New anti-zoo bill in Texas (2017) (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-01-20 03:26:38 by Skgrsgpf
There is a new bill in Texas called House Bill 1087, introduced in January 2017 (a few days ago), which would criminalize ALL sex with animals in Texas and make it a felony. This is it on Legiscan:
http://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB1087/2017
Alabama and New Jersey banned sex with animals in 2014 and 2015, New Hampshire and Ohio banned it in 2016, and there is a bill right now in Kentucky (2017) which would ban it there.
It is so depressing that all of the places in the U.S. where zoo is legal are all, one by one, becoming anti-zoo and being "criminalized"; and no one is doing anything to stop this anti-zoo onslaught. These bans are wrong and they should not be made, yet they keep being made.
Not only that, but I doubt they'll do anything to solve the factory farm problem. Animal rights, my ass.
Exactly. It is not moral for them to slaughter animals (in factory farms), yet it is legal and they do it anyway, and make no effort to ban it; while on the other hand, zoosexual sex, which can be harmless, is what they are trying to ban. Why isn't killing animals (slaughter) viewed as "animal cruelty"? (Yet zoosex IS viewed as "cruelty"?)
Edit: corrected wording
Hypocrisia. Nothing more. Nothing less.
And it's hypocrisy they won't even discuss or bring up; they just ignore it.
Sorry to pick nits, but can be harmless. I'm not trying to pick a fight and be a pedantic jerk, but I think it's an important distinction. When someone who thinks it is always harmful reads the assertion that it "is harmless" and they think of some news item where there was harm, they are more likely to just dismiss your argument as being entirely false, whether it is or not. Whereas I think saying that it can be harmless encourages the mind to consider possibilities in which it could be, without implying that there's no possibility of harm. Something to think about, but I get your point.
Although I agree with this, wouldn't the matter of "harm" be covered under animal abuse? Therefore no need for specific legislation against specific sexual activities?
That is where I keep getting stuck on the logic of just legislation. That, and why it is suddenly a big deal everywhere.
Totally. I think by making legislation about the sexual acts, but not addressing abuses and exploitation of non-human animals makes these laws purely about controlling "sexual deviants" and not about animal welfare in the slightest. As I see it they're moral legislation at it's worst, making criminals out of anyone who differs from the norm under the guise of animal welfare, while happily ignoring actual animal welfare.
I think it's becoming an issue because some years ago when the US supreme court struck down sodomy laws in regard to homosexuality those laws went away. Now, I think the very vocal groups that oppose any sexuality that doesn't fit their ideals makes a fuss about bestiality and since there's so little benefit to fighting it, the laws pass. No politician wants to be labeled as "pro-bestiality", so we're just an easy target for the bullies. I don't know if anyone has ever attempted to challenge the laws as unconstitutional, but I suspect most do not due to the expense and embarassment.
This is disappointing, but not surprising. I'm guessing the bill was a response to this recent case, where they couldn't prosecute the offender for anything other than "obscene material" (although I believe they later found that he was in possession of CP). Since the representative who proposed the bill, Carol Alvarado (a Democrat), is from Houston also, that would make sense.
Possibly, but I read an article in May 2016 which was entitled "Bestiality Goes On Unchecked In Texas Without A Ban". It was an article full of misinformation and anti-zoo BS. So since at least May 2016 people in Texas have been plotting to ban it, probably with help from anti-zoo groups such as HSUS.
By the way, the BS May 2016 article link is here:
http://www.bna.com/bestiality-crimes-go-n57982072862/
There appears to be an (archived) thread about that article:
http://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/4kwpvc/bestiality_crimes_go_unchecked_in_texas_without/
Oh no, I thought Texas was a haven for zoos. Only reason I was willing to live in this state and now I don't have a reason anymore
Mexico isn't much better either; many Mexican states, such as Veracruz, have banned sex with animals since 2010. And the way things are going, there won't be any states left in the U.S. where it is legal (because every year a new anti-zoo bill appears in a "zoo legal" state — in this case, Texas. Until last year New Hampshire was one of the "legal" states, and now it is not).
The havens for zoos are disappearing.
Im not sided politically, but as a neutral observer I can conclude the Republicans are behind the laws. They view these states as Safe-Spaces for zoos, and knowing the Reps they will do everything in their power to make life especially unsafe for everybody. They have the mentality of ambush predators, which relates to habitual "bestiality sting" operations. Something I said before, these bait and switch people are very similar to child molesters who lure children into their vans with loli-pops. This is antisocial and despicable behavior.
I'm not ruling out the other parties though. People can be rather sensitive about other people's private lives, which explains the paranoid type intrusions. Projected identification, or extension of themselves into objects, animals and other people leads to an overreaction and undiscriminating​ belief between what is rape and what is not. Where a woman's brother believes that he can regulate who his sister sleeps with and the state regulating what people can sleep with, there is no difference because they both exhibit symptoms of personality disorders, where they feel the people and their actions are directly related to themselves. Generally, an obsessive compulsive personality disorder. Overextension of the ego into others, isolating people from what they love, baiting, violent outbursts, paranoid delusions of cultural groups and their practices. These are symptoms of and obvious dysfunction.
Over-sensitivity is not bound to a single party, but they each have their own psychosocial tendencies of "splitting" to all good and all bad. That's why they joined a side in the first place, since the side caters to cover up their symptoms as socially acceptable. Rather than regulating the well grounded or "down to earth" boundaries of having sex with animals, between two people or between private personal encounters, they endorse the splitting and ban the entire act of sex with animals.
The laws are proof of when a borderline personality or stress disorder breaks the border line and becomes dangerous to the lives and health of others. These laws, in relation to the mentally unstable who snap and shoot up airports and schools, are no different than one another. However, the laws provide a "middle man" or "excuse" to enable antisocial individuals to carry out attacks on zoophiles using the law as a proxy. These dysfunctional individuals do not want to be held responsible for the misery they cause zoophiles, so they resort to "triangulation" attacks through the legal system. A clear act of cowardice, but also the product of dangerous individuals who shouldn't have the Democratic right to create these genocide and culture genocide policies.
Sorry for the politics, but it's only common sense that "policies" are related to the politics of a neurologically dysfunctional and antisocial society.
It appears to me that there is a bipartisan hatred of zoosexuals, from both Democrats and Republicans, in the United States; for example, the person who sponsored the anti-zoo bill in New Hampshire last year was a Democrat. And the person sponsoring the anti-zoo bill in Kentucky is a Republican. So neither major political party in the U.S. is helping zoos.
Well, from different angles, probably. Republicans want to punish those degenerates who do something that their religion says is bad, and democrats want to protect the poor helpless furbabies from vicious animal abusers.
thats a shame, I always liked texas. Still do like it but now I have one less reason to I guess.
I do still believe it may dissuade some people who are on the fence about 'trying' beastiality. so theres that.
It really sucks when terrorist organizations use our legal system and our own law enforcement agencies to target our country. They must think people will give up animal companionship for all those undesirable things they would force down our throats.
These bans could affect all animal owners and animal lovers. Regular pet owners might be next. Forced to give up their pets in place of robot animals, tamogachis?, and other "virtual pets." Personally, I stopped playing with stuffed animals and toys when I was five. I grew up a long time ago, but apparently those people afraid of zoophiles and sex with animals have not. Time to people to grow up, get over their trauma, and let people have sex with animals.
Forced human companionship, forced heterosexuality and homosexuality (compulsive marriage), forced abstinence and forced to use drugs in place of real happiness is another set of undesirable degeneration of humanity. What is happening to our choices, they're being made for us? Last I remember we are not machines and no freaks should be controlling who or what we have sex with. The Democratic system has obviously been hijacked against its original purpose to "give" freedoms, and instead is being used as the means to take freedom from us.
The system is being abused, not the animals.
[deleted]
Those in the U.S. may have to think about leaving it altogether; though a large number of other countries, such as Canada, have already banned it.
But recent years have shown that things are getting worse and worse in the U.S.
As for fence-hopping, the problem is that anti-zoo laws affect fence-hoppers AND those who have zoosex ethically in private; so that's wrong.
I may be somewhat biased being I am a non-active zoo due to various issues, but...
I'm not going anywhere. This is my home.
What I'm worried about: petitions such as this one:
http://www.change.org/p/greg-abbott-outlaw-bestiality-and-zoophilia-in-texas
No one cares about change.org petitions. Worry about actual bills.
Regarding bills, I worry about the current anti-zoo bills in Kentucky and Texas, because both of those bills would make sex with animals a felony in their respective states. And in recent years, bills like these have passed their legislative chambers unanimously and immediately became law, with no one even questioning it.
I fully expect it to be a nearly universal felony stateside within this decade with little to no opposition.
I'm still staying. I don't believe running away is the answer.
I'll have to be extra careful with my girls now more than ever.
So then, if you are Texas, I assume you don't plan on moving somewhere else.
It's not wise to move somewhere else. Don't let them funnel zoos into a kill zone. Better to remain spread out.
No I don't but I have family there
Update: the bill has been left pending in committee. The above link is a recording of the hearing, the relevant portion starts at about 1:02:00 and ends at about 1:15:00.
http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=40&clip_id=12876