King County sheriff's detectives are investigating the owners of an Enumclaw-area farm after a Seattle man died from injuries sustained while having sex with a horse boarded on the property.
Investigators first learned of the farm after the man died at Enumclaw Community Hospital July 2. The county Medical Examiner's Office ruled that the death was accidental and the result of having sex with a horse.
...Deputies don't believe a crime occurred because bestiality is not illegal in Washington state and the horse was uninjured, said [sheriff's Sgt. John] Urquhart.
But because investigators found chickens, goats and sheep on the property, they are looking into whether animal cruelty — which is a crime — was committed by having sex with these smaller, weaker animals, he said.
The farm was talked about in Internet chat rooms as a destination for people looking to have sex with livestock, he said.
"A significant number of people, we believe, have likely visited this farm," said Urquhart.
...The Humane Society of the United States intends to use the case during the next state legislative session as an example of why sex with animals should be outlawed in Washington, said Bob Reder, a Humane Society regional director in Seattle.
"This and a few other cases that we have will allow us a platform to talk about sex abuse of animals," Reder said.
...Susan Michaels, co-founder of local animal-rights organization Pasado's Safe Haven, said she has been fighting to have bestiality made illegal. "It's animal cruelty behind closed doors," Michaels said.
There are a number of different angles from which to approach this story. I'll examine two.
First, let's look at the right to privacy. It's frequently cited in matters of sexual behavior.
We constantly hear the cries that government should stay out of the bedroom, or in this case, the barnyard.
It's no one else's business whom or what someone chooses as a sexual partner, right?
In the case of animals, however, it is difficult to establish a proper age of consent. The issue of consent in itself is a gray area.
Can we say with certainty that the animal is a willing participant? I suppose one could assume that if the animal sustains no injuries as a result of the encounter, it probably was willing.
According to my faith, bestiality is a sin; but it doesn't matter what I believe. I shouldn't push my morals on anyone else, right?
The question is: Should the government have the power to outlaw such behavior?
At present, thirty-three states outlaw bestiality.
Why? Have these states made a moral judgment about the practice? Or, is it out of concern for the animals' safety that sex with them has been deemed illegal?
In this case, a man died as a result of a sexual encounter with a horse. Obviously, it was a risk he chose to take.
Should the government have taken that choice away from him?
If one is consistent in believing that the government should stay out of the bedroom, then it would follow that the "right to privacy" would require the government to stay out of the barnyard as well.
I'd like to hear Rick Santorum's opinion on this.
A second issue that this story raises is moral constraints and animal rights.
The article states that a crime wasn't committed because the horse was not injured in the incident. However, because animal cruelty is a crime, investigators want to know whether chickens, goats, and sheep, the "smaller, weaker animals" on the property, were abused during sex acts.
So-- In Washington, sex with a horse is OK, but sex with a chicken is criminal. In other words, sex with an animal is acceptable as long as the animal is unharmed.
This means that bestiality and animal abuse are not one and the same, at least in Washington.
The article states, "The Humane Society of the United States intends to use the case during the next state legislative session as an example of why sex with animals should be outlawed in Washington, said Bob Reder, a Humane Society regional director in Seattle."
If you believe bestiality should be a crime, then I guess you think we do need the government in our bedrooms, and our barnyards, as the case may be.
My point in all of this is:
The "right to privacy," whether it involves encounters with human beings or animals, is only trotted out when it's convenient. It's used at opportune times to advance certain agendas.
What bothers me is the inconsistency with which the "right to privacy" is applied and the manner in which it's relied upon to justify particular acts. Some behaviors are tolerated, citing the "right to privacy" as a defense, while other behaviors are considered unacceptable, privacy becoming irrelevant.
It seems that what determines whether or not something is protected under the "right to privacy" all comes down to how loud and how organized activists promoting a given agenda are.
While the "right to privacy" can be used as a catchall justification for nearly anything, I don't think bestiality will be considered socially acceptable anytime soon.
PETA wouldn't stand for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment