheeled to a lambulance on the way to the veterinary horsepital to pull her breech-birth calf
““that to have sex with another man (or woman) is as immoral as having sex with an animal.”
Dave,
Are you or are you not implying that homosexual sex is immoral, if less so than bestiality on the morality continuum?”
To Mike Spindell:
Way to quotemine. My actual comment was:
“I was not equating them, insofar as I’m not saying that to have sex with another man (or woman) is as immoral as having sex with an animal.”
You’ll notice that I’ve not once mentioned the morality of either same-sex sex or bestiality. What makes you think I’m implying that either of them are immoral?
To Dave:
You said: “I’m just saying that, from a legal point of view, there is no crime if the judge finds that no cruelty was committed.”
My question: How can cruelty be determined by the judge if he can’t question any of the victims? Maybe the cows enjoyed the sex–and maybe they didn’t. In this case the decision was left to the discretion of Judge Morley. Like Professor Turley, I also think it’s a “bizarre ruling.”
I did not have sexual relations with those calves. Bill
Must be a vast wing-ding conspiracy. Hill
Former Federal LEO,
I am not sure if this is good news or bad, but I had *exactly* the same first thought that you wrote…great minds, I trust…
Well yes. We know that the cop is the one who is mad about cows.
The judge is giving testimony, purely hypothetical and purely irrelevant, in these premises because it cannot be known what the animals are “thinking”.
If the victim was a deaf and dumb human being there could be no testimony as to whether or not the victim enjoyed it.
In the judges defence, there are no anti-bestiality laws in New Jersey according to other news reports.
So, it comes down to “does it matter what the victim thinks?”
In cruelty cases against animals the answer must be NO! because they cannot “think” in those terms necessary to make it a crime or not make it a crime.
Hence it is dicta and the judge therefore stretched it when he testified for the cows.
Mel – i – a.
I just met a guy named Mel – i – a.
And suddenly the name
Will never be the same again.
Mel – i – a.
Say is softly and its almost like praying.
Say it loud and its like music playing.
Mel – i – a.
I’ll never stop saying Mel – i – a.
(c) Carnation Contented Cows Chorus, all rts. rsrvd.
Where is our friend, mr. ed, when you need him? Certainly he has a perspective far different from ours on this topic, and he’s hoof out a mean arithmetic, too.
When Old MacDonald found out what was going on with the cop and the calves on his farm, he exclaimed: E-I-E-I-O MY GOD!
Getting it on with farm animals! sick man, really sick…
Elaine,
While I agree that the decision must ultimately rest with the judge (he is appointed, after all, to make such rulings), I don’t think it was a particularly bizarre ruling. His reasoning may have been unorthodox, but this is not a lone case. There are many instances where bestiality crimes cannot be upheld due to the prosecution’s inability to say just what crime has been committed.
Animal cruelty is despicable and should be punished, but, as I said, there are many instances where bestiality has been found to be not animal cruelty, but rather an innocent (if strange) form of sex. There are even countries where one can marry an animal!
It’s interesting to note that while we decry sex with animals, we are more than happy to slaughter them for food (and sport and fashion). It reminds me of a case I once read: a voodoo practitioner bought a goat and ritually slaughtered it in his own home. When tried, the judge noted that he nothing more unusual than what farmers do every day, and he was let off.
While we should be vigilant against genuine animal cruelty, I think people are seeing crime where none exists. Animals have limited communicative abilities, so we have to make a judgement call somewhere.
This too is a form of deviance and sexual paraphilia…
This case clearly needs to be sent to Rick ‘Man-on-dog” Santorum for final disposition.
To Dave:
I’m swayed by Professor Turley’s reasoning when he writes the following: “…Morley’s view would effectively end cruelty prosecutions absent physical injury. While ‘no means no,’ ‘moo’ means nothing in Morley’s court. Any defendant could use the Morley defense of ‘the cows enjoyed it.’”
“Where is our friend, mr. ed, when you need him?’
Ain’t snitchin’ but Mr.Ed and Wilbur have been out tae da barn since the break of morn’ after pitchforkin’ some new mowed hay in stanchion #69. HorseFeathers!
Officer Melia and Judge Morley, please call.
National Association for Man Cow Love Affairs
One might also wonder if the tortured logic wasn’t because the perp was a cop. Considering the circus of sexual deviation Melia and his girlfriend had going on one might hope this decision isn’t foreshadowing of rulings to come.
If child porn was found in his home is he not a responsible party for that offense? Can he not be arrested for that? This ruling does allow melia to proceed to court on possibily a child porn charge and say he had no prior convictions. That right there is a plus for him if he is arrested/tried for child porn.
This is the first line of an article at Huffington Post TODAY, Your “Honor”:
Staten Islander Anthony Taylor was arrested Wednesday for traveling to Pennsylvania with the intent of having sex with a woman and her 14-month-old child.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/anthony-taylor-man-arrest_n_298535.html
One wonders how this judge would evaluate the cognitive level of the 14 month old in order to determine whether this sick piece of sh** broke a law?
To Elaine,
I see what Turley is saying, but it ignores the fact that simply claiming the animal enjoyed it is secondary to actual empirical evidence to the contrary. Killing an animal slowly and painfully can’t be excused with the ‘they enjoyed it’ defence, because they quite obviously didn’t.
In cases where it’s not so obvious that the animal didn’t enjoy it, all we can do is make a judgement call.
We were not in the court. We do not know the reasons the judge concluded that the man was not guilty of animal cruelty. We can cry foul till we’re blue in the face, but I’m willing to trust that the judge made the right decision until demonstrated otherwise.
To Dave:
I understand why the judge may have determined that Melia was not guilty of cruelty to animals. I do find some of the judge’s comments bizarre–when he talked about pacifiers and suckling babies, for example.
My question is: What kind of empirical evidence could be used to prove animal cruelty in a case such as this? If not a head-butt from one of the calves–then what?
The root problem is the state has a very poorly designed set of laws around this issue. Bestiality and forced bestiality (any bestiality involving an animal not the property of a defendant) should be seperate well-defined offenses – or legal. Clean and simple laws can prevent judges from doing goofy things as in this case.
“is as immoral”
Dave,
You’re not saying that it is as immoral as bestiality, but the “is as immoral” connotes to me that you do believe that homosexuality and/or possibly sex, is immoral at albeit a lesser level. My question was basically given that sentence construction do you believe that homosexuality and/or perhaps sex is immoral at any level.
As long as it was a JERSEY cow, who cares?! Gotta rep the State, make it known for something! MOOO-VE over officers, that heifer is lovin’ it!
C’mon Mike he’s porking farm animals! Great Caesers Ghost!
FFleo:
On mr. ed and Wilbur, all I can say is: I knew it!
Elaine,
Empirical evidence could be anything. How do you know when a cat doesn’t like to be smoothed? How do you know when a dog with a broken leg is in pain? If the calf tries to get away, if it cries for help, or if it is otherwise clearly distressed, then I say that would constitute animal cruelty.
But I’m not an animal psychologist. They would undoubtedly give you a better answer than I.
Mike,
I said: I’m not saying that to have sex with another man (or woman) is as immoral as having sex with an animal.
I don’t know how else to say it. I’m NOT (repeat: not) saying that the morality of homosexual sex is the same as the morality of bestial sex. It is not as immoral, nor as amoral, nor as moral: their moral values, whatever they may be, are different.
My sentence was constructed to say they AREN’T of the same moral value. Since we’re talking about immorality, I used the word ‘immoral’. If I say “Murder isn’t as good as charity”, am I espousing the moral virtue of murder? No, of course not.
billy says…”C’mon Mike he’s porking farm animals! Great Caesers Ghost!”
—
I have to agree with billy on this one! I don’t buy the suckling defense (Really?!? Wow!!!).
PS. billy, in the spirit of civility currently circulating through these pages, I’d like to extend an olive branch of peace to you. I know we’ve disagreed before, and I was fairly final in our last exchange. I’d like to set that aside, and in the spirit of Bush-Cheney (tongue-in-cheek), move forward.
I apologize if I’ve offended any anyway. I look forward to the continued discussion…
Here is an interesting article from yesterday’s L.A. Times that relates to animal cruelty: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cruelty23-2009sep23,0,1482217.story
Ms. M.
From your bio, I see that you are a former teacher and write children’s poetry. I think you have found the requisite age group within this silly thread. Oh well, it helps to try humor in these times of hardship…
I never met an English teacher I did not like until I got 2 male Ph.Ds; 1 for college Freshman English (R&R) and the other in a 300-level English Literature class. Never get a male Ph.D. instructor for any English class!
To FFLeo:
Couldn’t agree more about using humor. Yes, I guess I’m in my element here contributing to this “silly thread.” I find laughter a good cathartic for the frustration and/or outrage I feel at times–considering eveything that’s been going on in this country in the past decade.
I must admit I find the story about officer Melia and the cows disturbing. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction!
Where is our friend, mr. ed, when you need him? Certainly he has a perspective far different from ours on this topic, and he’s hoof out a mean arithmetic, too.
mr.ed says this ain’t kosher, even if it’s a cow. Let’s mooooove on.
Animal Cruelty, Offensively Tasteless, or Innocent Fun?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/dogs-in-crazy-costumes-ph_n_298682.html?slidenumber=0#slide_image
Ok now, we have Ball State, Bringem Young or PA going to be known as Moo U?
I went to Michigan State, known adoringly at UofM as Moo U. The biggest college there at that time was Ag. The biggest school was Packaging Engineering; packages made from trees, which are planted in the ground and therefor agriculture.
Well Mr. Ed,
Appropriate for this is, Do you know how to tell when you are getting close to East Lansing? Well, all the sheep are backed up to the fence.
Is this not where in Jackson, MI, the men have mustaches and most of the women do as well?
David,
The reason this isn’t a matter of consent is simple: Animal’s aren’t people. Animals are viewed as property in the eyes of the law.
My car can’t give consent, neither can a cow. Now just because something is your property, doesn’t mean you get to do whatever you want with it, we have all sorts of laws regulating property use. In this case, society decided that having sexual relationships with animals is wrong. You think that it’s because we think it’s icky, I think it’s because it’s a clear case of abuse of a living creature. I don’t expect to change your mind on the matter, but I’ll give you one (though flawed) comparison: My dog would probably enjoy drinking anti-freeze, but I’d still be charged with abuse for giving it to him.
Gyges:
Would you please allow me to cherry picking the following.
“In this case, society decided that having sexual relationships with animals is wrong.” –Gyges
With out a bestiality law in New Jersey, prosecutors cannot charge it.
From the Philly.com article, by J. Nark,
Although a bill was introduced in 2005 to ban bestiality, New Jersey still has no explicit ban on the sexual penetration of animals, which is why the Burlington County Prosecutor’s Office charged Melia with animal cruelty. –J. Nark
I think … a clear case of abuse of a living creature.
– Gyges
Yes I agree with you.
I wonder why the grand jury didn’t get to see the tape? Which might have made a stronger case for the judge to convict on the animal cruelty charge.
George, thankyou. I apologize as well if I have offended you. Loved your last post..
Elaine,
First, not all societies have deemed bestiality wrong. As this judge shows, it is legal in some jurisdictions.
Second, I never said people question it because they see it as ‘icky’. I said that people commenting here seem to be taking their own personal opinions too seriously. Societies at large may have different reasons, such as animal cruelty, or a danger to humans (lest we forget ‘Mr. Hands’).
Third, animals are treated as more than property. We don’t penalise people for being cruel to their garden, do we? Indeed, we treat children as the effective pets (or property) of their guardians.
Fourth, besides the issue of cruelty, I believe the only other pertinent question IS that of consent: if neither party is harmed, and if we somehow knew that both parties had given consent, would you still object to bestiality? This is why I brought up the scenario of a dog mounting a human: the dog has quite clearly given consent (inasmuch as the dog clearly wants to have sex with the subject), as has the human.
Finally, while you would indeed be penalised for allowing your dog to drink anti-freeze, that doesn’t mean the dog has NO ability to give consent. The same is true if you allowed your child to drink anti-freeze: though it was their choice to drink, you would be punished. But they are still able to give consent with regards to other matters, so why not animals?
To Dave:
Why are you addressing the comments you made at 1:44 pm to me?
My last questions to you were the following: “What kind of empirical evidence could be used to prove animal cruelty in a case such as this? If not a head-butt from one of the calves–then what?”
Your answers to these questions were:
“Empirical evidence could be anything. How do you know when a cat doesn’t like to be smoothed? How do you know when a dog with a broken leg is in pain? If the calf tries to get away, if it cries for help, or if it is otherwise clearly distressed, then I say that would constitute animal cruelty.
“But I’m not an animal psychologist. They would undoubtedly give you a better answer than I.”
My question to you: If you find that a cat crying for help, trying to get away, or appearing to be in distress may be signs that the cat is the victim of animal cruelty–then why not consider that the calf who head-butted Melia in the stomach and appeared unhappy may also have been a victim of animal cruelty?
Dave,
I think you meant that last to be directed at me.
I didn’t say “all societies” I said “We as a society.” Please respond to what I actually say, and I’ll try and do the same with you. I know it’s nit picky, but I find it helps conversations to actually listen rather then assume.
I think the main hang up in this conversation is the word “consent.” I’m using it in very specific way (I hope the lawyers here would correct me if I’m using it wrong), and you are using it that way sometimes, and at other times as a synonym for “permission.” My point with asking you about the 14 year old’s ability to give consent was an attempt to illustrate that the law says consent isn’t the same as permission.
Finally, you should realize that we can read what you originally wrote. Your first two comments in this conversation pretty clearly imply that you feel that the justification for bestiality laws is because people think it’s icky.
Since you seem as firm in your position as I am in mine, I’m done with this conversation. If I haven’t explained myself clearly by this point, I’m not going to do it.
The way that cow was dressed, she was asking for it …
Mojo:
black and white patches are a definite turn on.
I’ve seen it hundreds of times: a calf head-butts the cow’s bag when it’s getting an insufficient amount of milk.
BETTER COWS THAN KIDS..
IM NEVER DRINKIN MILK AGAIN
WHERE IS PETA?
COME ON COW BITE THAT SHIT OFF!
Pardon me?,
Very good ‘cryptic’ wit there…
Byron -
Yeah, plus I hear she was wearing ‘pumps’ …
“Dave,
Can a 14 year old human give consent to a 30 year old human? Seems like they’ve got a lot higher decision making abilities then dogs.”
Yes, here in Bulgaria the age of consent is 14, for heterosexual as well as for homosexual sex, irrespective of the age difference of the parties to the sexual act.
A 79-year old man may legally make sex with a 14 year+1 day boy.
FFLeo-
Honestly, I intended nothing witty or cryptic.
by the judges logic I could set-up a Calf-house and charge admission and call it “Juvee Jerey’s Whore House’ and it would be legal.
bovine bordello
veal serve you
For all of you:
Sweet and Sour Calves’ Tongue: Lingua Agrodolce
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/mario-batali/sweet-and-sour-calves-tongue-lingua-agrodolce-recipe/index.html
Billy,
Sexual Paraphernalia, indeed. This is not the first time you have used these words. Whats up with you on this? Is everyone and everyone and everything in your book related to some sexual deviance?
The RCC by no means has a lock on this abuse. By no means, I think that they intentionally have acted in conspiratorial manners sets the tone for a lot of people to see how hollow it is. I too went to catholic school.
I think that you need to evaluate you responses to the folks on the Blawg. Why do you feel the need to be offensive? Attacking? Generally unhappy? Make your point and disagree don’t make it personal.
You all just need to shut the fuck up, and mind your own business, thats what is wrong with the world today,, people need to stop being nosey, if people like having sex with animals let them,,, but if there is abuse or cruetly,, them take them down,, but there are some people out there that have love with animals with passion. just like a man loving a women.
Sounds like someone had to sleep in the cud spot last night. Tsk tsk tsk.
This guy should paint spots on his ugly fat cow girlfriend and put his penis in her mouth for a legal way of pleasure. Its not a crime to like an ugly person. The poor cow could do much better than these child molesting psychos. I hope they get it one way or another and end up someones b*tch in jail so they can have all the nasty penis they want.
This “normal person” has some pretty abnormal ugly thoughts that are fine for the outhouse wall but have no place around here.
i completely disagree with the verdict, for obvious reasons. but I also completely agree with Dave point of view.
most of the arguments surrounding Dave’s orginal post are just hysterical reactionary knee jerks. The laws in that area don’t prohibit such activities as the defendant was charged with therefore no charges can be brought upon him.
Whether Dave decided to use Gay marriage as his example of “icky” or whether it was the collected works of de Sade, or slavery of any other thing the individual may find tasteless or offensive is beside the point.
He was clearly making the statement that “I think people here are getting too caught up in their own, personal disgust of bestiality. Whatever your feelings about its morality or hygiene, bear in mind that the law is under no obligation to take your personal feelings into account.”
the law needs to be impartial, beyond whatever the current zeightgeist is. it’s needs to be ruthless, cold and even heartless at times. But more precisely it needs to be exacting to the letter we have defined it as. We are ultimately responisble for the laws that are created.
i’m not condoning the behaviour of this pig.
i’m saying we make the laws,
1) why the f**k aren’t there laws against beastiality in New Jersey ?
2) why the f**k aren’t there laws against beastiality in New Jersey ?