• 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

caikgoch said:
No, it hasn't been solved. That only works for receiving the money. You can't post bond, pay gov fees, or pay lawyers in cryptocurrency. To deal in governmental functions you must have a verified identity and identifiable source for the money.

How many NPOs have you administered? Two for me.
Click to expand...
I could explain to you how it would be done, but its possible. I don't wish to disclose that here. Its really not that difficult.
 
And @caikgoch, this is not some pie-in-the-sky fantasy of legalizing zoophilia sometime next week, but it's a lot more down-to-earth. We're talking about getting a dedicated legal representative for helping some of us in the courts whenever we do run into legal trouble.
 
ZTHorse said:
yeah actual legalization is null. We want to stalemate the courts, make zoo a non-crime.
Click to expand...
That's basically what Lawrence v. Texas did. It was not as much of a legalization of gay sex as it was an argument that the constitution guarantees people the right to privacy. It was really of limited scope. It did a whole hell of a lot, though.
 
The reason why the courts are a good place to fight is that, in a court of law, someone trying to make a case against, trying to make the "animals can't consent" argument, would have to actually prove that the government does not allow a slaughterhouse to slaughter a steer without verifying that that steer has consented to being slaughtered. They would have to prove, in a court of appeals, that this is how the government demands that all slaughterhouses be run. A talented fast-thinking attorney would be able to intercept against the "consent" argument even being permitted to enter the discussion. The attorney could arrange for an official estoppel on it.
 
Also lets consider that bestiality is legal for all deployed US soldiers, i think obama made that mandate, which is a special right and protection, why are not citizens allowed the same legal protection? Lots of ways to attack it.
 
Alright, so @ZTHorse, your idea for a Zoo Pride Day is I think a good place to start, and the reason why is that we need to start meeting face to face. I am going to try to get a small gathering together somewhere in the Research Triangle Park Area.

The reason why I think local mobilization is a big deal is that, for us to mobilize getting people to part with their money, we would have to get people to gather together in person. This actually builds a lot more trust than just virtual communications. It's very VERY hard to get people to relinquish money to a stranger on the Internet. If we could get Tom, Dick, and Harry together in a sitting-room at the Umstead, they would realize that they could need legal help someday, and we could start talks on getting them to start putting money into a legal war-chest. If we could just get FIVE FUCKING PEOPLE to show up, then that would be a thousand times better than the "not a damn thing" that we are doing around here now.

This @Zoo Stories guy seems to be knowledgeable about zoophile related activity going on across the country, so what we could do is start arranging for regional celebrations, one in Oklahoma City for example, one in the Research Triangle Park area, one in California, places that zoophiles in the region could reasonably expect to be able to drive to.

Expecting lonely individuals far away to open up their wallets is not all that realistic.

It's a lot easier to coordinate with a South Atlantic Chapter, a Pacific Northwest chapter, an Southern Ozark Chapter, and so on. If we had a number of well organized chapters throughout the United States, then we could have some people that had the resources to travel to coordinate them together to establish a steady stream of donations.
 
Perhaps a productive first step to decriminalization would be to encourage mental health professionals and their professional organizations to establish zoosexuality as a normal personality trait. Similar to removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder - a critical step to equal rights on that front. I know there are a number of mental health professionals who are supportive, or, at a minimum, open to change.
 
You're preaching to the choir. I've been advocating a LvT approach for years, BUT, I also have experience dealing with governments. 1) It must be a criminal case. 2) Any prosecutor worth his salt will investigate your backing and motives. An easy win for him would be to declare your money "fruit of a criminal enterprise" and break you. I agree that it is at least as wrong to put all of the "guilty until proven innocent" laws on money transfer but they are the current reality.

I have had to file a small novel of paperwork to prove that I didn't discriminate, pollute, lobby, spit on the sidewalk in order to get reimbursed for a job that the same government begged me to do. Think of how much worse it gets when they don't want you there.
 
caikgoch said:
You're preaching to the choir. I've been advocating a LvT approach for years, BUT, I also have experience dealing with governments. 1) It must be a criminal case. 2) Any prosecutor worth his salt will investigate your backing and motives. An easy win for him would be to declare your money "fruit of a criminal enterprise" and break you. I agree that it is at least as wrong to put all of the "guilty until proven innocent" laws on money transfer but they are the current reality.

I have had to file a small novel of paperwork to prove that I didn't discriminate, pollute, lobby, spit on the sidewalk in order to get reimbursed for a job that the same government begged me to do. Think of how much worse it gets when they don't want you there.
Click to expand...
We could call it "4th Amendment Defense Association," which is legal in the United States literally by constitutional definition. It's not our fault that we are currently the primary group of people in the entire country who are being deliberately and directly and explicitly denied our 4th Amendment rights. If we welcomed anybody that cared about their 4th Amendment rights to donate, then that would just be more money for the cause, but right now, we just happen to constitute the single largest minority group that presently have many laws in many states that are designed intentionally to trample our 4th Amendment rights.
 
Actually, I just had a bit of an epiphany. That's how we could succeed at canvassing to the common people. We don't have to tell people, "Donate money to defend animal sex," but instead, we could actually solicit door-to-door, "defend our 4th Amendment rights." People might not agree with animal sex, but they would agree with supporting the US Constitution.

Our organization would just have to be willing to defend ANYBODY and EVERYBODY that wanted to protect their right to privacy as guaranteed by the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution. I wouldn't be against that, either. Because we are currently the largest stakeholder in that, I think that any money that went to defending EVERYBODY's 4th Amendment rights would ultimately benefit us disproportionately.

I could envision myself going door-to-door and saying "Would you like to donate $20 now to defend the 4th Amendment?" and then explain that the 4th Amendment is responsible for the defense of everyone's right to do what they choose in the privacy of their own homes. I could explain that this is the amendment that states that the government could not really come break down a person's door and drag them out of their homes when they were clearly not doing anything to bother anybody.

It would just happen to be a fact that the 4th Amendment also supports the view that the government could not really justify taking our animals away from us just based on suspicion. If we could support the view that our 4th Amendment rights guarantee that our animals cannot really be taken away from us, then that would give us some time to get our animals somewhere safe.

It's not our fault that the state governments lately have decided to crush our 4th Amendment rights, in particular, under their boot-heel. It's not our fault that we are practically the only people in the entire country where new laws are being made at the state level that deliberately and explicitly subvert our 4th Amendment rights. It's not our fault that the statement "Defend the 4th Amendment" right now translates directly to "help the zoophiles protect THEIR 4th Amendment rights" in actual practice.
 
Last edited:
@caikgoch There is red tape on the funding portion, but It is possible. Lets assume that the funding portion is open, and we get community funding settled.

What we should be doing, is funding research into getting zoophilia removed from the DSM. We get animal behavioral researchers involved with zoos, get that proven and then once we have a line of people willing to testify, then we can think about starting a lawsuit against the state laws. Really, if we can get decriminalization in one state, that is good to spread into other states until a federal case.

Really, if we can win a single state, that can be a sanctuary for all zoophiles to live in peace in.
 
ZTHorse said:
@caikgoch There is red tape on the funding portion, but It is possible. Lets assume that the funding portion is open, and we get community funding settled.

What we should be doing, is funding research into getting zoophilia removed from the DSM. We get animal behavioral researchers involved with zoos, get that proven and then once we have a line of people willing to testify, then we can think about starting a lawsuit against the state laws. Really, if we can get decriminalization in one state, that is good to spread into other states until a federal case.

Really, if we can win a single state, that can be a sanctuary for all zoophiles to live in peace in.
Click to expand...
I actually have greater hopes for sanctuary cities. It is a lot easier to win over a single city than it is to win over an entire state. We could actually get police directives out there to not enforce state laws that deliberately and overtly violate people's 4th Amendment rights. We could get the people in a progressive enough city to vote for that. Even if most of them would say "no to just zoophilia," they could be enticed to say "if leaving zoophiles alone means that my rights also have to be respected, then yes."

Remember, the Battle of the Bud is being won in Denver, Colorado based on local laws. They have even succeeded at getting a police directive through that says that the cops can't really bust you for privately being in possession of magic mushrooms, in spite of the state still having laws that would justify them in busting you. Just because the state can pass a law doesn't mean that the police can be forced into focusing on it.

Just one sanctuary city for zoosexuals would be a very important start for us. For now, states are way up in outer space as far as our ability to reach. Winning over one small but unusually hip city would be a better way to go.
 
SigmatoZeta said:
And stop living in a fantasy world where the bad guys can never get you as long as you hide and lay low. In the long-run, that doesn't work. There can only really be safety in numbers, and that can only happen if we start organizing now.
Click to expand...

Call it a fantasy land all you want. But going public is a surefire way to get on lists you don't want to be on. Not just government lists, but the white knights and crusaders out there who will harass and assault zoos. Between that and taking my chances by staying anon, I'll stay anon.
 
SigmatoZeta said:
I actually have greater hopes for sanctuary cities. It is a lot easier to win over a single city than it is to win over an entire state. We could actually get police directives out there to not enforce state laws that deliberately and overtly violate people's 4th Amendment rights. We could get the people in a progressive enough city to vote for that. Even if most of them would say "no to just zoophilia," they could be enticed to say "if leaving zoophiles alone means that my rights also have to be respected, then yes."

Remember, the Battle of the Bud is being won in Denver, Colorado based on local laws. They have even succeeded at getting a police directive through that says that the cops can't really bust you for privately being in possession of magic mushrooms, in spite of the state still having laws that would justify them in busting you. Just because the state can pass a law doesn't mean that the police can be forced into focusing on it.

Just one sanctuary city for zoosexuals would be a very important start for us. For now, states are way up in outer space as far as our ability to reach. Winning over one small but unusually hip city would be a better way to go.
Click to expand...

We have to be real with ourselves. Socially there is a huge difference between weed and zoophilia. Most people equate the zoo lifestyle with pedophilia. That goes way beyond weed, and it's not going to change.
 
Animals are nonhuman, therefore they are below us and inherently disgusting, according to what society says. This whole thread is fantasy thinking. The laws are not going to get better for us. Might as well accept that fact and move on. Try to find ways to not get caught in the future. Protect yourself and don't worry about what the law says.
 
JT Bullitt said:
We have to be real with ourselves. Socially there is a huge difference between weed and zoophilia. Most people equate the zoo lifestyle with pedophilia. That goes way beyond weed, and it's not going to change.
Click to expand...
You need to go watch Reefer Madness again. Those people were serious.
 
JT Bullitt said:
We have to be real with ourselves. Socially there is a huge difference between weed and zoophilia. Most people equate the zoo lifestyle with pedophilia. That goes way beyond weed, and it's not going to change.
Click to expand...
They used to literally say the same thing about homosexuality, and our adversaries literally appeared crying and bawling on camera saying "Why won't anyone think of the children???"

The way we started changing that was not by trying to influence all of society at once. We started out with people who were cool and who were edgy and who were dramatic and a little crazy. We didn't push ourselves on people who were not ready. We proved ourselves, over and over, to whoever was already interested in giving us a chance. It is way too early for us zoophiles to be thinking about "all of society." We can barely get along with a specific subset of furries, and the rest of the furries see us as a whipping boy for their own problems. Let's start with something a little less ambitious than all of society at once, rather than being pathetic over the fact that we obviously can't win over all of society at once.

It is a loser that allows himself to starve surrounded by low hanging fruit because he can't harvest the whole tree, knowing the rest of it would drop on its own by the time he had taken that which was most readily attainable.

At this point, just getting other zoos to trust you is challenging enough. Why not start there, then? If you could win the friendship of just one nearby zoosexual that you would trust with your animals if you ever were to be incarcerated or even if you just had to stay in the hospital for a few days or needed to travel for your job, then you would be better off than most of us are now. That is what is realistic for most of us, within the next year. We have to pursue that because anything else we ever did would have to be built upon that. Nothing else could happen without that.
 
Last edited:
SigmatoZeta said:
They used to literally say the same thing about homosexuality, and our adversaries literally appeared crying and bawling on camera saying "Why won't anyone think of the children???"

The way we started changing that was not by trying to influence all of society at once. We started out with people who were cool and who were edgy and who were dramatic and a little crazy. We didn't push ourselves on people who were not ready. We proved ourselves, over and over, to whoever was already interested in giving us a chance. It is way too early for us zoophiles to be thinking about "all of society." We can barely get along with a specific subset of furries, and the rest of the furries see us as a whipping boy for their own problems. Let's start with something a little less ambitious than all of society at once, rather than being pathetic over the fact that we obviously can't win over all of society at once.

It is a loser that allows himself to starve surrounded by low hanging fruit because he can't harvest the whole tree, knowing the rest of it would drop on its own by the time he had taken that which was most readily attainable.

At this point, just getting other zoos to trust you is challenging enough. Why not start there, then? If you could win the friendship of just one nearby zoosexual that you would trust with your animals if you ever were to be incarcerated or even if you just had to stay in the hospital for a few days or needed to travel for your job, then you would be better off than most of us are now. That is what is realistic for most of us, within the next year. We have to pursue that because anything else we ever did would have to be built upon that. Nothing else could happen without that.
Click to expand...

I really wish you the best in your pursuit, but to me it's presumptuous to say "we" need to do something. Nobody is obligated to take things to court. Nobody is obligated to join the crusade. I'm sure as hell not going public. I have a few people in my closest circle I can trust, and that's too much to risk. I admire your passion, and wish you the best.
 
JT Bullitt said:
I really wish you the best in your pursuit, but to me it's presumptuous to say "we" need to do something. Nobody is obligated to take things to court. Nobody is obligated to join the crusade. I'm sure as hell not going public. I have a few people in my closest circle I can trust, and that's too much to risk. I admire your passion, and wish you the best.
Click to expand...
I think we are literally half a century away from a "crusade." Right now, we would be lucky to muster the legal defense for one zoo, and even then, we would be very fortunate to get the kind of case that would result in a change in the law. We would be lucky, right now, to get someone's charges reduced on the condition that she received psychiatric care, and I say "she" because it would honestly be easier to defend a woman if you want to know the truth. We have shit the bed so badly that we would be lucky to pull that off within an entire generation, assuming we started right now.

I'm optimistic that we can get from "fucked" to "merely pathetic" within a generation if we start right now. If I see any real chance that we will decriminalize beast sex before I'm at death's doorstep, then I'll say we've done more than I expected.

But thank you.
 
knotinterested said:
Yes but in a court when that point is trying to be made all the judge has to do is to rule it as being not relevant to the case and it is immediately dismissed. Judges can say what is a point in a valid argument and by that they control what is allowed. True this is unfair but that's the way it is. So I would say that there would need to be many other avenues and examples in order to circumvent that action.
Click to expand...

As SigmatoZeta said, the issue of "consent" would be relevant to any court challenge. The notion that some things are done without an animal's "consent" (such as spaying/neutering and slaughter) and the fact that those things are legal could be brought up, because "consent" is the very reason many people think sex with animals should be banned.

UR20Z said:
I'd be able to fuck my dog in the middle of the town square at high noon? As if I'd WANT to!

Tell me, someone, exactly why I should care about the legality (assuming I'm not doing something stupid enough to get me busted for it) of sex with an animal. No, that's not a rhetorical request - I'm dead serious. Aside from the self-evident "they can't bust you for fucking Fido", WHY DO I CARE if sex with one of my animal partners is or isn't legal? Nobody - And I mean *ABSOLUTELY NOBODY* - who has even the slightest ability to affect me and mine knows anything about my sex life, and unless I do something incredibly stupid, they never will. So why do I care what "The Law" has to say about it? Or what anybody other than me thinks of it?
Click to expand...

If sex with animals were legal, subtle things would be different. If sex with animals was decriminalized, it would not mean one would have sex with animals in public. However, it would mean that someone who is caught wouldn't be arrested. Remember, these anti-zoo laws unconstitutionally violate people's privacy (as SigmatoZeta pointed out, these laws violate the 4th Amendment to the U.S. constitution).

If sex with animals were legal, zoos could date other zoos without worrying that the person they're going to meet is undercover law enforcement. Similarly, zoos could meet other zoos (on a friendship basis) and form zoo organizations, without worrying that law enforcement is involved. More zoos would come out of the closet, and more zoos would be free to express themselves with no anti-zoo laws. Also, with no anti-zoo laws, zoos could be honest with their veterinarians instead of hiding things all the time.

mares4me said:
Animals are nonhuman, therefore they are below us and inherently disgusting, according to what society says. This whole thread is fantasy thinking. The laws are not going to get better for us. Might as well accept that fact and move on. Try to find ways to not get caught in the future. Protect yourself and don't worry about what the law says.
Click to expand...

That is a defeatist attitude. I understand the need to hide, but if people are silent and pessimistic, zoos will never accomplish anything. Also, non-human animals are not "below" humans; and non-human animals aren't "disgusting" because sex with animals is "safer" than it is with humans ("safe sex" is safer with animals than it is with humans). I know the majority of society doesn't think this, but it doesn't mean it will stay that way forever.

JT Bullitt said:
Most people equate the zoo lifestyle with pedophilia.
Click to expand...

That is literally one of the justifications the legislators in New Hampshire used when arguing for the creation of an anti-zoo law in that state. Part of the problem is that there was no one to speak up and call it bullshit.

Also, speaking of New Hampshire, there was a person arrested for having sex with animals in New Hampshire (before the anti-zoo law was made in NH) and he was charged with "animal abuse". He had one lawyer, and that was it. He had no social support, and no one to help him or his animals -- if a local zoo support group (such as those suggested by SigmatoZeta) had existed, perhaps things would have turned out better for him. (He was convicted by a bigoted jury and sent to prison).
 
Last edited:
If nothing else, a local group could have rescued his animals. People that are not known to have engaged in any crime or even to be connected with him would have had somewhat of a chance at getting his animals to safety.

Furthermore, this might have been a prime opportunity to take a case to a court of appeals. We have a legal basis in the US Constitution amendments that protect the American right to privacy. Just getting it admitted into court would set a precedent, even if we lost the case.
 
Zoo50 said:
If sex with animals were legal, zoos could date other zoos without worrying that the person they're going to meet is undercover law enforcement. Similarly, zoos could meet other zoos (on a friendship basis) and form zoo organizations, without worrying that law enforcement is involved. More zoos would come out of the closet, and more zoos would be free to express themselves with no anti-zoo laws. Also, with no anti-zoo laws, zoos could be honest with their veterinarians instead of hiding things all the time.
Click to expand...

Dating another zoo... Now there's a high-priority concept for me. NOT. I'm light-years away from being one of those "I hate/fear all women, so I fuck animals instead" assholes, but I am animal-exclusive - sex with a human partner, of either sex, holds about as much interest for me as the idea of having a root-canal without anesthesia. The idea of dating another zoo is comical to me - If you want to date another human, why are you having sex with animals?!? What's the point??? As far as zoo organizations, well, I think it was Groucho Marx who said it best when he stated "I wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would have me". Come out of the closet... Why, unless you're looking for some sort of "I'm a special snowflake" badge? And how, pray-tell, does a zoo "express himself", aside from being with his animal partner? (And if anybody wants to get huffy about my using the male pronoun as a generic, the complaint window is open on the second tuesday of each week - complaints made at any other time will be ignored)

The only concept you bring up that has any relevance, at least so far as I can see, is the "don't need to lie to the vet" one. And even that is a weak point, since unless you bring in a bitch that's dribbling your jizz, what, exactly, is there to need to lie about? (And why the hell are you putting the dick to her close enough to a vet visit that dribbling is a possibility to begin with??? That's just plain stupid, and almost deserves getting busted!)
 
Zoo50 said:
Also, speaking of New Hampshire, there was a person arrested for having sex with animals in New Hampshire (before the anti-zoo law was made in NH) and he was charged with "animal abuse". He had one lawyer, and that was it. He had no social support, and no one to help him or his animals -- if a local zoo support group (such as those suggested by SigmatoZeta) had existed, perhaps things would have turned out better for him. (He was convicted by a bigoted jury and sent to prison).
Click to expand...

What kind of protection could a local zoo group guarantee its members from being doxxed and lynched? Who among you are willing to publish all your personal info? Because fair or unfair, that is exactly what will happen.

Safety in numbers? No, safety in anonymity.
 
@Zoo50, there were LGBT that were opposed to the fight for gay rights for similar reasons to those that are being given by some of these individuals, and we dealt with it by just doing what we were going to do anyway. What actually worked then was what I am proposing. It is simply a matter of understanding animal behavior. A scared animal is going to either scatter or try to vanish into a herd.

The herd is only an option if you can provide it with a herd that has a reasonable chance of defending its interests. Don't judge an animal for being an animal, but instead, work with the animal's natural behavior. Provide a strong herd, prove that that hard can defend its members.
 
JT Bullitt said:
What kind of protection could a local zoo group guarantee its members from being doxxed and lynched? Who among you are willing to publish all your personal info? Because fair or unfair, that is exactly what will happen.

Safety in numbers? No, safety in anonymity.
Click to expand...

And to add to the rhetorical questions, who here is willing to go to prison for a fellow zoo?
 
@Zoo50, I would suggest watching the film Victim (1961). If you do, then watch the behavior of the other gay men in that film. When people are scared, they can often resort to defending the status quo, even if the status quo is demonstrably detrimental to them or unsustainable.


This is a normal fear reaction, and it's nothing to despair over. It's not a sign that we can't make anything happen.

The organizational strategies that have worked in the past can work for us. The laws of human nature still work the same.

The story of Stonewall worked so well because it gave LGBT a belief that the herd was strong and that herd could defend itself. Because of that belief, LGBT felt safer trying to disappear into the herd than trying to disappear into the shadows. The irony is that they were still having a fear reaction. They were just disappearing in a different way, disappearing into a larger entity than any of them would have been alone.

However, Stonewall happened at the HEIGHT of a revolutionary generation, the Baby Boomers. We are not there right now. We are years out from that. Right now, we are at the height of a generation that is a lot like the Silent Generation. The Silent Generation were people that felt very inadequate in the shadow of the Greatest Generation, and they tended to cling to tradition. They were afraid of making any real, substantial change. They felt like they were not really competent to make their own decisions, and they believed that any new thing they tried would be either a failure or a pale shadow of what came before. They were afraid that if they changed anything, they would ruin that which was already good.

If we are going to have a Stonewall, we're going to have to wait until a new generation like the Boomers has gotten into full swing, but the fact that that is a little ways down the line is good news for us, to be honest. We have a lot of work left to do in order to be able to coordinate cells of activity together. According to @Zoo Stories, we already have cells of activity. Getting other major cells of activity going should be a priority.

According to the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory, we are due a major shake-up in the next generation.
 
Last edited:
JT Bullitt said:
And to add to the rhetorical questions, who here is willing to go to prison for a fellow zoo?
Click to expand...
Depends on how well I knew them, which is all the more reason why I am trying to get the Research Triangle Park Area group off the ground. It takes years to build that kind of trust. It could take as much as an entire generation, but I have no plans to drop dead anytime soon.
 
JT Bullitt said:
Call it a fantasy land all you want. But going public is a surefire way to get on lists you don't want to be on. Not just government lists, but the white knights and crusaders out there who will harass and assault zoos. Between that and taking my chances by staying anon, I'll stay anon.
Click to expand...

There is a poll in another thread (polling section) -- the poll asks people if they have come out of the (zoo) closet, and according to the poll, basically no one has come out as zoo to the general public. I guess it's just too dangerous.
 
Zoo50 said:
There is a poll in another thread (polling section) -- the poll asks people if they have come out of the (zoo) closet, and according to the poll, basically no one has come out as zoo to the general public. I guess it's just too dangerous.
Click to expand...
It has to start somewhere. I am out to my husband. I would not have married him without clearing that up. It would have endangered my animal, and I am above that. I am better than that. I cannot tie myself to people that would endanger us.

If I cannot afford to be out to somebody, then I cannot afford to ever let that person be in a position to harm me or my animal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top