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 the 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.
In theory, the judicial system is supposed to protect minority groups (such as gays, zoos, etc.) from the "mob majority" -- and so far, as exemplified by court cases like
Warren v. Virginia, the court(s) are failing to do that (with zoos). In other words, it should not matter how abhorrent society views zoos as -- what matters is, "why is sex with animals illegal?" -- and the court
ought to realize that there are no good arguments for banning sex with animals (that there is no government interest in such laws). Yet, in
Warren v. Virginia, they defended the Virginia anti-zoo law with really stupid arguments (such as the argument that zoo sex "spreads diseases" -- well guess what, human-to-human sex spreads diseases as well. Why is the court not banning human-to-human sex also?)
The reason I think you are being pessimistic and/or defeatist is because you say things like "it's not going to change". Society's moral values change over time. Most of society is ignorant of zoo sex (or apathetic about it), and they only get their information from bigoted, biased anti-zoo sources / propaganda. If this were to change, there is the potential that society
may becoming more accepting of zoo sex.
With defeatist phrases like "it's not going to change", why even bother trying to fight laws, legislatively or in the courts? I remember on another zoo website, someone said the phrase, "zoos always lose". That is pretty much the attitude being stated.
Though, I agree with you that these anti-zoo laws are about sexual "morality", not the welfare of animals. If the welfare of animals really was the main concern of society, then they would ban animal slaughter and hunting (which, by the way, are practices that animals don't consent to).
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).
Yes, lobbying groups such as HSUS are actively campaigning against zoos. And you are correct that zoo sex ought to be considered non-harmful. However, in
Warren v. Virginia, the court used the asinine, incorrect argument that people who have sex with animals also kill the animal they have sex with (even though the vast majority of zoos don't kill the animal they have sex with). Also, in
Warren v. Virginia, the court argued that anti-zoo laws are "rational" because the animal is likely to be injured during sex (this is bullshit, especially if a human is the "one on the bottom" and a dog is the "one on top", as an example). Also, if a human man has sex with a female horse, how is having sex with such a large animal "injuring" the animal? If anything,
legal artificial insemination of horses causes more injury to the horse. So the arguments the court used to defend the Virginia anti-zoo law are incredibly weak. What this means is that, in the future, if zoos get good lawyers, they can fight this kind of anti-zoo nonsense.
Also, because the court in
Warren v. Virginia argued that sex with animals should remain illegal because it allegedly injures the animal involved, it logically follows that they would also ban animal slaughter and hunting (acts which really do injure animals), yet the court isn't doing that because the judges in
Warren v. Virginia are hypocritical assholes.
I think
@SigmatoZeta is correct about the legislative path vs. the court path. The problem with the legislative path is that, over and over again (in the United States),
zero legislators vote against anti-zoo legislation (and I mean absolutely zero; not a single legislator ever votes against anti-zoo legislation) -- meaning, zoos just don't have the numbers when it comes to the legislative path -- that means the court path is more viable.
You are correct about the laws -- they are getting worse, anti-zoo legislation is growing. It
really is the worst time in modern times (in terms of legality) to be a zoo. It seems that every year, at least one U.S. state makes a new anti-zoo law. And in the past 10 years, many new anti-zoo laws have been made around the world. The question is, how are practicing zoos supposed to deal with this situation? Should they go with the
status quo of being complacent, hiding, and doing nothing (and hoping they won't get caught having sex with an animal), or should zoos fight back against all these new laws?
It seems that every year, at least one person somewhere gets arrested for having sex with a dog or a horse. I want people to stop getting arrested and I want these anti-zoo laws to be nullified. (This won't happen if the
status quo remains).
