A legal defense of donkey sex
- Thread starter the next guy
- Start date
sanityovar8ted
OG Moma Coli....dat bytch Thowd!!!
smh smh smmfh
Ain't That Something
Superstar
Let that man ride!
the next guy
Superstar
let's make this fun coli what do you think.
Youhadasparkwhenustarted
Superstar
fukked up, but they might've found a legit loophole in the language of the law.
They’re specifically targeting the language of Florida’s anti-bestiality law, which does not require proof that an animal has been harmed or “of the sexual activity being non-consensual,” or even of penetrative sexual contact.
The attorneys write, “Therefore, the only possible rational basis for the statute is a moral objection to sexual acts considered deviant or downright ‘disgusting.’” And that, they argue, is unconstitutional
The state can argue that animals can't consent regardless though and that it was implied, but then the defense would argue that you can't implicitly state shyt because it's dangerous to set a precedent of leaving a statute open to interpretation
They’re specifically targeting the language of Florida’s anti-bestiality law, which does not require proof that an animal has been harmed or “of the sexual activity being non-consensual,” or even of penetrative sexual contact.
The attorneys write, “Therefore, the only possible rational basis for the statute is a moral objection to sexual acts considered deviant or downright ‘disgusting.’” And that, they argue, is unconstitutional
The state can argue that animals can't consent regardless though and that it was implied, but then the defense would argue that you can't implicitly state shyt because it's dangerous to set a precedent of leaving a statute open to interpretation
the next guy
Superstar
fukked up, but they might've found a legit loophole in the language of the law.
Theyre specifically targeting the language of Floridas anti-bestiality law, which does not require proof that an animal has been harmed or of the sexual activity being non-consensual, or even of penetrative sexual contact.
The attorneys write, Therefore, the only possible rational basis for the statute is a moral objection to sexual acts considered deviant or downright disgusting. And that, they argue, is unconstitutional
The state can argue that animals can't consent regardless though and that it was implied, but then the defense would argue that you can't implicitly state shyt because it's dangerous to set a precedent of leaving a statute open to interpretation
Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
Look what the homosexuals did. Sad this is the direction the country is going.
It only takes 1.
It only takes 1.
the next guy
Superstar
Last edited by a moderator:
the next guy
Superstar
@Buckeye Fever @Family Ram
Last edited by a moderator:
Family Man
Banned
^^
LMAO. You got jokes
LMAO. You got jokes
the next guy
Superstar
Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
Trying to get this started
Nothing will get started. These demons have a darling, the gay community. They'll turn a blind eye to the rest of the filth that gets cosigned as a byproduct of selling their souls to queens. Its so demonic, friend.
KAWS
Pro
Nothing will get started. These demons have a darling, the gay community. They'll turn a blind eye to the rest of the filth that gets cosigned as a byproduct of selling their souls to queens. Its so demonic, friend.
say what you want about the gay community, but the relationships they're advocating are between two consenting adults.
This is one consenting adult, and an animal with the inability to speak and no opposable thumbs.
No comparison
at OP posting the same article in here and HL.
at @Mr. Somebody posting the same opinion in both of them.
Last edited by a moderator:
don't know why my name was mentioned but i don't condone that gay shyt. 
Last edited by a moderator: