# Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military



## LucieLoo12 (Dec 20, 2011)

*Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military*


*for anyone who dont know..beastiality is sex with animals..



 Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. (AP photo)

*(CNSNews.com)* – *(Updated)* The Senate on Thursday evening voted 93-7 to approve a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, it also repeals the military ban on sex with animals--or bestiality.
On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee had unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.
It states: "(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the effort to remove sodomy from military law stems from liberal Senate Democrats' and President Obama’s support for removing the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.
“It’s all about using the military to advance this administration’s radical social agenda,” Perkins told CNSNews.com. “Not only did they overturn Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but they had another problem, and that is, under military law sodomy is illegal, just as adultery is illegal, so they had to remove that prohibition against sodomy.”
Perkins said removing the bestiality provision may have been intentional--or just “collateral damage”
“Well, whether it was inadvertent or not, they have also taken out the provision against bestiality,” he said. “So now, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), there’s nothing there to prosecute bestiality."
Former Army Col. Bob Maginnis said some military lawyers have indicated that bestiality may be prosecutable under another section of the military code of justice – the “catch-all” Article 134 for offenses against “good military order and discipline.”
But don't count on that, he said.
“If we have a soldier who engages in sodomy with an animal – whether a government animal or a non-government animal – is it, in fact, a chargeable offense under the Uniform Code? I think that’s in question,” Maginnis told CNSNews.com.
“When the reader stops laughing, the reader needs to ask the question whether or not this is in the best interests of the government, in the best interests of the military and the best interests of the country? I think not.”
He added: “Soldiers, unfortunately, like it or not, have engaged in this type of behavior in the past. Will they in the future, if they remove this statute? I don’t know.”
Perkins said there was no attempt to remove the UCMJ repeal provision from the bill, which Perkins had expected the Senate to approve.
Now that it has passed, however, the Senate version will have to go to a conference committee, and Perkins predicts there will be several sticking points with the House.
“The House in their version of the defense authorization, reinforced the Defense of Marriage Act, saying that there is a military DOMA as well, prohibiting same-sex marriage on military bases – something the Department of Defense is pushing for,” he said.
“And now this is an added concern, that sodomy has been removed, and as we have discovered, that bestiality--the prohibition against it--has been removed from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So yes, the House will have problems with this bill.”


----------



## Laela (Dec 20, 2011)

------------


----------



## LucieLoo12 (Dec 20, 2011)

I dont even know if a gif, could express how I feel right now about this..


----------



## FlyyBohemian (Dec 20, 2011)

Now a surge of illegal sex trafficking involving bestiality. Here we go...


----------



## 05girl (Dec 20, 2011)

Interesting, but ****, they barely bring rapists to justice....


----------



## Rainbow Dash (Dec 20, 2011)

All I have to say is get ready. The Lord is soon to return. The times are turning into the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.


----------



## hair_rehab (Dec 20, 2011)

News like this is not much of a surprise to me anymore. It only confirms what we have already read in the Bible. 

2 Timothy 3
1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 *People will be lovers of themselves*, lovers of money, boastful, proud, *abusive*, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, *unholy*, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, *without self-control, brutal*, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, *lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God*— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.


----------



## Guitarhero (Dec 20, 2011)

I'm truly only concerned about rape and abuse of people and animals. How does an animal give consent to unnatural sex?  It's natural for animals to fight and compete...yet, it's illegal to force them to do so for lots and betting.  If someone is gay, well, they are gay.  But...does this  now mean that rape of civilians is not going to be prosecuted?  What if it were sodomy rape?  Many gray areas!  And what about the law against adultery?  I suppose that still stands.


----------



## LucieLoo12 (Dec 20, 2011)

I dont know. But my question is how did this even come up???? Did someone go complain about not being able to be sexual with an animal? How did this even become a issue?...Lord, help us...


----------



## theNaturalWonders (Dec 20, 2011)

Alicialynn86 said:


> I dont know. But my question is how did this even come up???? Did someone go complain about not being able to be sexual with an animal? How did this even become a issue?...*Lord, help us..*.


 
yes Lord help us!


----------



## Mis007 (Dec 20, 2011)

Alicialynn86 said:


> I dont know. But my question is how did this even come up???? Did someone go complain about not being able to be sexual with an animal? How did this even become a issue?...Lord, help us...


 
All of this, What ??? How ??? Oh, nevermind!


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 20, 2011)

Did we not say...

That as a result of legalizing gay marriage that this would follow?   

It's in post after post where it has been CLEARLY stated:

that next they'll be legalizing marrying a pet and/or having sex with animals.  

Folks this is a sick government and the men (and/or women) who fell for this are either doing this act or thinking about it and want it to be considered as acceptable.    

What kind of Foolishness are these people into?  They are SICK out of their sick minds.   Who on earth wants to sexally connect with an animal?  

This is just plain BEYOND sick!  Way beyond...


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 20, 2011)

SO!  Does this mean that *obviously* this is already ocurring in the Military?  

Men ought to know that this will cause their genitals to rot and fall off; don't they know about beastial diseases?   

OOoooooooooooooo  I'm sooooooo MAD!      I want to strangle these stupid fools about this.

AND futhermore, WHERE was President Obama to veto and to put a full stop to this mess ? ?  ? ?


----------



## hair_rehab (Dec 20, 2011)

The flesh is never satisfied. When you live in a country where you have the freedom to fulfill your lusts as you please the demands become more and more repulsive. I pray for our children because the time will come when these types of laws will make them easy prey for pedophiles.


----------



## Mis007 (Dec 20, 2011)

hair_rehab said:


> The flesh is never satisfied. When you live in a country where you have the freedom to fulfill your lusts as you please the demands become more and more repulsive. *I pray for our children because the time will come when these types of laws will make them easy prey for pedophiles*.


 
Ahh but you see this is already happening in countries where children do not have any rights.  But it will make it's way to these so called countries who are supposed to have the best interest of the child as a priority.  Sick just sick


----------



## LucieLoo12 (Dec 20, 2011)

Next its going to be legalizing marriage with animals, watch! What about these poor animals that have to be raped by these sick men!!! 
Since us humans are freaks, and wont stop this..where is the animal rights people at?????


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 20, 2011)

I'm not sitting still for this mess.   It's election time and by the time I'm through, none of these fools will be seated in the Senate.   It's time to clean house and I'm playing games. 

This has just gone way too far.  Just way too far.


----------



## runwaydream (Dec 20, 2011)

I wonder if the Humane Society will protest this? I don't see this going over very well with animal lovers.


----------



## FlyyBohemian (Dec 20, 2011)

I said it. Soon polygamy will be legalized again and people will be able to marry animals. If they legalize polygamy I may be forced into sin and be single and without kids for the rest of my life.


----------



## nebulanorton (Dec 20, 2011)

The real issue was regarding homosexuality. I think it says more about the time the a line item linked sodomy with bestiality. Homosexuality is NOT bestiality. Sodomy is not bestiality, but many people feel that people should be allowed to sleep with whomever they wish in whatever way they wish. Heck, if a woman has ever had anal sex with her husband, or put a sex toy in the "back door" then she was breaking a law on par with bestiality according to this law. That's why it was repealed. 

Sent from my DROID2 using DROID2


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 20, 2011)

I can 'see' where this is really going.  

While people are up in arms about 'animal rights' (*sigh*), this is truly the gay agenda strategy to obtain the following:

a.) A distraction from the gay marriage / gay rights issue which is the issue at hand.

b.) To set a platform of comparison of which is the lesser evil 'same sex, sex' or animal sex.   Animal sex is a 'fresh' repulsion in the news/lawmakers. 

Even gays find it repulsive and for many reasons as many promote protecting the rights of animals.   I can't help but notice all of the defense being spoken on behalf of animals.    Hence the distraction from the real issue at hand...legalizing gay sex and gay marriage. 

c.) While 'everyone' is fighting for 'animal rights', the work behind closed doors continues for less effort is being utilized to fight against the gay agenda.   

Yeah... Okay...  

satan is very subtle and loves to throw wrenches into the midst to distract and get folks off track when he's trying to accomplish something.   

It's not about the animals everyone.  It's not about the animals.   There's an effective strategy going on here, of which the gay agenda KNEW would occur.  Get the opposers of their agenda re-angered / re-fueled on another area while 'they' add more plots to thicken their exploits.   

"They" had me for a minute...  I'm back on track.   

I'll say this, the Military is reflecting 'prison life'.   "humping in the fox holes".


----------



## Guitarhero (Dec 20, 2011)

I think that sodomy included bestiality in older and ancient laws.


----------



## LucieLoo12 (Dec 20, 2011)

I think we was referencing animal rights is because we need SOMEBODY to step in and say something...the human view of this which is the government has already said their point of view of this..we just want someone to step in and see the wrong with this, which left us no choice but to look at animal activists..sadly enough.


----------



## LucieLoo12 (Dec 20, 2011)

But why  start this in the Military group? Is this bill going to only be applicable to active Military? Will these be a nationwide thing? It just seems so random..


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 20, 2011)

Alicialynn86 said:


> *I think we was referencing animal rights is because we need SOMEBODY to step in and say something...*
> 
> the human view of this which is the government has already said their point of view of this..we just want someone to step in and see the wrong with this, which left us no choice but to look at animal activists..sadly enough.



Exactly Babygirl... exactly.   That's the strategy.   While folks are fighting for animal rights (because they/we have been led to believe is the issue), the ultimate is to get folks distracted from the real issue which is furthering along the gay agenda.

As for why the Military?  This is one of the gay agenda's target areas, to bully the government.    

Also in the Military there are many who are the most vunerable.   Away from home, scared, in a war zone fearing they'll die any moment; getting 'Dear John' or Dear Jane letters; missing birthdays, marriages and other celebrations, family members dying and they can't be there with or for them.     The Military is also in CLOSE quarters.   

When it comes to isolation from family and loved ones and beind away from home, it's really no different then prison life.   Hence they are easy marks and prey for resorting to activity which is 'gay'.  

It's sad... very, very sad.


----------



## Guitarhero (Dec 20, 2011)

Alicialynn86 said:


> But why  start this in the Military group? Is this bill going to only be applicable to active Military? Will these be a nationwide thing? It just seems so random..



It's been around a while because of the push to legalize "don't ask, don't tell."  Bestiality...does seem so strange and random.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 20, 2011)

Alicialynn86 said:


> But why  start this in the Military group? Is this bill going to only be applicable to active Military? Will these be a nationwide thing?
> 
> *It just seems so random*..



It's a premeditated 'strategy' to 'divide the opposers and keep them off focus of what's really behind this mess which is strengthening the gay agenda for more benefits.

The gay agenda isn't about this country, they want the benefits of it whereveer they can get it.   If they can get the government to support them then they can use the government to 'stifle' those who oppose the gay lifestyle and what it consists of.   It's not about animals, it never was.  As I shared earlier it took me a 'minute' to get it, but I see right through this.


----------



## MonPetite (Dec 20, 2011)

..................


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 21, 2011)

Already.... this mess is being heralded...   

http://www.aolnews.com/story/2-women...ships/2070341/

I'm waiting for the 'real' Military to stand up and speak out against this mess. There is absolutely nothing to celebrate here.


----------



## runwaydream (Dec 21, 2011)

Shimmie said:


> I can 'see' where this is really going.
> 
> While people are up in arms about 'animal rights' (*sigh*), this is truly the gay agenda strategy to obtain the following:
> 
> ...




wow. excellent point. didn't even consider that, but you're probably right.


----------



## BostonMaria (Dec 21, 2011)

Wow

Jesus help us all


Sent from my fancy iPhone using LHCF


----------



## lilanie (Dec 22, 2011)

You're right Shimmie...

But then again, this is the same country that brought us religious icons/artifacts composed of feces and called it *art*.

I wonder if NAMBLA helped in a way or two?  That's a criminal organization that's should be prosecuted under RICO or whatever law gets you in trouble for shouting *fire* in a public place.


----------



## lilanie (Dec 22, 2011)

The gay agenda is working overtime:
Bromances
Men wearing baby pink
Men wearing eyeliner/polish, metrosexuals 
Every other movie, someone's in drag
Gay history soon to be taught in California textbooks

The list goes on and on... Sick sick sick *grabs emesis basin*


----------



## Guitarhero (Dec 22, 2011)

????^^^  Bromances...I thought this was affirmation that men can cry and form good, strong relationships with other men without fear of being called "weak and gay."

As for pink, my ex had nice pink shirts...I don't mind them.  It's just a color.  It can be very masculine.


----------



## mscocoface (Dec 22, 2011)

Once being a military wife and the stories I know this is nothing new under the sun, it has been going on.  When the military goes into different ports and countries it would make some of your heads spin as to what is available to them.

It was told in the Bible we should not be surprised.  It is sickening none the less.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 22, 2011)

Guitarhero said:


> ????^^^  Bromances...I thought this was affirmation that men can cry and form good, strong relationships with other men without fear of being called "weak and gay."
> 
> As for pink, my ex had nice pink shirts...I don't mind them.  It's just a color.  It can be very masculine.



It's the 'romance' added to the 'bro' that 'gays' it.   

_(Shimmie stands ... )_

Why not Bro'ships (brother/friend relationships)?   Or whatever happen to be 'Buddies'?  Hopefully that hasn't changed into a 'gay term'.    

I've never seen so many conversions of the English language now being connected to being gay.  Why does everything have to be 'punked up'?   

It's as if there is a conspiracy to lead all men into gay play, subliminal whispers (B'romance) to mislead men astray.     Let men be men, for Heaven's sake.  

I remember when I could easily say 'girlfriend' and everyone fully understood that it was my best friend and nothing was out of order.   But now, it's 'misunderstood' unless people know you personally.  

I don't have a problem with 'pink shirts' on men, just so long as it doesn't have ruffles and/or other feminine frills (sheer overlays, lace, etc.).   

This is what I believe lilanie was sharing, adding to her list are little boys wearing pink 'tu-tus' and their moms and schools encouraging it by writing a book, "My Princess Boy".   In addition to the princess boy are is a growing epidemic of 'like' situations where the parents are feminizing their sons.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 22, 2011)

mscocoface said:


> Once being a military wife and the stories I know this is nothing new under the sun, it has been going on.  When the military goes into different ports and countries it would make some of your heads spin as to what is available to them.
> 
> It was told in the Bible we should not be surprised.  It is sickening none the less.



All the more reason to keep the 'former' laws in place.   The Military is just that, the Military.  There's order and there are rules.  It's for a reason.  It teaches _courage under fire_ so that when the 'enemy' attacks, the soldier is ready with a counter and doesn't retreat from the battle, but wins it.


----------



## lilanie (Dec 22, 2011)

Shimmie said:


> It's the 'romance' added to the 'bro' that 'gays' it.
> 
> Why not Bro'ships (brother/friend relationships)? Or whatever happen to be 'Buddies'?
> 
> ...



All the above.  Men used to be proud of their masculinity and wanted nothing to do with anything that would question it... Even J.Edgar Hoover was a "man's man", even though he was a man's man...


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 22, 2011)

lilanie said:


> All the above.  Men used to be proud of their masculinity and wanted nothing to do with anything that would question it...
> 
> *Even J.Edgar Hoover was a "man's man", even though he was a man's man...*


----------



## Laela (Dec 22, 2011)

Why does the dog wag its tail?
Because the dog is smarter than the tail.
If the tail were smarter, it would wag the dog.



Shimmie said:


> I can 'see' where this is really going.


----------



## nebulanorton (Dec 22, 2011)

lilanie said:


> The gay agenda is working overtime:
> Bromances
> Men wearing baby pink
> Men wearing eyeliner/polish, metrosexuals
> ...



You know up until the 50's it wasn't uncommon for boy babies to wear pink and girls to wear blue? At the turn of the 20th century boys basically wore white "dresses" for dress-up until reaching a certain age.  Yet most of our grandpas aren't gay. /shrug

And as for "metrosexuals"? If a man is considered less masculine because he grooms himself and cleans his fingernails so be it. I've dated both types and at least the metrosexuals do laundry and dishes lol

And I also wondered why we complain about men being emotionally unavailable then call them gay when we see their emotions. 

Food for thought... :/ 
Sent from my DROID2 using DROID2


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 22, 2011)

Laela said:


> Why does the dog wag its tail?
> Because the dog is smarter than the tail.
> If the tail were smarter, it would wag the dog.



   "googling"


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 22, 2011)

nebulanorton said:


> You know up until the 50's it wasn't uncommon for boy babies to wear pink and girls to wear blue? At the turn of the 20th century boys basically wore white "dresses" for dress-up until reaching a certain age.  Yet most of our grandpas aren't gay. /shrug
> 
> And as for "metrosexuals"? If a man is considered less masculine because he grooms himself and cleans his fingernails so be it. *I've dated both types and at least the metrosexuals do laundry and dishes lol*
> And I also wondered why we complain about men being emotionally unavailable then call them gay when we see their emotions.
> ...



But there are scores of metro men who don't do laundry or dishes, let alone cook.


----------



## nebulanorton (Dec 23, 2011)

Shimmie said:


> But there are scores of metro men who don't do laundry or dishes, let alone cook.



Yes, that's true. I've heard some women describe guys who do the baby's laundry or have the meal prepared when the wife gets home as "metrosexuals." Frankly, I don't have time for these guys. It's about definitions. 

 Women are still way too locked in to feeling like we need to do all the housework/cooking even when we preach about being "modern." I'm a med student. My SO is a financial advisor. I don't think "damn, he's on the down low" when I come home and he's folding our baby's onesies. He's not the best cook, but I have friends whose partners will wait for them to come home (even if we've been at school for12 hours) to cook because they were raised to think cooking is what women do. LOL



Sent from my DROID2 using DROID2


----------



## lilanie (Dec 23, 2011)

nebulanorton said:


> You know up until the 50's it wasn't uncommon for boy babies to wear pink and girls to wear blue? At the turn of the 20th century boys basically wore white "dresses" for dress-up until reaching a certain age.  Yet most of our grandpas aren't gay. /shrug
> 
> And as for "metrosexuals"? If a man is considered less masculine because he grooms himself and cleans his fingernails so be it. I've dated both types and at least the metrosexuals do laundry and dishes lol
> 
> ...



No, i didnt know that. I am again refering to what is being passed off as metrosexual - eyeliner, dark polish on nails/toes.

I said nothing about men showing emotion.  Emotion displayed with honesty is a wonderful thing.


----------



## lilanie (Dec 23, 2011)

I am thinking of all of these subjects within the context of a Christian worldview, flipping through the Bible to see how things line up.

I am not concerned with what's modern or what's antiquated.

I say this in the spirit of Love (God) and mean no offense to anyone who sees differently.


----------



## Kalia1 (Dec 23, 2011)

This is what I'm thinking! 
Who is sitting around with this as the focus of an agenda?

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Nexus S 4G


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 23, 2011)

lilanie said:


> No, i didnt know that. *I am again refering to what is being passed off as metrosexual *- eyeliner, dark polish on nails/toes.
> 
> I said nothing about men showing emotion.  Emotion displayed with honesty is a wonderful thing.



Key Words: * "Passed Off" ...  *  as in hiding the truth of what's really going on.  Men do not need eyeliner or painted nails and I better not see a man with painted toenails.  That's just beyond necessary, be they ' metro, hetro, whatever the _'getaway with it' _terms are today.    

I'll take it further, I can't stand to see long nails on a man.   It creeps me out.   It's just not normal whether they are manicured or not.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 23, 2011)

Kalia1 said:


> This is what I'm thinking!
> 
> *Who is sitting around with this as the focus of an agenda?*
> Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Nexus S 4G



Please explain the question.  And thanks Kalia1 in advance.


----------



## Kalia1 (Dec 23, 2011)

I tried to quote a previous poster.

However we are in a serious state when with all of the numerous issues that we should be focused on something such as this is even considered. 

The US Senate should be ashamed.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Nexus S 4G


----------



## lilanie (Dec 23, 2011)

Shimmie said:


> Key Words: * "Passed Off" ...  *  as in hiding the truth of what's really going on.  Men do not need eyeliner or painted nails and I better not see a man with painted toenails.  That's just beyond necessary, be they ' metro, hetro, whatever the _'getaway with it' _terms are today.
> 
> *I'll take it further, I can't stand to see long nails on a man.   It creeps me out.   It's just not normal whether they are manicured or not.*



I agree... it's too feminine or alluding to the vampire culture and how did the first vampire (love at first bite/blacula/twilight/interview with a vampire) come about? a pact with Satan...   And, well it is within the realm of what we are talking about (letting things slip through the cracks) - Interview of a Vamp was an excellent representation with gloves off.  Why you ask? Because when Kirsten dunst was "converted" that was pedophila (she stayed the same age) and when Brad Pitt was "converted" that was by Tom Cruise (homosexuality)...

All ewwwwwwwwww, all connected, all yuck.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 23, 2011)

lilanie said:


> I agree... it's too feminine or alluding to the vampire culture and how did the first vampire (love at first bite/blacula/twilight/interview with a vampire) come about? a pact with Satan...   And, well it is within the realm of what we are talking about (letting things slip through the cracks) - Interview of a Vamp was an excellent representation with gloves off.  Why you ask? Because when Kirsten dunst was "converted" that was pedophila (she stayed the same age) and when Brad Pitt was "converted" that was by Tom Cruise (homosexuality)...
> 
> All ewwwwwwwwww, all connected, all yuck.



     Pitt and Cruise ?     


No, No, No...


----------



## DaiseeDay (Dec 23, 2011)

Is this real? Pedophilia is next.


Sent from my iPhone.


----------



## lilanie (Dec 23, 2011)

Shimmie said:


> Pitt and Cruise ?
> 
> 
> No, No, No...



Sorry - I meant *their characters* in the movie _Interview with a Vampire_

Naw, I aint talkin bad about Zahara's daddy or Connor's daddy!


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 23, 2011)

lilanie said:


> Sorry - I meant *their characters* in the movie _Interview with a Vampire_
> 
> Naw, I aint talkin bad about Zahara's daddy or Connor's daddy!



Whew !   Okay.  Thanks for clearing that up.   Now I can go back to my Pumpkin Spice Coffee/Cocoa


----------



## Leigh (Dec 24, 2011)

This is horrible.  What's the point in doing that.  It's not relevant for protecting the nation. It's just perverse.


----------



## makeupgirl (Dec 24, 2011)

Bestiality? Icky Ew.  I mean if it was punishable by death in the Old Testament time, what do they think is going to happen now?  I can now see the ASPCA commericals.  I'm keeping my babies on lockdown.


----------



## Guitarhero (Dec 25, 2011)

Try googling the issue...several states have had this on the docket just recently.     I wonder what the SPCA thinks about all this.


----------



## HappilyLiberal (Dec 26, 2011)

Ok....

(1) They removed the law that banned sodomy and at some point in history bestiality was connected to that law.

(2) The law banning sodomy was repealed because gays can now openly serve in the military so that part of the law was unworkable.

(3) Bestiality can still be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice under article 134.

This whole brouhaha is nothing more than anti-gay activists attempting to argue, yet again, that telling the government to keep it's nose out of the bedrooms of two consenting adults will lead to sex between humans and animals.


----------



## SummerSolstice (Dec 27, 2011)

Shimmie said:


> SO!  Does this mean that *obviously* this is already ocurring in the Military?
> 
> Men ought to know that this will cause their genitals to rot and fall off; don't they know about beastial diseases?
> 
> ...



I hate to say this but things like this have me side-eying our dear president. I don't understand how he let this one fly. Maybe the sodomy but the bestiality???


----------

