Link:
http://valleycentral.com/news/texas/senate-panel-approves-bill-banning-bestiality-in-texas
What was said in it:
The Senate Criminal Justice Committee voted in favor of a bill Tuesday evening that would ban bestiality, an act currently not illegal in Texas. The vote moves the proposed law closer to consideration by the full Senate.
"These are serious crimes," said state Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, the bill's author. "The state's response should be as well."
Protecting animals from sexual abuse also protects children from pedophiles and partners from sexual violence, state Rep. Carol Alvarado, author of the House version of the bill, told The Texas Tribune. Alvarado, a Houston Democrat, pointed to a 2008 sexual misconduct study that concluded there's a higher risk for committing child sexual abuse if a person has engaged in bestiality.
This is bullcrap.
Also this article about Nevada:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/2017-legislature/nevada-lawmakers-seek-to-make-bestiality-a-crime/
And this one:
What was said the first one:
The Humane Society told lawmakers in a letter that a study of more than 44,000 adult male sex offenders found that animal sexual abuse was the top indicator and predictor of whether a person will sexually abuse a minor.
“This is not an easy topic to discuss,” said Warren Hardy, a Humane Society lobbyist. He praised Carrillo for sponsoring the bill.
And the second one:
Assembly Bill 391 would create the crime of bestiality – sexual relations with an animal – bringing Nevada into the majority of states where it is already a crime.
Those guilty would have to undergo a psychological evaluation, give up ownership of any animals and pay for the cost of care for the violated animal.
A letter from the Human Society said it’s a bigger issue than updating laws. Bestiality crimes are tracked by the FBI and studies show the top indicator of future child abusers.
Nobody spoke against the bill.
Bullcrap.
I think they are making a series of false connections through BDSM concepts.
For instance, people might be thinking... Pet Play & Pony Play is similar to "sex with animals", likewise Age Play is similar to "sex with children", furthermore Dominance and Pain play is similar to "violent acts", therefore... If people have sex with real animals, they might also have sex with real children and commit real violence.
Since age play, pony play, pet play, and violent acts are all a part of BDSM, people might be making false connections of sex with animals to BDSM concepts, which route the concept of sex with animals to completely unrelated concepts such as rape and violence. It's like shoving the act of sex with animals through a wormhole, where it pops out on the other side of space and time as something different than when it left.
This is called "Illusory Correlation" which is more or less a concept of "Reality Tunneling."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-mishaps/201506/race-violence-and-illusory-correlations
The "link between sex with animals and violence" is attributed by a short circuit in the brains of people who do not have the knowledge to apportion the concept of "sex with animals" to the correct space within their memory. These people are missing the knowledge or "components" required for completion, therefore returning contradictions or "errors" in their statements. They might also "overload" multiple concepts into a single bundle regardless of the differences.
https://www.google.com/amp/lifehacker.com/the-illusory-correlation-a-common-mental-error-that-le-1755442156/amp
I think they are just referencing that one poor study. If I recall, it was on prison inmates, which immediately disqualifies it from use on the general population due to selection bias.
The "journalists" who help those people in obfuscating their references are just as guilty. There should be a footnote with the full name of the study, a link to the study (if available) and the results should be cited, not vaguely summarized by the people who make the claim in the first place. There's just no excuse for this sloppiness.
They are probably referring to
I can't even find an abstract. At the very least journalists should point out that without being able to read the discussion and limitations section of papers like this, the conclusions are worthless to the reader.
Today people are baffled by how this exact same propaganda and misinterpretation of studies have dominated the public discourse against gay people and when people still try to do it today they are just laughed at for being so ridiculous. Let's see if in the future there won't be a similar realization towards what the humane society is trying to do.
Fight the rules created on account of misapplied and incomplete studies with more rules? That sounds like a bad idea.
Layers on top of layer on top of layers, and now we need more layers to make the previous layers look incomplete? No, because those layers will eventually all get their own layers too. What was complete shit turns into a pile of complete shit.
The studies are wrong because they are misapplied. The first layer was added to the wrong situation, so adding all these rules to suppress their studies makes no difference. Wasted time. They will be wrong and will stand behind the piles of wrong that anyone creates regardless. Bigger pile to hide their bullshit.
They don't know the difference. Like a snake, they'll shed their skin of let's say... homosexual persecution. However, the skin grows back as animal sex persecutuon. Bad shit needs skin to protect itself... You have to stop the bullshit at the "source" while it's skin is off.
What is the source of persecution against people who have sex with animals?
What is your opinion of their various conclusions (such as their dubious claim that zoos who have sex with animals are likely to harm humans)? My opinion is that such conclusions are flawed, incorrect, and deceptive (and, as you said, propaganda).
Also, you're correct about how history is repeating itself (with regard to the tactics used against gay people in the past). Yet no one in the media makes that connection; they all just blindly accept the flawed studies as "fact".
I fear that the legislators of Nevada and Texas will blindly accept these "studies" and unanimously pass the bills; and I don't know what can be done to stop it.
The studies are not necessarily wrong, they just study the wrong thing when it comes to this question.
You have to draw a diagram of at least those groups:
What and how big are the overlaps? Who would know?
The correlation / causation fallacy being used against zoos is the same one that was used against gays, as you already mentioned. Not enough research has been done on zoos, so it is foolish for people to rely on "studies" of atypical people. Yet legislators who seek to ban sex with animals rely on those "studies".
There are so many lies and so much propaganda in those articles that I don't even know where to begin.
This is morally wrong; zoos should not have to give up their animals just because of some unjust "morality" law. Forcing zoos to pay money to their oppressors only adds insult to injury. And they don't need "psychological evaluation", no more than gays need it.
They are probably the ones responsible for bringing zoo to the attention of legislators in all these states, and in a negative way. They are on a crusade to oppress zoos (and in a hateful way).
This is nonsense; once again, they are citing a flawed study (a study which inadequately surveys only a prison sample population) as their basis for the social profiling (discrimination) of all zoos, as well as making incorrect conclusions (like the "smear" conclusion that zoos will be likely to do [fill-in-the-blank bad thing] because they're zoo).
This is understandable, but troubling, because it makes it so much easier for anti-zoos to accomplish their agenda of wrongfully criminalizing zoo. It also gives people the incorrect assumption that 100% of people support the bill, when in fact this is not true, and the ones who oppose it are in hiding.
I wish there was a way for people to fight against these lies without jeopardizing themselves.