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

[SigmaTheZeta]

It was not possible for the LGBT community to start acting openly enough to really succeed at legislative appeals until after Lawrence v. Texas had badly hobbled the sodomy laws. The truth about Lawrence v. Texas is that you can still be arrested in states that still have them, such as North Carolina where you could be arrested--handcuffs and all--on a felony charge and have to get someone to pay bail for you, but the effect of Lawrence V. Texas is that the court would almost invariably refuse to even hear the case, and your bail money would be reimbursed. That's my understanding of it, anyhow. If I am mistaken, then let me know. For most of us, it is therefore relatively safe to operate openly, and because of that, we were able to get more LGBT to start coming out and start pushing our message among the general public. We even began advocacy in the school systems and developed youth advocacy programs.

Eventually, pushing for legislative appeal is a good goal, but I am convinced that a powerful legal fighting machine is really more suited for truly asymmetric social warfare.

 

[UR20Z]

Down to name calling. Awesome.

Yep, that's pretty much what I said. Ignore everything relevant, go for a nit-pick on the phrasing of a metaphor, and toss an insult. Fine. I'll take that as proof of what I've been suspecting all along - that the kid is all hat, no cattle and has nothing useful to say. Return the favor, dump him into the bozo bin where his brand of stupid belongs, and move on.

 

[caikgoch]

A true problem is that winning a case or two doesn't change a law. Until there is a repeal or rewrite of laws that separate zoo activities from animal abuse then people just having fun with their animal partners will remain at risk.

That's the beauty of the US system. It takes organization and lots of people to make a law but a single individual can void a law. Proving the law unconstitutional is a necassary first step to replacing it.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

That's the beauty of the US system. It takes organization and lots of people to make a law but a single individual can void a law. Proving the law unconstitutional is a necassary first step to replacing it.

Yes, @caikgoch, but @Puhp correctly pointed out that Warren v. Virginia is a battle that our side actually lost, and to overturn that ruling, we would have to find a lawyer that is talented enough to prove, unequivocally, that the arguments that were used on behalf of that ruling are seriously flawed and really undermine other legal precedents. It takes a lot of talent, and furthermore, weathering extensive and repeated appeals is expensive. Sure as we got Warren v. Virginia overturned, the state would appeal the case that overturned it to reinstate the enforcability of the law, and the defense could still just run out of money. These things get seriously expensive.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Actually, I wonder if Scalia's dissent against Lawrence v. Texas could be used as stare decisis.

Okay, I am not quite educated enough in law to know for sure, but I am going to speak speculatively on the possibility that an official dissent written by a member of the SCOTUS actually can be used for stare decisis. It is an official statement of opinion by a member of the court that passed the ruling. He said, and I quote:

"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision;"​

I would want to hear from a real attorney about it, but if a dissenting opinion can be used as precedent, then I could imagine this eventually serving to help our case.

 

[ZTHorse]

If you cannot tell the difference between a juvenile human and an adult animal, then I regard that as all the world really needs to know about you.

Silky is known to be anti-zoo. Not surprised by it.

 

[silkythighs]

So in other words, you can have all the sex you want as long as you have a human partner but I am prohibited from masturbating because I don't have a human partner? I can't have sex unless I can find some individual to express legal consent?

You can masturbate all you want. There are no issues of consent involved. But yeah it has to be a human partner. As I keep pointing out. The only acceptable sex is between consenting adults.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Silky is known to be anti-zoo. Not surprised by it.

This person seems to just want to hang out and chant a hateful mantra over and over, and I do not really think that this person is interested in actually discussing the topic at all. All this person wants to do, apparently, is spread hateful propaganda.

 

[silkythighs]

Silky is known to be anti-zoo. Not surprised by it.

That's funny. I'm a zoo myself. With two different dogs. But we're not talking about zoo here, but zoo rights. But there is no such thing as zoo rights. Which is why nothing has, or will happen on this. In fact the more zoo's call attention to themselves, then worse it will get.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

This is not a private place. When you post here, you are not talking in a private sound-proofed room. This is a public forum. Anybody can come here and access it. The knowledge that you have sex with two different dogs is now publicly available information. This is not a private place.

You only want to silence those of us that are trying give the world a more positive representation of ourselves.

You want to turn this into another crass and fundamentally soulless cess-pool where you can feel comfortable hanging out because you can keep yourself believing that other people simply cannot see it.

When someone like Fausty and Toggle create a podcast and say, "I actually love my animals, and it really hurt me a lot when they were taken away and killed," people like you freak out and become belligerent. However, their podcast is no more public than the contents of this forum.

When you come on here and create a neat little cesspool for you to wallow in, you assume that nobody can see you because somehow, in your mind, you have learned to see that kind of behavior as being somehow invisible, even though it really is not.

This is not an invisible wonderland where nobody can ever find you. It never was. This is not a private place.

 

[Puhp]

@SigmatoZeta You want to tone it down a little?

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@SigmatoZeta You want to tone it down a little?

I'm just telling these people reality. I am going to keep repeating it until they understand that that reality is not going to go away.

This is not a private place. That fact is not going to go away.

These people think that as long as we obediently stay here in our little pigeonhole, the world will eventually forget about us, but it does not work that way. This is not an invisible place.

I am not going to back away from pointing that fact out. I am going to keep driving that fact home until these people understand it.

If you want to be invisible, then start a secret chat on Telegram with a half-dozen other zoophiles that think the same as you do, and never talk about your zooiness, ever, outside that context. As long as you are authentically right in trusting those people and you take lots of precautions, then most likely, the world at large will never actually notice you.

This is not private, though. The idea that this is a private place that non-zoos somehow can't see is a preposterous illusion.

It was precisely the contents that were generated by Beast Forum and the sites that were associated with it that got people into such a moral panic over animal sex in the first place. They saw it as a dumpster-fire because, as a matter of fact, it actually was a dumpster-fire.

Putting filth in public places and pretending that the rest of the world somehow can't really see it is what got us into this mess.

 

[silkythighs]

And what is your agenda exactly? To get zoo's to out themselves, so they can be dealt with? None of you zoo right activists has the slightest understanding of the legal process. You've all shown that again and again.

 

[Zoo50]

Here’s a main takeaway: Your personal feelings are neither impactful nor applicable with regards to the law. As such, most here are attempting political arguments, not legal ones. Politics can drive and guide the law, however, so impassioned diatribes aren’t entirely without merit, but - if it stops there - you lack a foothold to make any meaningful progress.

One's feelings matter, in the sense that one can choose to disobey the bullshit anti-zoo laws. In fact, considering that most places have (unjustly) banned sex with animals, most of the zoo-active people on this forum probably disobey anti-zoo laws.

This is absolutely, unfathomably, and completely untrue - and shows a basic misunderstanding about how the law works technically, practically and philosophically. Precedent for this kind of crime, with this kind of victim, will never, EVER go our way, let alone be adopted across the states. AT BEST, you might be able to make a case for privacy at a national level, but it will be rejected and declined to be heard. This is social pressure in action, and is how our system is supposed to work. Take a gander at Warren v. Virginia (and, in particular, how it rejects Lawrence v. Texas).

Precedent exists, just not the way we want.

I think this is a very pessimistic and defeatist attitude. First of all, sex with animals should not be viewed as a "crime" (even though it is recognized as a "crime" in many places). Second, a deer that is hunted, butchered and murdered is a "victim", yet the law treats it as legal (which is an abomination). And, as said earlier, sex with animals is a far less harmful act, yet it is illegal. This moral hypocrisy can be challenged in court. Your attitude is one of hopelessness. I agree that zoos are pretty helpless right now, but that doesn't mean a court challenge is impossible.

A true problem is that winning a case or two doesn't change a law. Until there is a repeal or rewrite of laws that separate zoo activities from animal abuse then people just having fun with their animal partners will remain at risk.

Judges can nullify laws. That's what happened with sodomy laws in the early 2000s -- sodomy laws (such as the one in Kansas) remained on the books, but they were nullified / became unenforceable due to court rulings.

Regarding Warren v. Virginia, that cases really pisses me off. This is a link explaining what happened:

Warren v. Commonwealth | Animal Legal & Historical Center

www.animallaw.info

The above link says the following: "The Commonwealth [of Virginia] has a legitimate interest in banning sex with animals. The Court of Appeals held that the General Assembly's prohibition of bestiality does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution."

That is such bullshit. Virginia does not have a legitimate interest in banning sex with animals. (Laws which ban sex with animals are discriminatory and based on people's moral prejudices, not reason or logic.) Also, in spite of the ruling, anti-zoo laws do violate due process (the court ruling's decision was wrong).

If zoos get into another case like this (and try to argue that they have right to engage in sex with animals), zoos need to figure out, somehow, how to convince the court that bans on sex with animals are wrong. (Which is basically the point of this thread).

 

[caikgoch]

You can masturbate all you want. There are no issues of consent involved. But yeah it has to be a human partner. As I keep pointing out. The only acceptable sex is between consenting adults.

OK, so I can make out with Merry Hands and the Five Fingers but a fleshlight or blow up is illegal.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

And what is your agenda exactly? To get zoo's to out themselves, so they can be dealt with?

I'm out to my husband because I do not build my life around people that I have to be disingenuous to. I keep toxic people out of my life instead of inviting them in and then having to be continuously fearful of them turning their toxic natures upon me. Learn to do likewise, and you will never ever be afraid of coming out to the people in your existence. Learn to find safe people. It matters to you for reasons other than the fact that you are a zoo. It would still matter to you if you were not a zoo at all. If you cannot trust someone with the fact that you are a zoo then I think that you off your rocker to trust them at all. Use it as a litmus test for whether or not you really need to keep someone in your life longer than you absolutely have to. If you know in your guts that someone is really a ravening wolf in sheep's clothing, then stop hiding from that fact.

 

[Zoo50]

You can masturbate all you want. There are no issues of consent involved. But yeah it has to be a human partner. As I keep pointing out. The only acceptable sex is between consenting adults.

This is wrong. While it is true that society views sex between consenting adult humans as the only acceptable sex, society ought to view interspecies sex as acceptable as well. What you're doing is taking what the anti-zoos say and supporting it. It's one thing to acknowledge what anti-zoos say, but it's another thing to actively support what they say. By saying that the only acceptable sex involves only humans, you are supporting the anti-zoos. (Thus, @ZTHorse was correct in saying that you are an anti-zoo, even if you claim to be a zoo).

That's funny. I'm a zoo myself. With two different dogs. But we're not talking about zoo here, but zoo rights. But there is no such thing as zoo rights. Which is why nothing has, or will happen on this. In fact the more zoo's call attention to themselves, then worse it will get.

Zoo rights do exist -- they just aren't legally recognized by society at the moment. Saying that zoo rights don't exist is not only wrong, but also pessimistic and anti-zoo.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@Zoo50, I understand rights as being things you have to stand up and fight for and make sacrifices for. They are not just a given. Assuming they are is a fallacy. You battle for them. You stand your ground. You look people in the eye undaunted and certain of yourself.

All deontological concepts of morality, including your rights, are built upon the human race's history as tribal warriors. In a warrior society, you have a social obligation to be a strong warrior and capable of standing up for yourself and therefore the tribe. Whether you like it or not, you have to join the other warriors in beating your spear against your shield and saying, "I also am big enough to scare away the lions."

I encourage you, for instance, to examine gay pride marches. They are troops lining themselves up for inspection, proving that they are ready and fit to help do their service to defend the tribe. The very audacity of many gay pride marches is an expression of boldness and strength and bravery and undauntedness. They are less effective if you don't engage in some counting coup.

Stonewall was an act of organized rebellion, and it worked because all deontological morality is based on the human history as a race of tribal warriors. We lived that way for a much longer period of time than civilization has actually existed.

You will be more successful with humans if you accept humans for what they are, and it is true that you will be more successful with dogs if you accept dogs for what they are. You will also find that you like them better.

 

[ZTHorse]

That's funny. I'm a zoo myself. With two different dogs. But we're not talking about zoo here, but zoo rights. But there is no such thing as zoo rights. Which is why nothing has, or will happen on this. In fact the more zoo's call attention to themselves, then worse it will get.

Clever double speak. Again if you were zoo (more bestialist by your commentary), you wouldnt be disingenious as you are. Obviously i see your two facedness hasn't changed.

 

[caikgoch]

Clever double speak. Again if you were zoo (more bestialist by your commentary), you wouldnt be disingenious as you are. Obviously i see your two facedness hasn't changed.

No, I don't believe she's malignant, more just misinformed. I blame it on the modern (failing) educational system and don't mind it because it lets me throw out a few thought exercises.

The key is that they fall headfirst into the fallacy of common vs exact language. Because it is commonly said, they believe that rights are given by governments. In other words, there is no is right to be Zoo because no legislature or court has said so. Actually, all my rights are already mine including my right to pursue a satisfying sexual relationship. What the legislatures and courts are charged with doing is not tampering with those rights without a "compelling reason". That's what was affirmed in Lawrence, that without a real victim, the law needed to stay out of peoples' personal life.

The US Constitution isn't a list of rights, it's a list of limitations on government to prevent them from trampling individual rights. The Fourth Amendment in particular applies in that it says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . ." My Fourth Amendment right is being violated when I may be declared criminal without any crime having occurred, just someone's personal distaste. That's what Lawrence said about the sodomy laws and rewriting the laws without the word "sodomy" in them doesn't change their intent or effect.

 

[Zoo50]

No, I don't believe she's malignant, more just misinformed. I blame it on the modern (failing) educational system and don't mind it because it lets me throw out a few thought exercises.

The key is that they fall headfirst into the fallacy of common vs exact language. Because it is commonly said, they believe that rights are given by governments. In other words, there is no is right to be Zoo because no legislature or court has said so. Actually, all my rights are already mine including my right to pursue a satisfying sexual relationship. What the legislatures and courts are charged with doing is not tampering with those rights without a "compelling reason". That's what was affirmed in Lawrence, that without a real victim, the law needed to stay out of peoples' personal life.

The US Constitution isn't a list of rights, it's a list of limitations on government to prevent them from trampling individual rights. The Fourth Amendment in particular applies in that it says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . ." My Fourth Amendment right is being violated when I may be declared criminal without any crime having occurred, just someone's personal distaste. That's what Lawrence said about the sodomy laws and rewriting the laws without the word "sodomy" in them doesn't change their intent or effect.

So would you say that Warren v. Virginia is tampering with people's rights without a compelling reason? (The reasons they give, such as the argument that zoo sex "spread diseases", are bullshit). Would you say that Warren v. Virginia is trampling individual rights for no just reason? Also, do you believe the ruling in Warren v. Virginia violates the Fourth Amendment?

By the way, I agree with your interpretation of zoo rights, and rights in general -- they exist independent of what courts and laws say.

 

[ZTHorse]

No, I don't believe she's malignant, more just misinformed. I blame it on the modern (failing) educational system and don't mind it because it lets me throw out a few thought exercises.

The key is that they fall headfirst into the fallacy of common vs exact language. Because it is commonly said, they believe that rights are given by governments. In other words, there is no is right to be Zoo because no legislature or court has said so. Actually, all my rights are already mine including my right to pursue a satisfying sexual relationship. What the legislatures and courts are charged with doing is not tampering with those rights without a "compelling reason". That's what was affirmed in Lawrence, that without a real victim, the law needed to stay out of peoples' personal life.

The US Constitution isn't a list of rights, it's a list of limitations on government to prevent them from trampling individual rights. The Fourth Amendment in particular applies in that it says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . ." My Fourth Amendment right is being violated when I may be declared criminal without any crime having occurred, just someone's personal distaste. That's what Lawrence said about the sodomy laws and rewriting the laws without the word "sodomy" in them doesn't change their intent or effect.

Also a purest constitutional interpretation is also animals are property and if i can control my properties sexuality by AI and by breeding for profit, I should be able to do so with my property for the pleasure of us both.

The issue is silkys attempt of legalism. Its circular logic. Its definately malicious.

Law only allows consenting adults -> animals cannot consent because the law says so. -> thus zoo rights are invalid because -> the law only allows consenting adults.

The law can be wrong doesnt come into the question at all.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

The way that I think of it, an adult dog is a differently abled adult, but he is still an adult.

 

[Puhp]

I suppose the disconnect is that you guys have a vision of "what you want" which is aligned with "what you think/what you believe should be right" AS INDIVIDUALS/part of a subset of our culture ... while Silky, myself and others are more focused on practical application, navigation of existing laws, and understanding of not only the court system and how they function (to carry out the will of the majority), but also the direction society is moving.

IT'S A GREAT TIME TO BE ZOO - never before computers have we had tools and opportunities to feel as though we were part of a larger community. From resources and porn, to personal interaction, to - heck - just being able to have a place where we can be who we are (admittedly, behind a thin sheen of anonymity). These stirrings of being able to be recognized safely and interact with others have brought an awareness of and a hunger for more. To potentially be protected under the law, rather than targeted by it. This would be huge. Stepping beyond that, being able to live outwardly with our own tastes and appetites and not only not fear prosecution, but persecution as well.

But.

Our country has had 400 years of immediate history, with 200+ years of independent governance based around the idea that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. Globally, we have a written history spanning 5,000 years. And yet, tracked through time, legislation against zoos is increasing and tightening. Society-at-large – on a global scale – considers the acts that we feel natural and private and acceptable TO BE ABHORRENT to them.

And legal systems (plus the courts to enforce them) are the natural offshoot of the societies and their values from which they spring. We're in te minority... and this isn't a "live and let live" sort of existence. We're being systematically legislated against.

Look at Denmark, whose progressive and permissive attitude towards zooishness has been the hallmark for modern treatment of zoos. And yet, even they are tightening their legislation, and further criminalizing this expression of our sexuality.

Several of you in this thread have accused me of being everything from naive, fatalistic and pessimistic. I'd state that, instead, I was being realistic in the face of this rampant display of pollyannaism. The laws impacting zooishness and bestiality are increasing - rapidly, GLOBALLY. And not only do we face legislation at an unprecedented rate, our courts are also are becoming more and more clear in their treatment of zoos, as well as the crimes becoming codified to be more serious.

These actions reflect what the majority in our society feel is acceptable and want. And it's in direct opposition to how we feel and what we want.

And it's not going to change. Zooishness will always be a punchline, comedy, and criminalized.

The only realistic legal grounds upon which we have to stand is some play towards privacy, so long as NO harm is coming to our partners. Unfortunately, society's legal aspect has already deigned that sexual contact with our partners IS harmful, and that animals fall victim to biblical prescripitions. And so, the 'privacy' we seek is - instead - seen as a furtive retreat into the shadows.

Friends, it has next to nothing to do with the animals... it has everything to do with how our culture feels about our sexual practices.

 

[UR20Z]

Congrats, @Puhp, you've managed to say what I've been saying for years, just a bit more eloquently.

Pollyannaism... A perfect summation of what *EVERY* "zoo rights" activist who's ever typed a word online is buried in. "Fantasyland" has always been my personal view of it, but yours is just as good, perhaps even better.

 

[Puhp]

@UR20Z Thanks for the kind words. Sad fact is I'll be targeted and lambasted and name-called for it. The desire to be recognized is strong, but people are unwilling to understand what's involved, how the process works and why it is that way. It'd not inherent negativity - it's an outright recognition that - despite the gains we've felt and feelings of empowerment and validity that we're enjoying as a result of THIS online environment (and maybe some grassroots recognition of extension of minority and special interest protections), Anti-zoo legislation is expanding. had expanded. Practically speaking, there's never been a better time to be a zoo in search of a community or zoo-material. Socially speaking, zooishness is not gaining in favor, we're just able to see more and more of us. Legally speaking, I'd say that there's never been a worse time in the modern age to be a practicing zoo.

We don't need a single landmark case, or federal protections - we need a state-by-state (and, further, GLOBAL) repeal of existing, strengthened and soon-to-come legislation, as well as a complete sea-change of society's feelings on the topic. AND we've got some powerful public lobbying groups that are actively against us.

THE ONLY HOPE WE HAVE is if the society we belong (1) values privacy more than they abhor our practice; and (2) understand that proper zoo/beast behavior is NOT HARMFUL to animals (though we will forever be lumped in with animal harmers for two big reasons, neither of which society is willing to let go).

Barring that, this is just wasting time and energy, as well as - frankly - being demoralizing (pun intended).

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@Puhp

I have gone through the experience of being a gay guy in the 20th Century, and I don't think that you fully understand how badly gay people were dragged through the mud throughout that century. It was more horrific than I think you understand.

Our situation did not just steadily improve, either. Our situation actually waxes and wanes globally, over the decades. During the Reagan administration, the Attorney General Edwin Meese orchestrated what amounted to an anti-gay witch-hunt while, at the same time, the LGBT community was going through a serious AIDS epidemic that resulted in the tragic and untimely deaths of many of its most dearly beloved leaders. Life had never been more dangerous for LGBT in the United States. Even though the Lavender Scare period under McCarthy was worse as far as the ferocity of persecution by the government, hiding in the squalor of the underground gay community had become even worse due to the AIDS epidemic. It was bad, and my husband was going to college at NYU while living in Manhattan during this time-period.

The Lavender Scare was actually worse as far as persecution in society. My late lover lived during the Lavender Scare period: during the Lavender Scare period, gay men were actually murdered routinely, and the police would not even attempt to investigate these disappearances because they didn't want to draw the attention of the mob to themselves. If they found a gay man dead, they documented it as either an accident or a suicide. If a gay man disappeared, there was no real search.

Our living conditions have waxed and waned, and we must never forget that our situation can always get worse.

If you do not think that the situation of zoos in this country can get worse, then I believe that this is extremely misguided of you to believe. If we do not do anything to salvage our current situation, then it will get worse. It can turn into a witch-hunt. It can become seriously dangerous for you and your animal.

What activists are trying to do is try to get our side of the story out there enough to try to guard against that. They are trying to guard against a truly dangerous escalation.

LGBT zoos that survived the violence of the 20th Century against LGBT are almost all supportive of at least certain types of activism for a very good reason. The reason why is that, when some brave crazy gay cokeheads tried advocating for us to the general public, people listened. Maybe very few of them really wanted to stick their own necks out, but they experienced their quality of life materially and measurably improving as a direct consequence of public advocacy. Because my cokehead type I bipolar disordered husband, who was brave because he was literally insane, helped to advocate for LGBT during the AIDS epidemic, people started to realize that LGBT were human beings who were really just as scared by this epidemic as anybody. The truth is that taking part in advocacy does involve you putting your neck on the line. Nobody can force you to be brave. You have to choose that.

It is risky and dangerous to be involved in public advocacy, but it works. When you throw mud at those zooey activists that are trying to make a difference, then you are shooting yourself in the foot. Throwing mud at people that are trying to act as our liaisons with the public is the most stupidly self-defeating thing that you can possibly do.

Maybe you are old. I have no idea because it's hard to tell someone's age by text. If you are, then I would deny that you have benefited from it very much. People that pay attention become wiser as they get older, but those that don't merely go from stupid to senile without detour.

If we do not attempt to empower our public liaisons, then our situation is going to get worse and a lot more dangerous. Because people like you are so determined to destroy them and to undermine them, then our situation probably will get worse and more dangerous. Organized public advocacy is the only thing that is standing between us and a truly dangerous witch-hunt.

 

[Puhp]

You don't get it. You misread my post and missed my points (you also are doing a lovely job of painting me with your broad, assumption-making brush). if you're unwilling to discuss - and only want to preach - we can be done. I'm certainly not going to stand in front of your blather for no reason.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

You don't get it. You misread my post and missed my points (you also are doing a lovely job of painting me with your broad, assumption-making brush). if you're unwilling to discuss - and only want to preach - we can be done. I'm certainly not going to stand in front of your blather for no reason.

Well, since you ask, I will try to address some of your ideas that you actually come to share with us.

First, the things we need to do first, regardless of whether we take a judicial or legislative route, are precisely the same. We would have to get our community organized and prepared to work together on something, either way. Nothing else happens until we have really accomplished that. Nothing else can happen until we have accomplished that.

From the sound of it, you tend to favor a legislative route, but based on the experience of the LGBT community, the judicial system is the most viable avenue by which an oppressed minority group can advocate for itself. I would not tell you that a legislative solution is not worth trying to pursue, but my opinion is that it is much harder and more dangerous to try to get done. It is not an inherently bad idea in the absence of more viable alternatives, but my belief is that court system will be our most important battleground.

Germany is the only large country left where zoos are able to operate openly and actually operating openly. There are a couple of smaller liberal countries, but they are very small countries. In Germany, it was determined, based on a court ruling, that zoos could still have sexual relations with animals that they themselves actually owned, but they were not allowed to share their animals with other zoos for any reason whatsoever. This is currently the law in Germany, and it is not an impossible law to remain in compliance with. At minimum, it will be possible, in Germany, for zooey advocates to operate openly. They have proved that they are willing and able to organize a fight in the courts.

I am not sure if I understood you correctly, but is there some reason why you actually think that a legislative solution is more viable?

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@Puhp, the truth is that it takes generations of organization and coordination of a community for that community to have any real chance of bringing about a major social change, and you don't get there by sitting on your ass. Grassroots organization takes a hell of a lot of legwork, and it is complicated and difficult. You have to deal with people that say they are going to be somewhere, but then they flake out for one reason or another, sometimes because they think you really intended to roll them or something. It's tedious and frustrating and often disheartening to try to do, and the worst part of it is that you just might be dead before you have a chance to enjoy the fruits of your labors.

If enough of us are willing to get our noses to the grindstone, though, then we can start inching our way forward.

It's not overnight fireworks. You're extremely lucky if you can get five local zoos to meet with you at a local coffee shop, on a regular basis, within your first five years of trying to kindle something. It doesn't really look, most of the time, like you are doing anything. If you started it out with a concept that you were going to start making really big changes in society within a few months, you'll probably lose faith pretty fast.

It's definitely doable. If enough of us make up our minds to get started now, then it is inevitable. It's a matter of enough of us working to keep the ball rolling, year after year, while we hope and pray that, eventually, we can succeed at attracting someone that has more brains and more passion than us. You don't win these causes in a fortnight.

Defeatist talk annoys me because defeatism always arises from a lack of patience.