wrote:

>
> chico chupacabra wrote:
> > Archie Bunker wrote:
> >
> > >>>Is it the sentiment among Episcopalians that sex with small
> > >>>animals is included in this "sexual immorality" which St Paul
> > >>>tells the church in Corinth to flee? Or is this kind of behavior
> > >>>okay now since the Holy Spirit has obviated most of the Pauline
> > >>>Epistles? Would your parish object if she brought one of her
> > >>>little "friends" with her to church the same way she has her
> > >>>FAS-defective ******* partner, and maybe even got its jollies
> > >>>with her during, say, vespers? Or is it all perfectly reasonable
> > >>>for "anglo catholics" to "glorify God" in their bodies and
> > >>>spirits by diddling with critters?
> > >>>
> > >>>Discuss.
> > >
> > > I guess I better stop letting the dog hump my leg..or should I say
> > > ankle since he is a chihuahua. HA HA HA HA
> >
> > The issue according to Karen is whether your dog has a "preference"
> > for sex with your leg, ankle, or humans in general, over and above a
> > preference for sex with other dogs. I've never known a dog to have a
> > foot/ankle/lower leg fetish, aside from eating up shoes on
> > occasion. If your chihuahua prefers sex with your ankle or with
> > you, then she thinks it's perfectly acceptable for you to "cuddle
> > up with it on the couch" and alienate your human companionship for
> > a little animal sex:
> >
> > ...[S]ome animals don't want a mate of their own species,
> > just as some humans don't. We may think it is better for a human to
> > get out, mingle with other humans, find a human partner.
> > But some humans just want to curl up on the couch or go out hiking
> > with their companion dog or cat. I think we need to respect
> > such personal preferences. As long as no *harm* is being
> > done to another, we have no right to tell another human, OR another
> > non-human, how to live his/her life, or who to live it with.
> > http://tinyurl.com/m7ff8
> >
> > BTW and nevermind sex, have you ever considered hiking with a CAT? I
> > don't know where she comes up with her examples, but I guess it's
> > to be expected from someone who feels special and that it was
> > "sweet" that a bird got off in her hand.
> >
> > > just kidding! It does seem a bit odd letting an animal get off on
> > > your hand.
> >
> > *Very* odd, and thanks for your reply. Anyone else out there think
> > it's a bit queer? Anyone care to defend Karen, her "regularly"
> > having sexual relations with a small animal, and/or bestiality in
> > general?
>
> If what you say about her is true,

It is. Click on the links and you can read her posts that I
quoted yourself.

> she needs prayer not personal attacks.

To paraphrase St James,
If one of you says to her, €œGo, I wish you well; keep warm and
stop molesting animals,€� but does nothing about her *real*
[mental health] needs, what good is it?

> Joh 8:7 - So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and
> said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
> stone at her.

...Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn
thee: GO, AND *SIN NO MORE*.
John 8:11

She needs more than prayer, and she's the least bit embarrassed by
jacking off a little bird.

...I think we made his last years as happy as was possible for
him... If he wanted to use my hand as a sex toy, I wasn't going
to forbid him.
http://tinyurl.com/p4vrc

I thought it was rather sweet, in fact. He certainly was a
happier bird with me than with the other 'tiels.
http://tinyurl.com/rvyua

Look up her old posts when she used her "rat" pseudonym on the issue of
zoophilia and you'll find she's an impenitent apologist for the
practice of animal molestation.