• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

In the US, we'll have to fight it in the courts

IHO said:
Honestly, I'm not sure if you're playing Devil's advocate here, or just a big douche. But as an otherwise law-abiding citizen, any bigot-lobbied, hypocritical, opinion/belief-based laws are not going to stop me from being myself.
An it harm none, do what thou wilt
If the chance to be in an amazing cross-species relationship ever comes my way again I will go with it, and I will keep it safe from persecution. Disingenuous, oppressive people will not stand in my way of having some joy in life.
Click to expand...
That is how a lot of gay people dealt with being gay in the late 1960's through the 1990's. Gay sex might have still been a misdemeanor or even a felony where they lived, but the gay pride movement had grown, in certain urban centers, in spite of that. People just kept on coming out in droves, and eventually, the illusion that these laws were punishing people that were even slightly dangerous began to crumble into dust.

The truth is that some LGBT were still being targeted or drawn into police entrapment schemes right up until the late 1990's. Coming out was not always risk-free, and it could get perilous. Even today, a lot of gay kids that come out to their families end up being homeless for a little while, and some of those have to rely on other members of the community, including allies, to get up on their feet.

They do it because the culture of secrecy where the whole local community is closeted is toxic, and too many people staying in the closet leads to everybody being in serious danger. It constitutes a sort of tragedy of the commons, staying in the closet:

www.britannica.com

Tragedy of the commons | Overpopulation, Resource Depletion & Environmental Impact | Britannica

Tragedy of the commons, concept highlighting the conflict between individual and collective rationality. The idea of the tragedy of the commons was made popular by the American ecologist Garrett Hardin, who used the analogy of ranchers grazing their animals on a common field. When the field is not
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com

Staying in the closet has basically the same effect. Ultimately, maybe a handful of closeted zoos will successfully keep their secret, live really accomplished lives, become wealthy and powerful, and never once have anyone suspect them until they have gotten safely into their graves after having lived until a ripe, old age. However, as long as relatively decent zoos are staying completely in hiding, the only time when people hear about zoos will be when some sensational story happens to make the papers, leading to the public getting fed a badly distorted image, which could transform into occasional witch-hunts or moral crusades in which some zoos and their animals actually get killed in spite of never really doing anything wrong or weird.

You take on a personal risk by coming out, but when a whole lot of other zoos around you are also coming out with you and taking that risk with you, all of you together are ultimately a lot more secure.

The trick is getting enough members of the community to think collectively in order to make the collective benefit start to outweigh personal risk. That is really a tricky thing to do, and it takes a hell of a lot of work to build up the community.

Creating a fun and quirky podcast like Zooier Than Thou creates a sense of shared identity, and I think that more stuff like that just might eventually help kindle a sense of unity among the zooey community.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IHO
And again you start squawking about your imaginary community.

And again I tell you that out here in the real world - you know, that place where most of us actually exist - there is no such thing as a zoo community, and no amount of you claiming there is will change that basic fact.

Get over ourself, milly - You aren't any kind of knight in shining armor, and the folks you think you're coming to rescue aren't interested in being rescued by you, so climb down off your high horse, put it in the pasture so it can get a bite to eat and have a nice roll, and move on to something constructive.
 
Anyhow, when Lambda Legal was launched, the LGBT community actually had a lot of support, already, among academics and the upper and middle class. It was a long turf-war to get the truth up to the highest echelons of New York City's society.

It takes a solid generation at minimum to build up that kind of solidarity among allies.

The LGBT community was actually in a worse situation than us, during the 1930's through the late 1970's. Society agreed pretty much unanimously on what they thought caused homosexuality. It was believed that homosexuality could only be caused by existing homosexuals corrupting and perverting impressionable children, and people thought that it must therefore spread like a disease. Therefore, people considered stamping it out wherever possible to be absolutely imperative, which meant that there was a constant anti-homosexual witch-hunt that almost everybody agreed was absolutely necessary for the preservation of social health.


These types of PSAs were actually taken very seriously, and they were shown in schools. The sorts of beliefs represented in that video were ones that mainstream society, even very liberal people, agreed with, and it constituted something that they were deeply concerned about.

Anyhow, to pursue big ticket cases like Lawrence v. Texas, we would probably need a well funded organization like Lambda Legal, and let me repeat, Lambda Legal was staffed mostly by non-LGBT attorneys that were sympathetic. There might have been plenty of gay attorneys, but they were not about to put their careers in jeopardy by serving as part of Lambda Legal. It took straight people that had caring hearts to help get the organization off of the ground.

This is why I think that outreach efforts are so gosh darn blankitty blank important.
 
Last edited:
AxLilXCvrious said:
Bruh, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
Click to expand...
It's not going to happen by itself, either. It took a considerable amount of labor and passion to build up the social momentum that even led to Lambda Legal having a chance after it opened its doors. They couldn't have attracted big ticket political leaders and reverends in the 1940's. In the 1940's. The turf-building campaign was a massive one, and it took more than a generation.

Any group of people can do it, but I am pretty sure that the process is ultimately going to be the same.
 
If another zoo court case does happen (challenging an anti-zoo law, of which there are many), I don't want it to end the way Warren v. Virginia ended (the judges in Warren v. Virginia gave stupid bullshit reasons to keep Virginia's unjust anti-zoo law on the books). Somehow, zoos have to figure out a way to counteract the kind of anti-zoo propaganda that was used in Warren v. Virginia.
 
ZTHorse said:
The only activist organization I know is ZETA germany and as far as i could tell, they did have some success in fighting to keep zoophilia legal there. As the anti-zoo law there was overturned by constitutional court.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, the 2013 besitiality ban wasn't overturned. It is prohibited to use an animal for their own sexual acts or to train or make available for the sexual acts of third parties and thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species.

The only challenge came in 2016 and the case was thrown out.
 
The case was thrown out, (The constitutional complaint is not admitted for decision) thus it didn't overturn the 2013 law. Which clearly states, "It is prohibited to use an animal for their own sexual acts or to train or make available for the sexual acts of third parties and thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species.

Maybe you should read this.

Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren

Mit heute veröffentlichtem Beschluss hat die 3. Kammer des Ersten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts eine Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen einen Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand im Tierschutzgesetz nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen. Danach können sexuelle Handlungen mit Tieren, durch die sie zu einem...
www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de
 
Last edited:
silkythighs said:
The case was thrown out, (The constitutional complaint is not admitted for decision) thus it didn't overturn the 2013 law. Which clearly states, "It is prohibited to use an animal for their own sexual acts or to train or make available for the sexual acts of third parties and thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species.

Maybe you should read this.

Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren

Mit heute veröffentlichtem Beschluss hat die 3. Kammer des Ersten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts eine Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen einen Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand im Tierschutzgesetz nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen. Danach können sexuelle Handlungen mit Tieren, durch die sie zu einem...
www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de
Click to expand...
Out of context. Try again.

It is within the - basically broad - scope for assessment and assessment by the legislature to include protection against forced sexual assaults for the well-being of animals and their species-appropriate husbandry.

The regulation made by the legislator is otherwise proportionate. In particular, the severity of the intervention is not out of proportion to the desired success. Section 3 sentence 1 no. 13 TierSchG intervenes in the complainants' sexual self-determination. However, the offense only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner contrary to the species. In addition, the legislature does not make use of criminal law here, but instead designs the norm as a mere administrative offense, the pursuit and punishment of which is based on the principle of opportunity (see Section 47 (1) sentence 1 of the Administrative Offenses Act) and is therefore at the discretion of the prosecuting authority.
 
What part of the phrase, "Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the offense of sexual acts with animals" don't you understand. The 2013 law was not overturned as you claimed.
 
LOL

MAINZ, Germany — A legal bid to overturn a law banning sex with animals was thrown out by Germany's constitutional court on Thursday. The case was launched by a man and woman who "feel sexually attracted to animals," officials said.

However, the court ruled that the bestiality ban did not violate the individuals’ "right to sexual self-determination." "The protection of the well-being of animals by guarding from unnatural sexual assaults is a legitimate goal,” the court said in its statement explaining the ruling. Judges found the law, which outlaws sexual acts with animals or making them available to others for that purpose, was "proportionate." Offenders face fines of up to 25,000 euros ($27,000).
 
Last edited:
Why do you, @silkythighs, put so much passion into spreading that consensual bestiality would be illegal in Germany, when you—as you said yourself in a different thread—do not really understand the German legal system and apparently don't speak the language and can't read what the constitutional court wrote. Why do you think you know better than people who understand the legal system and can read what the constitutional court wrote in its decision? I've also explained to you why you will find misleading newspaper articles—it only needs a single overhasty news agency for that. I'd totally accept, if you said better safe than sorry and hence refrained from sex with animals on a stay in Germany yourself when you are in doubt. Please stop spreading false information though.
 
May 7, 2016 Constitutional Court - Decisions - Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the infringements on the regulations regarding sexual acts with animals.

The constitutional complaint will not be accepted for a decision.

Besides you @Talio claimed in another thread the case, "was challenged due to the ambiguity of the wording, it could be interpreted to prohibit all kinds of sex with an animal." But the 2013 law made that perfectly clear, "It is prohibited, to use an animal for their own sexual acts or to train or make available for the sexual acts of third parties and thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species."

But regardless, it wasn't challenged due to ambiguous wording of the word force. The complain is shown below.

The constitutional complaint is directed against July 13, 2013's § 3 clause 1 Nr. 13 AWA (BGBI I p. 2182), which prohibits using any animal for one's own sexual acts as well as providing any animal for sexual acts of third parties and thus coercing them into species-inappropriate behavior. Violations are fined per § 18 paragraph 1 Nr. 1 paragraph 4 of the APL with up to €25,000.

I hope you understand that with the 2013 ban, the legislature is asserting that just by having sex with an animal, you are in effect, "coercing them into species-inappropriate behavior, thus forcing them to behave in a manner contrary to the species.

The 2013 law still stands, as written and passed by parliament.
 
Last edited:
So we have an apparently well enough educated citizen of Germany that grew up in the German school system and has a nuanced understanding of German law that is absolutely certain that the German court ruling, in actual practice, legalizes animal sex. It would seem to me that that person's opinion ought to cary some degree of weight, so I am going to run a possible clarification by that person.

My understanding of the court case--correct me if I am wrong, @Tailo--is that what makes the court case important is not the fact that the case was thrown out but the argument that was used for throwing the case out, which apparently carries weight under German law.

I am guessing that the court would have been taking a gamble by taking the case at all, and the only thing they would have gained from that gamble would have been to harass some weirdos that have fallen in love with the pooch but, as far as anyone can tell, have no intention of bothering anybody else or bringing the country any particular negative publicity. On the other hand, if they had lost that gamble, then it would have hampered the state's ability to crack down on actual bad behavior.

By effectively saying, "This has nothing to do with you weirdos, so please leave us alone," the court was making way for the government to prosecute genuinely destructive behavior by sort of putting a protective legal fence around people that have described a very specific situation, thereby rendering their argument for challenging the law null and void while also protecting them from prosecution, AS LONG as their actual behavior, in the privacy of their own homes, fit within the VERY SPECIFIC parameters described to the court.

It was just the most efficient way to save the court a lot of legal complications when the legislators that had authored the law had clearly had bigger fish to fry (psychopaths that would tie up and rape an animal, for instance) when they created the law. It wasn't worth compromising that just to create misery for a harmless fruitcake that clearly just believed that his animal was in love with him.

It was just a tidy way for the court to save a lot of time and money that would have otherwise been squandered on effectively tilting at windmills, but the court handily avoided seeming to approve of the behavior by basically saying a legal equivalent of, "shoo, fly, don't bother me." Essentially, it's easier to shoo a fly out the window with a broom, which takes seconds, than waste valuable time trying to swat it when you really don't have to and just might do more damage to the kitchen than you do to the fly.

Is that basically how the system works, @Tailo?
 
Last edited:
SigmatoZeta said:
I am guessing that the court would have been taking a gamble by taking the case at all,
Click to expand...

Any German citizen can submit a constitutional complaint. "A constitutional complaint may be lodged by any natural or legal person stating that their fundamental rights (cf. Art. 1 to Art. 19 of the Basic Law) or certain rights that are equivalent to fundamental rights (Art. 20 (4), Art. 33, Art. 38, Art. 101, Art. 103, Art. 104 of the Basic Law) have been violated by German public authority.

In this case, "The constitutional complaint is not admitted for decision" "The admissible constitutional complaint is unfounded."
 
@Tailo, I do know that the German legal system is based on civil law, rather than common law. I have a vague understanding of how common law works, but I know relatively little about civil law. In American courts, I know that nothing binding at all comes of a court refusing to hear a case.

www.independent.co.uk

Court rejects claim bestiality law violates right to 'sexual self-determination'

Sex with animals has been a crime in Germany since 2012 - and carries a fine of €25,000 (£19,440)
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

I know that, in an American court, this decision by the court would have no weight at all, and it would be up to a future judge to decide on the case as if the challenge had never occurred at all. On the bright side, if a court refuses to hear a challenge, then it doesn't have any binding effect, and it takes a very strong legal case to even get a challenge into the court at all. It is actually kind of risky to get a case heard because if you lose, the precedent is binding, and it is a lot harder to get it heard again in the same court.
 
Last edited:
Getting back to discussion of U.S. courts, does anyone think zoos will ever be successful in challenging unjust bullshit anti-zoo laws?
 
Zoo50 said:
Getting back to discussion of U.S. courts, does anyone think zoos will ever be successful in challenging unjust bullshit anti-zoo laws?
Click to expand...
We would have to get an organization like Lambda Legal launched first, and even Lambda Legal had politically powerful supporters.

Ultimately, the social movement is going to have to come first, after all. If you look back on the history of the gay rights movement, then you will see that they spent generations building up a social and political presence.

What Fausty and Toggle and those surrounding them are doing, which is creating a strong outreach effort, is one of the most effective things that we can do.

Foremost, us zoos MUST learn how to be vocal about our zooiness outside of strictly zooey related social venues. Mixed social venues that are safe and welcoming for zoos are ultimately going to be the best thing for us.
 
I am not cynical, but it's going to be a long, long, long time before zoosexuality is accepted and assimilated into society.

Though frankly, I feel very blessed to have been born in this era...
 
ZTHorse said:
Out of context. Try again.

It is within the - basically broad - scope for assessment and assessment by the legislature to include protection against forced sexual assaults for the well-being of animals and their species-appropriate husbandry.

The regulation made by the legislator is otherwise proportionate. In particular, the severity of the intervention is not out of proportion to the desired success. Section 3 sentence 1 no. 13 TierSchG intervenes in the complainants' sexual self-determination. However, the offense only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner contrary to the species. In addition, the legislature does not make use of criminal law here, but instead designs the norm as a mere administrative offense, the pursuit and punishment of which is based on the principle of opportunity (see Section 47 (1) sentence 1 of the Administrative Offenses Act) and is therefore at the discretion of the prosecuting authority.
Click to expand...

The besitiality law reads, "Sexual acts with animals, which force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species

So the act of sex itself, is forcing the animal to behave in a manner contrary to the species. The term "thereby force" doesn't mean being "physically forced" (Raped) into the sex. The "sexual act", is what forces the animal into behavior contrary to the species.

"This applies in particular to the term sexual act, which is defined in § 184h StGB and has been specified in more detail by the case law (cf. BGH, judgment of May 22, 1996 - 5 StR 153/96 -, StV 1997, p. 524 <524>; judgment of February 6, 2002 - 1 StR 506/01 -, NStZ 2002, p. 431 <432>). The legislative materials (BRDrucks 300/1/12, p. 48; BTDrucks 17/10572, p. 61) do not indicate that the legislature wanted to use a different understanding of the term when introducing Section 3 Clause 1 No. 13 TierSchG. So again, "The sex act" IS what forces the animal into unnatural behavior.

"The offense only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner contrary to the species". "Forced to behave" Again the sex act itself, IS "the force"

So the claim the animal must be "physically forced" Thus "Raped" is simply wrong.

"In addition, the legislature does not make use of criminal law here, but instead designs the norm as a mere administrative offense"

In other words, sex with animals, under German law is a "misdemeanor offence"
 
Last edited:
silkythighs said:
"thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species"

So the act of sex itself, is forcing the animal to behave in a manner contrary to the species. The term "thereby force" doesn't imply to being physically forced into the sex. The "sexual act", is what forces the animal into behavior contrary to the species.

"This applies in particular to the term sexual act, which is defined in § 184h StGB and has been specified in more detail by the case law (cf. BGH, judgment of May 22, 1996 - 5 StR 153/96 -, StV 1997, p. 524 <524>; judgment of February 6, 2002 - 1 StR 506/01 -, NStZ 2002, p. 431 <432>). The legislative materials (BRDrucks 300/1/12, p. 48; BTDrucks 17/10572, p. 61) do not indicate that the legislature wanted to use a different understanding of the term when introducing Section 3 Clause 1 No. 13 TierSchG. So again, "The sex act" IS what forces the animal into unnatural behavior.

"The offense only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner contrary to the species.

"is forced to behave in a manner contrary to the species"

To claim the animal must be "physically forced" Thus "Raped" is simply wrong.

"In addition, the legislature does not make use of criminal law here, but instead designs the norm as a mere administrative offense

In other words, sex with animals, under German law is a "misdemeanor offence"
Click to expand...
1579976787431.png

Silkythighs is a well known anti-zoo
 
Zoo50 said:
Getting back to discussion of U.S. courts, does anyone think zoos will ever be successful in challenging unjust bullshit anti-zoo laws?
Click to expand...

No, not until society changes it's views. The laws are made by the people, if they felt sex with animals was fine, Zoo's and bestialists would have nothing to fear from the law. Some states and even countries only punish if the animal was forced (raped) into sex.

So a no harm, no foul, law is probably the best a zoo could hope for.

Another problem is that animals have NO rights under the constitution. So it doesn't matter if animals enjoy sex with humans. The anti zoo laws are prohibiting humans from having sex with animals, not the other way around. Which is why the animal "consented" is not considered a legal defense.

"Don't shoot the messenger, if you don't like the message"
 
Please, please, please with sugar on top. Show me a "credible news article or official statement, acknowledging that the German constitutional court overturned Germany's 2013 bestiaity ban in 2016 thus legalizing bestiality.
 
ZTHorse said:
Reread the document plz.
Click to expand...

I guess you haven't read or don't understand the Federal Constitutional Court's own press release? Here, I'll even put it in big bold letters for you.

Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the criminal offense of sexual acts with animals

Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren

Mit heute veröffentlichtem Beschluss hat die 3. Kammer des Ersten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts eine Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen einen Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand im Tierschutzgesetz nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen. Danach können sexuelle Handlungen mit Tieren, durch die sie zu einem...
www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de
 
silkythighs said:
No, not until society changes it's views. The laws are made by the people, if they felt sex with animals was fine, Zoo's and bestialists would have nothing to fear from the law. Some states and even countries only punish if the animal was forced (raped) into sex.

So a no harm, no foul, law is probably the best a zoo could hope for.

Another problem is that animals have NO rights under the constitution. So it doesn't matter if animals enjoy sex with humans. The anti zoo laws are prohibiting humans from having sex with animals, not the other way around. Which is why the animal "consented" is not considered a legal defense.

"Don't shoot the messenger, if you don't like the message"
Click to expand...

But you're completely ignoring the fact that legal practices (such as slaughter, spaying/neutering, artificial insemination, etc.) do not involve the animal's "consent". So requiring "consent" from an animal only for this one activity (sex with an animal) is irrational.

Animals do have rights, they just aren't legally recognized by society yet.

Regarding society's views, something's legality / illegality should not be determined by "the mob" -- just because a majority of people dislike something doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal.
 
Zoo50 said:
Animals do have rights, they just aren't legally recognized by society yet.
Click to expand...

Then they don't have rights. One can claim or assert a "right". But until that claim is supported either by congress or the supreme court, the right doesn't, legally exist.

Women asserted their right to suffrage for over 80 years before suffrage was "granted" by an act of congress.

Read what Supreme court Justice Robert B Taney wrote in 1857 about black people

"All people of African descent, free or slave, were not United States citizens and therefore had no right to sue in federal court. In addition, he wrote that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because slaves were their legal property."

Africans were slaves, and simply property. It wasn't until 1868, that blacks were made full citizens, again by an act of congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top