Maybe you are next in line for getting rights? (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2015-06-27 00:58:01 by Crazy_ManMan Not a zoo, but a friend.
So now that (in the us) gay marrage is finally universally legal as of today there seems to be at least a small void of people wondering what/who is the next big debate? I say this could be zoos' moment perhaps to catch the wind of this. Still a long batter ahead but if nobody fights it it will always be a loss. I think it would need to start as an online mostly anonymous group like a forum, and then people could make petitions/write letters under pen-names there and then when numbers grow enough it could become more public or what have you. Thoughts?
Personally, I don't see that happening until Scalia gets off the court, at least. Otherwise, he'll start whining about his prediction in the dissent of Lawrence v. Texas, and the resulting case (if it even got to the Supreme Court) might backfire, and I'd hate that worse than not trying at all.
Still, there is a lot to do. We should get scientific studies of the big claims that zoos and anti-zoos make, and prove who's right (hint: probably us).
I think it will mostly stay a state issue for many years, 20+ at least. During that time I think some states will formally legalize it (as contrasted to "not illegal"). Eventually when It gets to the Supreme Court I think they will side with us.
I feel like you're too optimistic about this. I myself don't mean to be pessimistic, but I think it will take generations to change, assuming it even does.
I am not so sure. Societal changes have been happening faster and faster as the world is becoming more advanced, connected, and changing. With the slow increase of tolerance I believe I have noticed I say it could happen in our lifetime likely, if zoophiles are willing to fight for it. Gottah do what the gays did starting about 50 years ago think it was. Just stand up and start telling it like it is collectively, letting the numbers be the protection and strength, and refusing to back down or be intimidated. It actually started with a riot I believe, but perhaps a riot is not the best option for obvious reasons.
Where did it start a riot at, I'm actually kinda curious
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Stonewall Riots
I am not sure, I am terribly with names of things/places/etc and to be honest I have not really researched it. I think it was these upon a wuck google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
Though I hope we can get our rights without rioting.
Definitely agree. Peaceful protests would work way better probably.
I'm going to have to research this some time, but it may take years before I have the time:
I suspect that you need a riot (or similar) if you're at the "don't tread on us" phase, and much more subdued activism if you're at the (for lack of a better analogy) "civil partnership" phase.
It would have been terrible for the LGBT movement if they kept up Stonewall-like riots between each victory and finally getting equal marriage. Nobody would have trusted that they weren't out to make everyone else gay.
Even if my conjecture is correct, I wouldn't know where zoos are. In many cases our secrecy is because we need to look out for our partners' lives, so in that sense we're still medieval. In other senses, the new wave of laws are also (supposed to be) for our partner's benefit, so even if misguided they have more of a heart than many anti-gay laws ever did.
Given the wording and mentality behind it I would not really say so. It is blatant assumption that an animal is too stupid to know anything about how sex works and is simply completely traumatized by the 'foreign' act. It basically treats them like children, which is simply completely inaccurate, except they do not even get the rights the children get. In some cases the animals that were sexually "assaulted" are put down because there are "damaged beyond rehabilitation." The animals get the over zealous version of protection that does more harm than good as far as zoophilia/bestiality goes it seems.
Eh, I personally think that the Supreme Court could likely side with zoophiles, but for reasons of property rights rather than justice or equal rights. That seems to be the trend I see for places that have it legal- that animals are seen firstly as property.
The supreme court would never even take the case on this unless circuit courts start to rule laws unconstitutional.
True enough. The legal status of sexual orientations and the right to privacy is so murky that I don't see us having a case until such questions are answered in more familiar contexts. Is the right to privacy fundamental? Is sexual orientation enough to be a suspect or quasi-suspect class? Without that information, we're feeling around in the dark.
That sounds like a reasonable approach. Socially, I don't think the world is quite ready to accept us, but that doesn't mean we can't prepare for when they might be.
As a not-a-scientist, is there anything I can do to help these studies?
I have some ideas for where such studies could be done, and how. The main issues would be finding funding (no government is going to fund that) and willing/unbiased scientists. I thought about becoming some kind of ethologist just for this, but I won't do it because nothing else about the subject is particularly interesting to me, and I fear my obvious biases would prevent such work from being accepted more generally.
The best place to look for information (in the U.S., at least) is the Kinsey Institute. Founded by Alfred Kinsey (whose studies pioneered sexology, albeit a little clumsily), they still do a bunch of work on human beings and animals in terms of sexuality. There are other professional associations listed there which might be promising, as well.
Just be open to information and asking questions. If a proper, confidential study is designed and implemented, feel free to volunteer or give money for it if you want, or at least spread the word.
Given the study by the Danish Animal Ethic Committe and the various things I have seen, I can with pretty solid confidence say that there is not scientific reason to be against bestiality/zoophilia and most people who have given it thought know that. The main arguments I see against bestiality/zoophilia is that they can not give consent and that it is a selfish lust thing even if the animal likes it. Additionally I have seen the disease spread argument come up a number of times. The rest I see is just people flipping out making their assumptions about rape, comparing to pedophilia, etc because... well, you know how humans are.
Animals can consent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQLyEUATSU4
The argument about consent is that animals are not able to fully understand what they are agreeing to, but the fact of the matter is, whether or not they can consent does not actually matter (and people do not seem to care that animals do not consent to being eaten, being trained tricks, having their breeding partners selected for them, etc). Nobody/nothing involved is being negatively affected what so ever so the only possible reason to be against it is to construct rules in one's head rather than looking at things they way they are.
I think consent does matter, as if I project myself into a situation of being drunk in a foreign country and having my body physically stimulated by locals to the point of orgasm, the idea does not fill me with joy.
I ever do do anything with a non-human, I need to be sure they are enthusiastically consenting, not just unharmed.
Well I mean consent is of course important, but the point is humans do not worry about consent for anything else they do with animals for the most part, so consent is not the blocking issue here.
Ah...if it's not your friendly reddit Reductionist. Of course, when a dog fucks a women only a particular set of quarks are going inside another particular set of quarks. It doesn't really mean anything.
Highest class of humans have great hindsight and foresight. They infer conclusions from experiments done in history and errors committed then. The idea of "don't-fuck-dogs" is a merely a natural law...on this no post modern idea of yours can exert any influence.
I repeat, there is nothing arbitrary about the idea of "don't-fuck-dogs". Any ideas contradicting the aforementioned are arbitrary and must be brought to shame.
Nature has no law, animals do it with the wrong species all the time, and according to cave drawings humans have been doing it with animals since before recorded history. There is not good reason to be against it because there are no negative affects. Otherwise we are just blindly following social rules like sheep which is pretty silly if you ask me.
It actually does else explain instinct. And natural law for man is not equal to natural law for beasts simply because man is higher than beasts.
No, instinct is not nature's law it is animals naturally adapting to their environment. If they go against instinct they do not go to animal jail, there is no natural law. And what makes man higher than beast? All the evidence I have seen has shown that humans are just another animal and that many just have a much higher ego thinking they are all that when they just are not.
I agree that we need to do a lot more scientific work to back what we claim.
Yep. There's a guy on Youtube called Aluzky (whose claim to fame is amateur beasty porn, but it's better than most of it), who spends a lot of time in the discussion page fighting trolls. But he makes a very basic mistake: he refuses to shoulder the burden of proof for any claim he makes, a strategy he probably learned in a half-correct way from Youtube skeptics.
The fact is, there are concrete claims we need to demonstrate before we can make real progress in this area. The main ones are that our relationships are not harmful to our partners or us, that they increase social bonding between us and our partners, and that animals can consent to and/or initiate sex, so long as consent isn't defined by a contractual standard. I think there's good evidence for all of this, but these questions have yet to be studied specifically.
I think zoo's need more positive autonomy, until then; nothing will be done other than banning it
This is why I was thinking starting small, like an online education network/forum and maybe some letter writing to different people trying to raise education specifically rather than aiming for rights and then once some awareness begins to form perhaps some kind of rights movement can begin.
Out of curiosity how would that "online education network/forum" be different then say the forums we currently have (ZF, and Knotty).
That I am aware of there are not any specifically targeting education and visibility, but I have not looked into it either. It is one thing to have a forum to meet up and another to have one with a goal to get something done.
Rather than educating people about zoophiles, I think they really need more CORRECT education about non-human animals. Zoophilia at large, I'm thinking, will never be tolerated/accepted until the general public develops a deeper understanding of the natures of non-human animals.
I agree with this. People aren't ever going to have an open mind about zoophilia/zoosexuality if they continue treating and thinking of animals like children.
That would of course be part of the same process, but I think it would all need to be tackled at once to really make a good dent in my opinion.
I am not so sure of that. If people think that the research is being done to condone zoophilia, that may be a detriment. I think our sexuality is too shocking at the time being to advocate for openly. The only real objection that anyone can have to zoophilia is that "animals don't really like it/ wouldn't really want it." However, it is only due to assumptions that people have that belief. People tend to view animals as a kind of children- or on par with human children. That "brainwashing" needs to be undone and I think zoophiles are going to need to be the ones to do that un-doing. Of course, it wouldn't help for the researchers to make it known to the public that they are zoophiles. I think our strategy at this point needs to be a "slow and steady wins the race" mentality. We need to keep a strict focus on fact and science. We need data. We need to be published and peer reviewed. And we don't even need to mention zoophilia at all ever in these studies. The findings about animal nature and communication should speak for itself. The only way that people will be able to object to us after that is just by personal "I don't like it" feelings- which should not matter when determining the morality or immorality of a thing. There is also the potential concern about disease transmission but STDs are spread among human-only sex and we know that likelihood for disease spread is not a good reason to ban sex. The main issue here and the main reason why this type of sex is being criminalized is because people don't believe that other species can really feel a mutual attraction to humans. That means that the attractions, personal agency, "ageism," feelings, thoughts, communication, extent of mind etc of animals needs to be thoroughly and scientifically explored by us humans before zoophilia can hope to be decriminalized and tolerated.
Exactly! All of this!
Perhaps you are correct, but in the past it has been people standing up and putting their foot down that got things like this changes and maybe your way will work better but I wonder what really is the best way to handle it.
I don't like the cowardly character of most zoophiles if that's what you're talking about.
I do not know if I would call it cowardly as it is a pretty serious threat and I think most people under the same circumstances would probably do the same, but it is not the best or bravest course of action in m belief.
I just feel like somehow we just shouldn't let them say these bad and untrue things about us!
I definitely agree and despite not being a zoo I even do speak up when I hear people smack talking it (it usually ends badly, but I still do it and I have convinced a few people to be zoo friendly so I count it as a win) but I also can see the other side of this. Some people do not want to fight or to live in fear they just want to be left alone and though I do not agree with that attitude I do not judge them for it either.
I just feel like somehow we just shouldn't let them say these bad and untrue things about us!
Oh come on, guys. We do not need to be accepted. What we do is in the dark, in the barn, etc. We don't have trade-mark stereotypical behaviors like strutting around with a limp wrist and a lisp (Except the furry zoos that wear fox ears and a tail to work LOL). We don't look any different to the average person so we do not need special protections.
Marriage is a horrid contract so let the gays have it if they want-- Its like fighting for the right to have tape worms. I don't need to marry an animal. Why do we even need state-recognition of our social bonds? Ah yes, they made a book full of laws to regulate you, but it only applies if you sign that marriage contract. Good luck, gays-- Enjoy the marriage game.
If it (animal sex) is legalized, then some portion of the worst beasties are going to do cruel stuff to animals and we'll all be labeled and persecuted based on what those other people do. For instance, in our laws, we don't have degrees of rape. A wife says no 1 second before the husband blows, or a guy in the bushes jumps out with a knife-- They're both just "rape" under the law. Shows how discerning we are in regards to sexual matters. Who wants to jump into that arena? Not me. Keep invisible and you're living the zoo dream.
One last thing... If the public becomes widely aware of zoophilia, I doubt that lady on Craig's List is going to sell you a mini horse, goat, sheep, big dog, etc etc. She'll grill you and try to make you show her pics of your wife before you're allowed to take an animal home. Everyone will suspect everyone. Especially those of us that are ACTUALLY guilty. Fuck that noise.
hmm, hadnt thought of that one but you raise a good point. Isnt that kinda what happens by proxy already with some breeders mandatory s/n contract?
These are some of the struggles that will be faced but it is either that or allow them to simply snuff out your rights. Of course people will be resistant at first but it would be broken down overtime until people do not care if people do it or not, just as it is for homosexuals.
”He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.” -Ben Franklin
It would be for the better in the end.
The same is true of homosexuals, those with learning disabilities, and diabetic people. This does not mean that they do not have different and more difficult needs than other people. The protections described are not special: on the contrary, we wish to be treated as any other animal caretaker, with the benefit of the doubt given unless there is clear evidence of abuse. Also, hiding in plain sight is psychologically damaging, as it requires us to erect mental and physical barriers to human contact in order to prevent our discovery and the subsequent public shaming that might result. Even having to keep it completely secret from our closest loved ones is a problem.
They already do, and we already get blamed. The problem is, with animal sex illegal, no counterexamples to this bad image can be presented publicly, since any attempt to do so is the admission of a crime and risks jail time and a lifetime on the sex offender registry.
What you are saying here is that you prefer lying to people to get a sex partner on Craig's List, instead of being open about your intentions and finding a more understanding breeder. You want us to lie forever for convenience. This is, in my view, the most unhealthy way one could go through life. I don't want to spend the next sixty or seventy years looking over my shoulder for the FBI and lying to my relatives about why I don't have a girlfriend.
The rest of this post is, in effect, the MGTOW ideology and not my opinion, necessarily. If you'd like to advocate for MGTOW, I'd recommend setting up a separate thread for it, but in my view (even as a cynic who agrees with roughly 75% of the MGTOW platform), it's very sad to see society as an adversary to be resisted rather than an environment to be shaped as we see fit.
You expect people to always perfectly keep their secret. That doesn't work. Maybe you get drunk and slip up. Maybe you have a crazy stalker who somehow discovers your secret. Maybe you make the mistake of trusting a human partner. Or whatever. Then your animal partner is taken away by the government, gets his/her genitals mutilated and is placed in a shelter and is going to be killed if he/she is unlucky. Also you are forbidden from "owning" animals. We do need special protections against that.
If you are so happy with your "invisible" lifestyle, then why are you here talking about it? Could it be that many of us need to have someone to talk to? Could it be that this can become a problem for those of us?
If heterosexual sex is legalized, then some portion of the worst heterosexual men are going to do cruel stuff to women
That's not our problem, that's the problem of the people who don't understand the difference. That's why we need "special protection"...
Also I'm all for stricter anti animal cruelty laws. Maybe we zoos should show our support for them more?
Good. Let's ban selling animals, sentient beings, for profit altogether.
I've heard real examples of 2 of those happening.
I agree with most of this. I do have a great marriage to a wonderful human partner so it's not all bad at all, but I agree that it serves no purpose to wed an animal, nor for zoophilia to become legalized. The small handful of people who are persecuted for bestiality are 99% of the time it's because they were showing off, uploading pictures or videos or not being discrete. Bestiality is probably the hardest crime in the world to prove as long as you close your drapes and your animals are happy. Police can break down your door, find you naked with a house full of Huskies and they still won't have enough evidence to charge you with anything. What, are they going to interrogate the dogs? Keep a lower profile and there has been no better time in history to be a zoophile. You can actually communicate with others online, find resources, talk to therapists if you are having issues with your emotions and life, or generally live autonomously and privately while still belonging to a small, quiet, loving community.
And to expand on what you were saying, if bestiality laws were lifted, if sex with animals became a "thing" that people were okay with, people would exploit the fuck out of it. There would be far more abuse of animals, and worst of all it will just reflect on the loving, quiet zoophiles. People are unable to stop exploiting each other, do we really think that animals that can't testify or defend themselves are going to be in better shape? The bestiality porn world is already disgusting and disturbing, imagine how much worse it would be if larger amounts of money started changing hands without fear of persecution.
Also what fantasy land do you have to live in to think that just because something is signed into law that suddenly the whole population will be okay with it? It's a fraction of a fraction of the population that can even relate or accept zoophilia, it's NOT something naturally wired into people that cruel society and sexually repressed cultural taboos prevents people from enjoying, it's HARD-WIRING. It serves no natural purpose to want to bang an animal, this is why most people find it abhorrent. It's not wrong logically, but people have a knee-jerk reaction to it because to them it is gross. And that's their right to feel that way. Zoophiles have to accept that they will be, for the most part, always a minority, rarely accepted and hardly ever understood. It sucks, but it could be worse. You could be born horribly mutated or with like, an evil twin face growing out the side of your head that whispers dark secrets to you while you sleep. Or you could be wired a pedophile. Those poor bastards really have it hard.
If I'm going to be wired wrong, I think I rather have the wiring that makes me attracted to something that's technically illegal but morally not-wrong if you're good, caring, sensitive person with your partner.
What about this?:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html
Hit the nail on the head sir, kudos
That's all well and good until you get caught and prosecuted. We do need the basic legalization right.
Like... /r/zoophilia?
I don't like this positioning of us as "the next thing after gay rights". We want rights, independently from whether gay people have rights or not. (Of course we probably mostly also want gay people to have rights).
/r/zoophilia does not have a specific target though, just a target audience. I was thinking something more like the zoophile version of AVEN where the main goal is to educate people around asexuals and asexual relating things.
I did not mean to bunch the two together and I apologize.
Ok let me give you a DAMN GOOD reason to not push the reality of zoophilia on the general public:
The social pendulum could swing the other way! On the + side of the swing, zoos are begrudgingly accepted sorta. On the - side, oh boy. Does anyone here know what the Germans did to gays in WW2? It was a death sentence. Literally they killed every gay they could find (along with others). That is some serious shit and if you think "That'll never happen here", let me point out that it appears that the world seems to be setting up for WW3 now. The President has taken on new dictatorial powers and congress is making laws in preparation for what they know is coming. The countries of the world are picking sides and it seems like the USA/NATO is going to be playing the part of Germany this time. If you don't see it you must have a public school education.
So at this time you raise your hand and say "I'm a zoo! Love me! Accept me!". And society puts up with you until.... The pendulum swings rapidly back toward the - side and now an even more powerful, arbitrary government has a list of 'undesirables' and you're on it. Governments always need an enemy, bad guy, or boogeyman. In the past it was 'the war on drugs'. How do you know it wont be 'the war on perverts' in the future? And you'll be a known pervert.
Here's something else to think about:
What about people like me that want to stay invisible and don't want a bunch of angsty teenagers running around spreading zoo awareness? What you do will affect me too-- More. I have an entire life built around animals-- Land, horses, yadda yadda and I have a lot more to lose than some guy with a dog. While you might make things better, you're more likely to make things much much worse, so what about the rest of us? Its like we're all on the same bus cruising quietly down the highway, and some loud teenagers grab the wheel, look back at the rest of us wide-eyed passengers, and state "I'm going drive you all to the destination faster because I just learned how to drive an I think I'm pretty damn good. Lets take a shortcut through that winding mountain pass!" I think the rest of us are within our rights to say "Sit down and shut up."
A public zoophile revolution is the answer to a question nobody asked.
k
Not everybody has to come out of the closet or whatever i is they say, but I do not think it is right for everybody to be forced into it either. I am sure plenty of homosexuals never said a word about it their whole lives and nobody knew. Also your WW3 theory could easily be your brains negative bias talking.
You bring up a good point about having a lot to lose if things start going down hill. I couldn't imagine ones animals being taken away. I do however think that Zoo's should have more rights, and that no one is just going to hand us these rights on a silver platter, we have to fight for them.
I would be VERY cautious right now and lay low, personally. For years we've been the "slippery slope." You know, "Gay marriage is legal, what's next? Bestiality??" those folks. LGBT folks aren't going to support us because of anti-LGBT people comparing them to us, and I don't think anyone else is, either. The last thing we need for both LGBT people and our own sexuality is to prove the uber conservatives right and start a push for rights/legalization now. Now is not the time. I don't think society is ready for anything resembling "zoo acceptance" yet anyway, but especially not right now.
Personally I don't want to be "out and proud" about being zoo. I'm not that way about my bisexuality with humans, either. In today's society it seems more like an invitation for discrimination and violence, especially zoosexuality. In my ideal world I'd like for sex with animals to be decriminalized and I would like to be able to tell people I trust about my relationship without any risk, I don't want any lobby groups or pride parades. I just want to be left alone without the risk of my partner being taken away and killed hanging above my head constantly. But now I'm not so sure how that would be accomplished without visibility, and that scares me.
But anyway, I'd be very cautious and suggest we should keep to ourselves for right now. People have been ranting on the possibility of pedophiles and zoophiles "piggybacking on gay rights" for decades now, and since society still has a largely negative view of us, we don't want to prove them right right now and hurt both ourselves and LGBT folks. Sure, it'd be nice to change that negative view, but now isn't the time to do it.
Perhaps you are right that the dust should settle a little first, but the only way to get rid of the negative view would be the same way LGBT people did at the start and just against all the naysayers say they were not strait and proud of it. No matter when it starts it will be very rough at the start just like it was for LGBT. The most I have been hearing about now though is people who want to marry more than one person at the same time, so it might be them who piggy backs off of it the most.
I really agree with ursusem's point about animals needing to be better understood first and needing to change our society's view of them. I didn't even think about that. No point trying to help "zoo rights" when the majority of people in western culture still see animals as "furbabies."
In some ways the LGBT people had it easier then us Zoos in the sense that if LGBT people were outed, there weren't going to be killed. With us if one was outed the animal(s) could be put to death. EDIT: Apparently LGBT also had it rough in the beginning.
Well, homosexuality is still punishable by the death penalty in plenty of the world...
My bad I did not know this.
No worries, I don't think a lot of people do. I don't know if it's ever been that way in the USA though.
When LGBT first started they could be lynch mobbed. They had it easier in most of our lifetimes, but at the beginning they had it just as bad as zoophiles do now.
I edited my comment.
It is my belief that the only reason they do not have it as rough as zoophiles is because of them standing up at the beginning. Somebody has to pave the way for change for it to happen.
[deleted]
I think consensual adult incest is more likely to be next, because, well, when both parties say "I'm happy with this arrangement" in the same language as the law makers, it's easier.
Perhaps, but I have not seen a push for it yet so it is anybody's game right now, in my belief.
Nobody will ever accept animal fucking as normal, you demented perverts
And why is that? I am not a zoophile and I accept is as a perfectly fine.
Animals can't consent.
Sex with animals is dirty.
It's a fetish. It's undignified. It's unnatural.
ANIMALS CAN CONSENT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQLyEUATSU4
JUST GIVE THIS DOG YOUR ASS AND HE WILL HUMP IT TO OBLIVION
Unnatural? Eating hot dogs is unnatural, wearing cloths is unatural, living in a house is unatural, driving a car is unnatual. Litterally almost everything humans do is unnatural. Additionally it is perfectly natural, animals have sex with the wrong species all the time. Also why does conesent only matter with sex? Animals do not consent to being eaten, being trained tricks, having their partners selected for them. The fact of the matter nobody and nothing is being negatively affected in the majority of cases, so there is no logical reason to be against it.
"Unnatural", said the MDMA-using person on the totally artificial internet; "Undignified" said the troll. And, oh my, your comment history says you think pedos shouldn't be treated so harshly.
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Sad to see bigotry such as this still exists in the western world. sigh..
What's objectively sadder? Bigotry, or animal fucking?
Sure, I'll take the bait; how can anything be objectively sad?
There is no bait. If you fuck animals then I hope you die.
I'm not even that harsh about meat eaters and leather fetishists. Most of the time.
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
[/r/antipozi] r/zoophilia: "Maybe you are next in line for getting rights?"
[/r/commonfilth] Yiff in hell, furfags
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. \(Info ^/ Contact)
[deleted]
Ha, the slippery slope isn't real huh? First gays, now we're moving onto Zoophilia? With the rate that 'progressivism' is progressing us straight into the shitter, I wonder what will come next? I doubt Zoophilia will be the next 'progressive' issue at hand, but probably polygamy. We tried to tell, all you had to do was listen. You've made your bed, now lie in it.
Nobody is harmed on either side of it, so there is not logical reason to be against it. It is not a slipperly slope, it is a slow movement away from rules just for the sake of rules and people being sheeple.
Nobody is harmed? What about the animals who cannot give consent? What about society as a whole when fucking dirty animals is seen as normal?
It really is true what they say, when your mind is too open your brains fall out
That is not true, that comes from fear of change. Why is consent only brought up when sex is involved? Animals do not consent to being eaten for food, being artificially ensimnated or having their sperm harvested, being trained tricks, or having their breeding partners choosen for them. In most cases the animal litterally asks for sex through body language and both parties leave happy.
Being close minded just cuts off the air to your brain and kills it would be more accurate. I have an above average IQ and took plenty of tests. I am told regularly that I am very smart. I simply took an objective open minded look at this and there simply is no logical reason to be against it. I do not just follow social rules for the sake of social rules, there has to be a reason.
No. There were always zoophiles and we always wanted to have basic rights. It's nice that gay people finally got equal rights, but it's not like we had a meeting here saying "now that gay people have basic rights, we can finally request them too."
Maybe gay rights help us a bit, but not in the way of a slippery slope, but in the way that rights for gay people and rights for zoophiles have the same cause: tolerance and compassion for fellow human beings. There already was a lot of progress: A few hundred years back, people who were found to have sexual contact to a nonhuman were publicly tortured to death by fine upstanding moral christians, along with their animals. Now that doesn't happen anymore.
As it should. Not because gay people got equal rights now, but because it's the right thing to do.
No, you people tried to put your spin onto it, tried to make gay rights appear bad "by association" with other things you think are bad. Newsflash: They aren't bad. Your cause is does literally nothing but make the world a worse place.
is this also legal?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cps-4epBZ1g
Lately the deck has been stacked against us if anything. The United States is slowly slipping backwards in regards to bestiality laws. The ones that have been in place for decades are getting broadened, expanded, or strengthened. The states where it is legal are disappearing fast, too.
Part of the problem is that a lot of the anti-bestiality stuff comes from an incredibly small minority of people who petition the right people. It happens so quietly, and it's always framed in such a way to make it seem like they have the animals' best interests in mind, so I can't blame them for wanting to vote for it.
Sometimes I wonder if it would be easier if we stay silent. We let the anti-zoos and opbeast trolls put their meaningless laws into effect and go back to shagging our pets behind closed doors like we already do. I don't like that kind of defeatist thinking, but it might be better to let the heat die down before trying to make a push for more universal acceptance.
Knowing humans and human history, it will not get better until the group collectively puts its feet down. It will continue to get worse and worse and harder and harder for said group to live their lifestyle until the groups stands up for itself. As hard as it might be, somebody's got to decide enough is enough and get things organized.