We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Bestiality
Details
Submitted by[?]: Neo Kanist Rite Party of Sorbanika
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2731
Description[?]:
| Bestiality |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding bestiality (performing sexual acts with animals).
Old value:: Bestiality is legal and unregulated.
Current: Bestiality is illegal.
Proposed: Bestiality is illegal.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:25:59, March 25, 2009 CET | From | Neo Kanist Rite Party of Sorbanika | To | Debating the Bestiality |
| Message | The NKRP believes that Bestiality can be extremely unhygienic and is unfair on the animal in question because the animal cannot give consent. ENOUGH SAID. |
| Date | 19:12:30, March 25, 2009 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Bestiality |
| Message | Shouldn't that choice be up to the animals? |
| Date | 20:45:32, March 25, 2009 CET | From | Neo Kanist Rite Party of Sorbanika | To | Debating the Bestiality |
| Message | In an ideal world yes, but then you need to overcome the fairly obvious issue of how to communicate with the animal. We feel that most animals are unable to express their opinions on the matter and therefore bestiality should not be allowed. |
| Date | 21:30:32, March 25, 2009 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Bestiality |
| Message | At the risk of being unnecessarily crude, one could argue that the non-consent of squirrels can probably be assumed, and the non-consent of tigers is probably painfully (literally) self-evident. If "Farmer Owens" wants to 'experiment' on the sheep, isn't it reasonable to assume they'd make some kind of fuss, if they weren't 'up for it'? In that situation, a better question might be "should the food producer have to include THAT on the food labelling?" |
| Date | 22:01:38, March 25, 2009 CET | From | Liberal Conservatists | To | Debating the Bestiality |
| Message | Is that how this country is going to be ruled then? It`s getting better and better eh? If "Farmer Owens" wants to "experiment" he can visit a public house or he could do it in the privacy of his own bedroom, assuming he has a wife. Bestiality is simply outrageous and if THATS SuDP`s the plan for making the people of Likatonia happy then sincere congratulations... |
| Date | 22:08:48, March 25, 2009 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Bestiality |
| Message | The LNF seems to be assuming that "Farmer Owens" WANTS human partners. Maybe 'he' wants to experiment because he's HAD human partners, and wants to try something new? Maybe 'he' wants to experiment because he has no interest in people? Maybe 'he' just really likes animals - like REALLY likes? It's not like this is a 'policy' issue for the SuDP - we're not the Animal-Liberation-IN-BED-party. We didn't say that was our 'plan' for anything, so that's a little disingeuous of the NF. But... why is it 'outrageous'? Why does the national front oppose freedom to choose partners? |
| Date | 23:29:37, March 25, 2009 CET | From | Liberal Conservatists | To | Debating the Bestiality |
| Message | Even if some people might like it, it is not an excuse to make it legal. By making it legal we are simply encouraging this kind of behaviour, which is unacceptible. What do SuDP think a wife or a husband of such person would think, if they found out that their partners are leading a double life... in a barn? Hardly if any animal instincts will make them be attracted to another species. That`s why we think it`s outrageous, since they cannot choose for themselves and they are basically being raped as an "experiment". We do not oppose freedom to choose partners at all. But by partner we DO mean a human partner, not an animal. |
| Date | 00:11:48, March 26, 2009 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Bestiality |
| Message | Even if some people DON'T like it, it's not an excuse to make it IL-legal. WHy do the national front hate freedom? You ask what the wife or husband would think... how do you know they don't already know, and approve? For all the National Front KNOW, the average Likatonian household has a pet PURELY as a marital aid. As for the argument that animal instincts don't allow for an animal to be attracted to another species, we have to assume that the old classic 'dog humping it's master's leg' is somehow lost on the NF? The fact that humans, as members of the animal kingdom, sometimes make a DELIBERATE choice to opt out of the genepool, clearly makes a lie of the NF argument. As for the assertion that animals can't 'choose for themselves'? In what way? Dogs are rather well known for being sharp at one end - if your dog doesn't want you to play with him/her... he or she will let you know. Basically, the National Front are making a PERSONAL value judgment, and then trying to enforce it on EVERYONE. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 334 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 416 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Before creating a party organisation, check to see whether there are any existing organisations which cover the same agenda. |
| Random quote: "I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants." - A. Whitney Brown |