Warren v. Virginia: a court case that zoos lost

[Tailo]

I'll try to. It's sometimes difficult for me to express my thoughts clearly, especially when I haven't slept well and write in a foreign language … and I didn't sleep well lately. Sorry about that.

The idea I had when writing that post is that when you want sex with animals to be legalized by winning in higher courts, you need to be really convincing: convincing that you do nothing wrong and that the law against bestiality itself is unjust. It is easy to be convinced ourselves that we do nothing wrong—we experience the joy our animals have, we see that nobody is harmed, it feels right. Our personal experiences do not convince courts who do not share this experience though and who are told many arguments against bestiality.

We—or rather you, since I do not live in the US—need to become better at convincing others that we are in fact right. In order to convince others, you should understand how they think, you should be able to answer questions they have and you should be able to counter arguments of those who oppose you. In order to counter arguments, you also have to understand these well in the first place. You should know more about the arguments of your opponent than your opponent knows about them. Ideally, you should find independent studies that refute your opponent's point.

This is why I suggest to learn from court cases like discussed in the opening post of this thread. You can see every such case, even if it is lost, as an aid for you to get better, because it tells you where you have not convinced so far. Learn from it and likewise learn from anti-zoo pamphlets. Take these arguments against you serious, play the devil's advocate against your own cause well and then find out how you can rebut it nevertheless. By doing this you prepare for future cases. But learning to convince can also help elsewhere than just in court.

The disease argument is only just one such example. I had the impression that @Zoo50 had misunderstood the concern of judges and zoo-critics. As I said, when you do not understand an argument of your opponent, you will likely fail at countering it. You will not convince. So I tried to explain there what I think the argument is really about.

Understanding the opposing argument is just the first step. Surely you don't want to give up at that point. Once you understand it, you can check how much of it is true and relevant, and what's not. The argument has a true core—diseases can adapt and cross the species border and can have potentially devastating consequences. But as @Zoo50 and @caikgoch have pointed out, sexual intercourse may not been the main problem there. Eating the animal may be just as or even more risky, getting bitten by an infected animal is a problem, breathing in dried excrement of an animal is a problem, mosquitoes or fleas that sting both the ill animal and you may be the most common vector. This does not invalidate the argument completely, but it puts it into perspective. And as I added: Where do the critical transmissions happen? Is the risk substantial in our well cared-for pets or somewhere in the wild? I have an opinion on this, but it's much better to get actual data from scientists—from the CDC, from the WHO, from wherever trustworthy data is. Because this will convince more than the opinion of a zoo.

When you find aspects that really do speak against us, don't ignore them. See how they can be taken care of. For example, if we assume for a moment that sex with a wild animal would indeed pose a critical health risk, then consider suggesting to ban exactly that instead of a ban of sex with all animals.

Encouraging zoos to keep away from certain sexual practices like you suggest, @SigmatoZeta, can also make sense. Maybe not so much because of infectious diseases (unless data suggests this), but where a certain practice poses a considerable risk of physical harm to the animal or human partner. The disease argument was just one example. It's best to consider all arguments.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@Tailo, I think that another strong approach, in the courts, would be the purposive approach. In Common Law, the purposive approach allows judges to take into consideration things like documented discussions related to why a law was being passed, how the same issue was handled in different countries, and so on.

I am not an attorney, but as a lay person, I am thinking that an argument that might work under the purpose approach would be, if the people that made the arguments on behalf of a new law in the legislature had clearly stated that the intention of the law was to prevent animals from being harmed AND it could be proved that Germany's law had been more successful than American law at preventing harm to the animals, then this could be used to influence a judge's decision under common law. I would want to run that by an attorney that actually knows what they are talking about.

Right now, Fausty and Toggle are in the middle of putting together an entire series on defending oneself under the law, so I am VERY curious as to what if anything they are going to have to say about this.

 

[Zoo50]

And as I added: Where do the critical transmissions happen? Is the risk substantial in our well cared-for pets or somewhere in the wild? I have an opinion on this, but it's much better to get actual data from scientists—from the CDC, from the WHO, from wherever trustworthy data is. Because this will convince more than the opinion of a zoo.

Actually, the CDC is where the anti-zoos got their data from in the court case (it could be that the CDC is itself anti-zoo).

My feeling is that the ruling in Warren v. Virginia was more based on emotions rather than reasoning (even though it purported to be rational, it wasn't). As you pointed out, why not ban sex with animals only in some cases, rather than a complete ban on all sex with animals (which is what every anti-zoo law does)?

Also, there's the anti-zoo argument of "many people say sex with animals is abuse, therefore it's abuse". (They even cited the new anti-zoo law in Nevada). What would be a good counterargument to that? It seems that there are conflicting moral values at work.

 

[caikgoch]

You are all making it unnecessarily complicated. US law requires a legitimate purpose, that's an integral part of the Constitution. When someone claims to be protecting, all you have to do is demand to see the victim. That's the basis of Lawrence v Texas, the government had no legitimate purpose regulating peoples' behavior without a provable victim to the act they are regulating. Doubt that? Why is there a specific exception for animated pedo?

 

[Tailo]

@Tailo, I think that another strong approach, in the courts, would be the purposive approach. In Common Law, the purposive approach allows judges to take into consideration things like documented discussions related to why a law was being passed, how the same issue was handled in different countries, and so on.

I am not an attorney, but as a lay person, I am thinking that an argument that might work under the purpose approach would be, if the people that made the arguments on behalf of a new law in the legislature had clearly stated that the intention of the law was to prevent animals from being harmed AND it could be proved that Germany's law had been more successful than American law at preventing harm to the animals, then this could be used to influence a judge's decision under common law. I would want to run that by an attorney that actually knows what they are talking about.

This sounds good.

Proving that the law in Germany has been more successful in preventing harm to animals could be difficult though. I have never heard of a comparative study like this. By the way, my personal opinion is that the German law was meant to be a complete ban and many people probably still think that it is banned completely. It was only later that the Constitutional Court interpreted the law differently following the appeal of zoos, and the court's interpretation is binding. Media hardly reported about the interpretation of the court though. Instead many just copied a superficial message by a news agency that said that the court rejected the appeal against the ban (which the court did) and failed to read the explanation of the court why it rejected the appeal. Therefore, the actual legal situation may not be common knowledge.

You could argue why a limited ban of harmful practices may be more effective though. Remember how the prohibition created more problems, more crime. A ban of something that will be done anyway (sex with animals) can create new problems like people becoming afraid to go to the vet with their animal out of fear that the vet will notice something. When people are afraid to join communities like this here, there's less social control among zoos. People are less likely to find warnings against unnecessary risks like the wrong kind of lube. Finally, thoughts like "if they see me as a monster and will punish me anyway, why should I care about norms at all" are not unrealistic.

 

[Tailo]

Actually, the CDC is where the anti-zoos got their data from in the court case.

Then it's really necessary to check what the CDC says exactly. What the CDC wrote may have been misrepresented or misunderstood by anti-zoos. It could also be that the information by the CDC is not detailed enough to allow specific conclusions. I'd really be interested to see the actual paper of the CDC that anti-zoos referred to.

My feeling is that the ruling in Warren v. Virginia was more based on emotions rather than reasoning (even though it purported to be rational, it wasn't). As you pointed out, why not ban sex with animals only in some cases, rather than a complete ban on all sex with animals (which is what every anti-zoo law does)?

Also, there's the anti-zoo argument of "many people say sex with animals is abuse, therefore it's abuse". (They even cited the new anti-zoo law in Nevada). What would be a good counterargument to that? It seems that there are conflicting moral values at work.

I once read a position paper of a lawyer who is involved in an animal rights organization—which is a good organization in general. It was written like lawyers' stuff often is, looking very professional with numerous references to laws and law commentary. If you're not very passionate about critical thinking and if you maybe have some prejudices against bestiality anyway and just followed the man's train of thought, you could have easily come to the conclusion that the man knows his stuff and that he must be right. I can see how people can be persuaded by such papers. Yet it did contain more than just one pile of bullshit, in my humble opinion. It contained claims such as that sexual contact with animals implies almost always a high risk of injury for the animal. This is a ridiculous claim that can be countered with two pictures, one of a naked aroused man, and one of an aroused stallion, with the same scale. Well, maybe it is better to make a bar chart where one bar has the length and thickness of a stallion penis and the other one of a human penis, because you don't want to be pornographic. Anyway, human reproductive organs are comically tiny compared to those of horses, so the idea that a human penetrating a mare would almost always cause injury is absurd. I think that when you derail a train of thought that people follow like this, you have a chance to make them think themselves, instead of just following someone else's "logic".

But it is like SigmatoZeta says: If nobody stands up and points out the ridiculous, people may not notice it. Or as in the story of the emperor's new clothes: People who notice it may think that something is wrong with themselves rather than believing in their own sense.

Maybe a comparison with artificial insemination in horse and livestock breeding would also help. Like, people put their whole arms deep into the butt of cows there to feel the cow's inner reproductive organs through the intestinal walls, and then shove the semen carrying thing deep into her vagina. That's not abuse apparently. How can rubbing with a comparatively microscopic penis be physically abusive then? Masturbating male dogs to get semen for artificial insemination isn't abuse either in the US, is it? Then why would masturbating a dog and letting the semen wet the floor be abuse?

 

[AmantePerro]

<snip> The pigs-only influenza could "learn" from the human influenza how to penetrate the human defense mechanism—and suddenly we have a new monstrous disease. That's the fear.

The people who hate and fear zoophiles are nowhere near that scientifically literate. And hate is just something that they use to excuse murdering and robbing people.

Also, as if we were talking about something rational, raising pigs for food and slaughtering them exposes people to far more contagion than just the act of sex. Farming them is a far more effective way to mix pathogens.

 

[AmantePerro]

Then it's really necessary to check what the CDC says exactly. What the CDC wrote may have been misrepresented or misunderstood by anti-zoos. It could also be that the information by the CDC is not detailed enough to allow specific conclusions. I'd really be interested to see the actual paper of the CDC that anti-zoos referred to.
<snip>

The CDC website cribs off the HSUS website.

 

[Tailo]

I agree @AmantePerro, logical arguments won't bring acceptance in society. They don't win people's hearts. They should have some importance in court though.

 

[Zoo50]

I agree @AmantePerro, logical arguments won't bring acceptance in society. They don't win people's hearts. They should have some importance in court though.

In theory, courts are supposed to make logical arguments. But the anti-zoo arguments made in Warren v. Virginia were extremely illogical, in my opinion.

 

[CritterFunatic]

In theory, courts are supposed to make logical arguments. But the anti-zoo arguments made in Warren v. Virginia were extremely illogical, in my opinion.

Usually courts just have to represent law, it's the job of the accused to defend himself in a rational manner, still, if the law won't accept their defense, no matter how logical it seemed to them, then the courts won't accept it either. That's the sad truth concerning most court systems around the world. That even seems to be the case in places, where in dubio pro reo is applied (Latin for "[when] in doubt, for the accused"). First you have to be in doubt... Most non-zoos aren't in doubt concerning right or wrong, when it comes to the activities of zoophiles.

 

[silkythighs]

In theory, courts are supposed to make logical arguments. But the anti-zoo arguments made in Warren v. Virginia were extremely illogical, in my opinion.

Yes but the judgment was rational. There is no right in the Constitution to have sex with animals. So no state with anti zoo legislation is impinging on ones right to due process. Same thing happened when gays applied for marriage licences. The Supreme court refused to even hear gay marriage cases because it didn't have any "federal implications." In other words, states were free to determine their own marriage laws.

In the case where a white man from Virginia wanted to marry a black woman and was refused due to a ban on interracial marriages. That case was heard, and in a unanimous decision found that Virginia was in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Remember the 13th amendment made blacks full citizens.

You mentioned slavery. Slavery was legal in the US prior to the civil war. The ethics and morality of slavery was of no legal consequence. Slaves were property, nothing more. Of course it was wrong to our modern eyes. But until the 13th amendment was passed, slaves had no legal standing.

 

[Zoo50]

Yes but the judgment was rational. There is no right in the Constitution to have sex with animals. So no state with anti zoo legislation is impinging on ones right to due process. Same thing happened when gays applied for marriage licences. The Supreme court refused to even hear gay marriage cases because it didn't have any "federal implications." In other words, states were free to determine their own marriage laws.

In the case where a white man from Virginia wanted to marry a black woman and was refused due to a ban on interracial marriages. That case was heard, and in a unanimous decision found that Virginia was in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Remember the 13th amendment made blacks full citizens.

You mentioned slavery. Slavery was legal in the US prior to the civil war. The ethics and morality of slavery was of no legal consequence. Slaves were property, nothing more. Of course it was wrong to our modern eyes. But until the 13th amendment was passed, slaves had no legal standing.

This isn't true. Zoos do have a right to have sex with animals, even if it isn't currently legally recognized. The judgement of Warren v. Virginia was not rational.

Also, slaves did have the right to not be slaves, even prior to the adoption of the 13th amendment -- such as a right was intrinsic, even if it wasn't legally recognized in the beginning of the 19th century. Rights can't be given and taken away by laws / courts -- they exist independent of those things.

 

[arcticwolf69]

This isn't true. Zoos do have a right to have sex with animals, even if it isn't currently legally recognized. The judgement of Warren v. Virginia was not rational.

Also, slaves did have the right to not be slaves, even prior to the adoption of the 13th amendment -- such as a right was intrinsic, even if it wasn't legally recognized in the beginning of the 19th century. Rights can't be given and taken away by laws / courts -- they exist independent of those things.

What planet are you from? In the modern world what you think or wish means 0 in a court of law.

Rights can't be given and taken away by laws / courts -- they exist independent of those things.

That is exactly what laws do ... they give or take away your (privileges) You do NOT have the right too anything, unless you can get away with it, or the law allows it.

 

[silkythighs]

This isn't true. Zoos do have a right to have sex with animals, even if it isn't currently legally recognized. The judgement of Warren v. Virginia was not rational.

Also, slaves did have the right to not be slaves, even prior to the adoption of the 13th amendment -- such as a right was intrinsic, even if it wasn't legally recognized in the beginning of the 19th century. Rights can't be given and taken away by laws / courts -- they exist independent of those things.

That's not how it works. No one has any rights, unless it's expressed in the constitution. Slaves were property, nothing more.

Chief Justice Roger Taney -- "We think ... that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."

He also stated "Blacks have no rights which the white man is bound to respect." And again, that was the chief justice of the supreme courts opinion. Speaking for the highest court in the land.

So matter how many times a slave screamed bullshit, it didn't change their status. It took a civil war with over 6,000,000 casualties before slaves were GIVEN full rights as citizens.

Same with women suffrage, before the right was given to them by an act of congress. Screaming bullshit wouldn't do anything for women.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Usually courts just have to represent law, it's the job of the accused to defend himself in a rational manner, still, if the law won't accept their defense, no matter how logical it seemed to them, then the courts won't accept it either. That's the sad truth concerning most court systems around the world. That even seems to be the case in places, where in dubio pro reo is applied (Latin for "[when] in doubt, for the accused"). First you have to be in doubt... Most non-zoos aren't in doubt concerning right or wrong, when it comes to the activities of zoophiles.

Well, law is really great as an alternative to dealing with our grievances by assembling as a mob to burn our neighbor's house down or to murder his entire tribe. Compared with that, it works great!

The truth is that we endanger ourselves anytime we forget that human beings are, at heart, a gregarious ape, and when they become fearful and hysterical over something, they can occasionally express their feelings by ripping off your testicles or sometimes tearing off the majority of your face. The fiction that we are really removed from that creature is only maintained by a very thin fiction we tell ourselves that the law somehow makes us safe and secure, so we don't really have to deal with things in that way. If you take away the illusion that that layer of protection is impenetrable enough to stop anything bad from ever happening to them, then they become very nervous.

This is why getting a society to agree en masse to make a radical change in the law, especially to satisfy a minority group, is a very very hard thing to do. If you think of the history of LGBT rights as going back to early organizational efforts under the Weimar Republic period in Germany, which inspired the formation of the later Society for Human Rights in Chicago, Illinois, then it arguably took an entire century of LGBT working very hard and often taking risky maneuvers in order to woo society over to changing how they deal with gay people.

Well, I intend to stay around for at least half a century more than I have already been around, and I bet that if we follow the roadmap those guys have left behind, then we just might manage to get something to truly change while a few of us are still alive.

 

[caikgoch]

That's not how it works. No one has any rights, unless it's expressed in the constitution.

Why yes, that's absolutely true. Which is why the Tenth Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In elementary speak, everybody has all possible rights to begin with and only when absolutely necessary is the government allowed, by means enumerated in the Constitution, to regulate some of those rights.

So no one has a right to have sex with anyone or anything, according to the Constitution or courts, instead the government has a very limited right to regulate sex as needed to prevent victimization. Period. The only possible argument about bestiality is the extent to which property can be victimized.

 

[silkythighs]

Why yes, that's absolutely true. Which is why the Tenth Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In elementary speak, everybody has all possible rights to begin with and only when absolutely necessary is the government allowed, by means enumerated in the Constitution, to regulate some of those rights.

So no one has a right to have sex with anyone or anything, according to the Constitution or courts, instead the government has a very limited right to regulate sex as needed to prevent victimization. Period. The only possible argument about bestiality is the extent to which property can be victimized.

Your "interpretation" of the 10th amendment is the problem. In reality, it basically just confirms that any powers not expressly given to congress is reserved for the states. As many still feared the power of governments. Which is also why 4 supreme court justices dissented from the gay marriage ruling. As they argued that the states alone define marriage laws.

 

[caikgoch]

It's just four words, "or to the people", it couldn't have that much meaning, could it?

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

The US Constitution was not created by people that felt it would be all that problematic to have a man hanged for the crime of sodomy, and the most liberal statement that you could get away with making at the hanging was, "Maybe we could just have him castrated instead."

The original US Constitution also stated that a slave-owner could have an extra three-fifths of a vote for every slave that he owned, which is one of the things that led to the very ownership of slaves being a means of gaining political power.

When the US Constitution was inked and signed, the country and its culture was a bit of a work in progress.

Loose constructionism is really what gives the judiciary the power to work the interpretation of the US Constitution around current social mores, and this is a part of what led to the Lawrence v. Texas (2003) ruling.

You can only justify beating on the drums of hopelessness and despair if you pretend that the past 200 years of jurisprudence had never happened and that the entire judical system is a bunch of clones of Antonin Scalia. I am sure that Antonin Scalia would have loved for all us LGBT to have thought that because he was the high apostle of the most repressive, toxic form of textualism, and he was not even a real textualist. A real textualist.

A real textualist or originalist would have pointed out that the original US Constitution's 5th Amendment clause as well as other privacy-related text in the US Constitution clearly had been intended to protect people from the police bursting into their homes like the Gestapo and seizing their property. The reason why this was put into the US Constitution was that the organizers of the American Revolution had had that happening to them routinely: British soldiers would raid their homes, while showing absolutely no respect for the sanctity of their private property or what they chose to do in private. When those people inked that text, what they meant was, "stay out of my private business, motherfuckers."

Well, when I am fucking my dog, which by law is regarded as my private property, then that is my private business. Until the law has been changed such as to have my dog regarded legally as something else besides my private property, then fucking my dog is as much my private business as the private business of the organizers of the American Revolution. Based on a purely textualist interpretation of the US Constitution, if I were balls-deep in a bitch as I were plowing her like a Nebraska cornfield, pounding on her tight and juicy bitch cunt as if it were duty to flag and country, that is my private business.

You could only argue that dogs are something else besides private property by making a clean break with either textualism or originalism, and when you do, then you must accept that the current norms of society actually have a lot to do with what is actually going to be regarded as legal in American society. The "dogs are family and like our children" narrative is a reaction to social sentiment, and a judge that allows social sentiment to be an influence upon jurisprudence, then that judge is actively embracing a "living constitution" approach to jurisprudence. To argue otherwise would be an outright lie.

Well, the current norms of American society, which until recently had believed that we were some profoundly mentally handicapped agricultural laborers in redneck backwaters that probably could no more help themselves than the animals, have stemmed from a very nervous reaction to the fact that we are not actually mentally handicapped but actually quite conscious of what we do, and they are still processing how to deal with that acknowledgement. We stood up and said, "Hey, we're just regular guys, and we were wondering..." and society put its hand up and said, "Please, we have only just now gotten most Americans to realize that murdering gay people is not cool to do in any country anywhere. We will get to you when we get to you."

Therefore, if you accept the "living constitution" interpretation, then you must acknowledge that the way that the judiciary interprets the US Constitution is inevitably going to be shaped by the norms of society, which is not currently to our advantage. In fact, at the moment, the "living constitution" interpretation would do less for our benefit, in the short-term, than a strictly textualist interpretation.

However, in the long-run, assuming that you intend to keep on eating your leafy greens and going to the gym regularly and visit your doctor annually for your physical and take your vitamin D supplement like your doctor says for you to do, then the "living constitution" can really lead to a more dignifying outcome. It might take multiple generations to woo society at large, in regard to what kinds of people we really are or can be, but I think it's worth it.

Again, though, if you take a purely textualist approach to the interpretation of the US Constitution, it is no more the government's business if I fuck my dog than if I wash a wooden spoon in the dishwasher. Most people might think that I would be well-advised to not do either, but under a strictly textualist interpretation of the US Constitution, the government does not really have any authority to take my dog away from me just because I have been fucking my dog.

To make an argument that we are not explicitly protected by the US Constitution, you would have to break with pure textualism and with originalism, and if you do that, you must accept that the continuously fluctuating sentiments of society at large actually do have a lot to do with interpretation, and if you do, then you must accept that our only recourse is a highly organized system of social engagement, by zoos, to try to change people's minds. If we are going to take that route, then we must do everything in our power to attract people with courage, talent, and intelligence to our cause.

I think that Fausty and @TogglesHappyZoo have got the right idea of how to do it, by the way. I truly think that their system might actually yield results if we keep applying it steadily over the course of a generation or two and don't give up.

The "living constitution" route is dangerous for us, in the short-term, because of its sensitivity to the vagaries of public sentiment, but it is also the most likely route for permanently changing our situation over the course of our lifetimes.

Its text is our shield, and its heartbeat is our sword.

Hold them to their word if they pronounce their word to be their bond.

If they opt for change, then stand up like honorable men and women, and become the captains of that change.

Proverbs 28:1 "The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion."

Likely lifted from ancient Sumerian wisdom literature like the majority of the Proverbs, but it is as true today as it was thousands of years ago, back when the pioneers of human civilization were still digging the trenches for its footings and trying to figure out how to get tribes of warring savages to cooperate with each other for a little while to avoid depleting what was left of the terrifyingly finite resources of the Fertile Crescent.

You cannot deal with the human race effectively by hiding your heads in the sand. This has been known for millennia. When you run when nobody even pursues you, you merely are observed to be chickenhearted and convinced of the villainy of your own character.

Accept the natural instincts of the animal that you are dealing with. It does not understand and cannot understand your desire to be left alone as being anything besides grounds for justifying its paranoia. It will never understand that you just want to be left in peace. It is outside the very nature of the beast. When you hide anything, its instinct is to see demons leaping at it from the shadows. This always has been its instinct, and this always will be its instinct.

When you fail to take into account the instincts of the animal that you are dealing with, you will fail, and you will deserve to fail because you are like an imbecile that has alternated between battering a dog without due cause and prodigiously indulging it without it having done anything differently, and such an imbecile is shocked, SHOCKED, appalled, and disgusted with the animal when that animal bites the hand that feeds it and then disparages the animal's reputation.

The homosexuals, on the other hand, are like the man that owns a dog who trots loyally at his side and is clearly proud to be owned by such a man. Maybe the reason why is not that there is something innately different about the homosexuals, but maybe the reason why is that they actually listened to somebody that gave them some sound advice on pet-parenting. They are not different: they just did something differently. They turned thousands of years of violent persecution on its head. Somehow, they changed what they were doing, and it worked. We ought to be trying to figure out what they did and see if we can replicate it. Their alchemy is powerful, and it is time for us to acknowledge that fact.

As a person that is proud to be a member of the human race, I will defend this creature. The human race is capable of accepting a minority group, even a weird one, if you just learn how to work with, rather than against, the instincts of the animal. Stop fighting the animal's nature. Accept the animal's nature, and embrace the animal's nature. As a homosexual, I have seen this animal's behavior performing an about-face in how it behaves toward a minority group that previously had been violently repressed and persecuted for thousands of years. There is no bad animal, merely bad management of your relationship with that animal. Blaming that on the animal is unpardonable.

When I hear someone say "We'll never be accepted," I hear them saying "It's just a bad dog." Maybe some people truly, in their hearts, believe themselves when they say those kinds of words, but I can never respect them as people.

For us zoos, this is our trial-by-fire, upon which we have come to maturity and it is to be determined whether we will join the warriors of our tribe or become exiles among our own people. Organize your troops. Demonstrate that the capacity for leadership is within your constitution. Your only real alternative, besides centuries more of persecution, is to be treated as a sick child that needs medicine to cure him, but there is no dignity in that and never will be.

Only warriors may lay claim to rights, and this is a part of the nature of the animal that must be accepted. The LGBT community, without Stonewall and similar bravery, would never have stood a chance, and it would be delusional to ever believe that they would have. Eventually, a scientist would have figured out how to prevent someone from being born gay by intrauterine injection, and the cause would have burned out as the last of them began to age. It is easy but also craven and despicable to get treated like a sick child. Rights only come to those that have the nerve and the intestinal fortitude to lay claim to them.

Rights are like borders, and borders only exist in places where the people on one side of that border got tired of shedding blood before the people on the other side of that border. A reverence for agon is planted as deeply in the ape's psychology as its will to survive.

A paradigm shift is on its way, and may zoos rise up and become its architects.

To you that have the nerve and the heart for revolution,

Aux armes, citoyens​

Formez vos bataillons​

Marchons, marchons!​

Qu'un sang impur​

Abreuve nos sillons!​

 

[Puhp]

I might hate myself for doing this, but... in the simplest language possible (and in as few words as possible, too), what's your point and goal, @SigmatoZeta ?

 

[Puhp]

That's not how it works. No one has any rights, unless it's expressed in the constitution. Slaves were property, nothing more.

Sorta, but really not quite, @silkythighs ... and the different is spectacularly important.

Within our society (the legal bounds of which are the US), these rights - considered inalienable - were conferred by the Creator, unto all Men (including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). The governing structures that follow are really a collection of how Society (acting through (1) governmental structures and (2) as individuals) is prohibited from infringing upon those rights. I know it sounds the same, but it's an important distinction - and the basis for the "great experiment" that is America.

Subsequent fights to end slavery and recognize women's right to vote were recognition of those individuals to be included into the class that had rights, AND the rights of those individuals to not have their inalienable rights infringed upon. It's a cockamamie difference (and perhaps one in practice only), but - to my way of thinking - important to all of us (and especially us Zoos). Despite common practice and understanding of zooish behaviors, Society has decided specific zoo behavior is abhorrent. And, again - through gov/legals structures (as these are the binding rules for our society), work to criminalize such specific actions.

Let's remove the inflammatory subject with a thought experiment, shall we? (I'll leave it open ended).

Why can't we drive faster than the posted speed limits? (to keep things simple, let's limit ourselves to, say, the US Interstate system)

I have a car that is safe and fast, I am using my own purchased resources and particpating in a common activiity on a public road, I am properly insured, I have the capacity and capability to exceed the speed limit. It pleases me to do so, and I - in being careful and capable - do not threaten the happiness of anyone else... or do i?

What if I (moving at 130 mph) drive past you (moving at 65 mph)? Why on earth am I not allowed to do this by law?

Arguers for and against the legality of zooish behavior should be able to follow this thought experiment to its conclusion.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@Puhp

Question: "Is it possible for us to persuade at least one human culture to change their minds about zoos?"

My answer: "Yep."

All the rest is interesting literature about how I think that works. If it does not interest you, then I am certain that it interests somebody else. I think that all of the details are up for discussion, honestly. The bottom-line is "yep." That is something that I am unwavering about. That is the line that I am drawing in the sand. If you are altogether a defeatist and will not hear otherwise, then we have nothing to discuss. I regard head-in-the-sand defeatism as cowardice, and I have contempt for it. I will not have further relations with a craven hermit whose only purpose in continuing to speak with me is an opportunity to push cowardice and complacency down my throat.

If I come across as aggressive, then the reason why is that some of the craven punks on here were certain that they were going to bully and harass me into silence. Oh, those scum really stepped in it, this time. Those punks think they're going to talk down to me, hah? I've got more life experience in my pinkie finger than they've got in their entire bodies.

I think if we start now, with well-coordinated and polished and carefully targeted outreach efforts, then we'll start seeing the real fireworks in about 25 years. If that sounds to you like a long time, then tough. It takes time, and it takes getting the community organized enough to follow a plan and learn to stick to protocol.

I know enough about Zooier Than Thou to know that it's not just Fausty and @TogglesHappyZoo that are behind it. I am friends with one of the people that are on the production team, and I am betting that they have a lot of other talent behind it. They are working as a team, and they are learning to trust in each others' abilities. People with different talents and experience pitched in together, and the gestalt that emerged has been greater than the sum of its parts.

I think that that kind of organizational ability is going to be key.

The real fireworks are likely to start happening in about 25 years, assuming all goes well, as far as I can tell. I suggest hitting the gym regularly and eating lots of leafy greens.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

"The first difficulty was in rounding up enough members and contributors so the work could go forward. The average zoosexual, I found, was ignorant concerning himself. Others were fearful. Still others were frantic or depraved. Some were blasé. Many zoosexuals told me that their search for forbidden fruit was the real spice of life. With this argument, they rejected our aims. We wondered how we could accomplish anything with such resistance from our own people."​

If those sound like words that somebody would actually say about today's zoosexuals, then those words would reflect my experience. However, those words, substituting "homosexual" in for each instance of "zoosexual," were actually said by Henry Gerber, who was the man that organized the short-lived Society for Human Rights in the mid-1920's. The Society for Human Rights came to the same untimely end as early zooey rights efforts: due to a paucity of thorough communication, it ended in a serious betrayal, and Henry Gerber's legal defense left him financially crippled. His name fell into almost complete obscurity, although he continued to be active as an author under the pseudonym Parisex.

And here is an excerpt from "Revolt of the Homosexual" from The Mattachine Review:

"I do not see, therefore, any capacity to revolt in “gay society.” It is a destructive sub-culture, producing corps of cleanshaven, fresh-scented zombies who eat, sleep, walk, talk, and are dead. It is a sub-culture in which sex is substituted for real personal relations. As a sub-culture it produces nothing of value. The Negro subculture has been and remains tremendously vital — because they desperately want to be accepted into the larger framework. They did not voluntarily separate themselves from American society as a whole, and they seek to end that desolate separation. Out of the Negro struggle we saw the birth of jazz— a contribution beyond words. But what has the homosexual society produced as a society? Those writers, poets, and artists who are 'homosexual and who have produced soUd and enduring works of art have done so in every case because they saw themselves as human beings first and as homosexuals second. In every case where a homosexual fails to make that basic identification and tries instead to produce art based on his sub-culture, it is fragile, brittle, and cold beyond words."​

​

The Mattachine Society was the first successful gay rights organization. In spite of their imperfections and some instances that have eventually gotten dredged up of seediness by some of its members, they were the first gay rights organization that was truly successful.

However, I am sure that there were gay people, then, that said, "SHUSH! Stop saying we are like the negros! We are nothing like the negros! Society will never accept us! Keep your head low! Maybe they won't notice us for a while if we all keep our heads low!"

Well, the leaders of the Mattachine Society saw that that type of cowardice was a cancer.

Maybe you can't change the world in a day, but if you are determined enough and brave enough and cunning enough and patient enough, then you can change it within a human lifetime, and i will stand by that as a fact that cannot be repudiated. I regard it, by this point, as being self-evident.

My point, @Puhp, is that us zoos undeniably have a precedent. The gay community, of the 1920's, was even more pathetic than the zooey community is today. They were more burdened with internal corruption and bad behavior than the zooey community is today. Betrayal and scandal darkened their earliest organizational efforts. Quite honestly, the closest thing the LGBT community had to leadership, in the 1920's, barely had as much honor as a Prohibition Era bootlegger. Quite frankly, they were a lot more embarrassed of other gay people than they were of being gay. Changing that was not easy.

Changing the world is hard, and it is dangerous. I am sorry for that. However, it is capable of being done, and I assert that it is worth doing.

 

[AmantePerro]

Trying to win in the courts is trying to win against a hostile regime that had already lied and murdered its way to the top. Good luck with that.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

African-Americans produced jazz. LGBT produced glam-rock.

I wonder what zoos are going to produce.

Art and music and poetry and culture is what changes society.

Pornography alone cannot and will not, which is why I quite honestly hope that @ZTHorse will eventually make the site more inviting toward people that have creative spirits.

Bronies took off like a rocket, partly because they latched onto the great show tunes in the series and started developing their own musical culture. They have become massively popular in less than a generation.

I think that us zoos have it in us to produce for ourselves a musical movement. The furries have not really produced one, and I say we start picking up the slack. Does anybody here play an instrument or know how to use great production software? I am thinking about you, @Zoo Stories. I say we look back on the suggestions from that article in the Mattachine Review. I think they were right.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@ZTHorse and @TogglesHappyZoo and @dogluver101 and all other people, in the zooey community, that have demonstrated a capacity for effective leadership, I want to especially highlight one particular quotation out of that article from the Mattachine Review:

"Those writers, poets, and artists who are homosexual and who have produced solid and enduring works of art have done so in every case because they saw themselves as human beings first and as homosexuals second. In every case where a homosexual fails to make that basic identification and tries instead to produce art based on his sub-culture, it is fragile, brittle, and cold beyond words."​

​

I think that that quotation constitutes a disproportionately important part of that article. I see it as a key that unlocks a door.

 

[silkythighs]

It's just four words, "or to the people", it couldn't have that much meaning, could it?

"Or to the people" was just one last redundant phrase. Reaffirming again, that states had all the powers not expressly given to the federal gov. It's not the United people of america, it's the United states. Everyone answers to the Constitution and to their own state laws.

 

[silkythighs]

Sorta, but really not quite, @silkythighs ... and the different is spectacularly important. Subsequent fights to end slavery and recognize women's right to vote were recognition of those individuals to be included into the class that had rights, AND the rights of those individuals to not have their inalienable rights infringed upon. It's a cockamamie difference

The word "fights" shows that rights have to be fought for. If the framers wanted women to vote, they would've expressed it. If they thought Africans (slaves) were equals, they would've said so. No attitudes had to change, and in the case of slavery, copious amounts of blood had to be spilled. It took until 1920 for women to be given the right to vote. If not for the suffragettes, how long would it have taken until men "decided" it was time to let women (citizens) Vote????

 

[TogglesHappyZoo]

@ZTHorse and @TogglesHappyZoo and @dogluver101 and all other people, in the zooey community, that have demonstrated a capacity for effective leadership, I want to especially highlight one particular quotation out of that article from the Mattachine Review:

"Those writers, poets, and artists who are homosexual and who have produced solid and enduring works of art have done so in every case because they saw themselves as human beings first and as homosexuals second. In every case where a homosexual fails to make that basic identification and tries instead to produce art based on his sub-culture, it is fragile, brittle, and cold beyond words."​

​

I think that that quotation constitutes a disproportionately important part of that article. I see it as a key that unlocks a door.

For what it's worth, I know plenty of zoo musicians and artists :3 it's worth noting that zoos created a lot of the foundation for the modern furry fandom, and a lot of what's produced is the legacy of zoo influence.