SyzygySin
Tourist
Sex and romance are not mutually exclusive. There is nothing essentially different about sex with animals than sex with other humans. It's not the sex itself that's the issue, it's the attitude about the sex.
Warren v. Virginia: a court case that zoos lost
- Thread starter Zoo50
- Start date
silkythighs
BANNED
Porn is porn, the vast majority of it just shows people getting off on animals. As long as true Zoo's tolerate bestiality porn, you will be "guilty by association"
Exactly. This freedom to do what you wish on ZV isnt something @silkythighs understands, and keeps stalking my posts about.
I choose not to post zoo porn. Two-faced bigots asking for censorship forget that people can choose not to do something.
SigmaTheZeta
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I think that a system like that which is used on some furry art sites would be a possibility, a rating filter so that people can set their filters to show only threads marked at a certain rating:
Safe: fully clothed human snuggling dog, at most ambiguous hand position or kissing.
Mature: tasteful human nudity, no genitals of either species.
Adult: full-blown sex, clearly displayed genitals, unquestionably sexual positions.
I think that it's positively genius. It works great in the furry world because it helps people that have never felt comfortable with sexual material either edge their way in or just stick to what they know they like.
Maybe or maybe not feasible with the current software, but it's a thought.
Safe: fully clothed human snuggling dog, at most ambiguous hand position or kissing.
Mature: tasteful human nudity, no genitals of either species.
Adult: full-blown sex, clearly displayed genitals, unquestionably sexual positions.
I think that it's positively genius. It works great in the furry world because it helps people that have never felt comfortable with sexual material either edge their way in or just stick to what they know they like.
Maybe or maybe not feasible with the current software, but it's a thought.
ShoutySuitman
Zooville Settler
A wise man once said "you want change? Then scream louder then the outrage mob"
In this case the only way change is going to happen is if some politicians are pushed to looking into laws surrounding religeous belief and/or the degredation of the bill of rights freedom to privacy in ones own home. Lets be clear, i am not advocating for injustices or attrocious acts, just that some laws are against the founding rights. These laws are a major breach of personal privacy, same with drug laws, and only exist because some political power is making bank arresting people for what they do to themselves. Look at new taxes involving self driving cars, they reduce the risk of legal violation so severely that many "leaders" in the US are forcing a high tax for owning one just because they wont make money off of ticketing people. So, you want change? Simple, scream louder then the autoritarian busy bodies who banned it in the first place.
In this case the only way change is going to happen is if some politicians are pushed to looking into laws surrounding religeous belief and/or the degredation of the bill of rights freedom to privacy in ones own home. Lets be clear, i am not advocating for injustices or attrocious acts, just that some laws are against the founding rights. These laws are a major breach of personal privacy, same with drug laws, and only exist because some political power is making bank arresting people for what they do to themselves. Look at new taxes involving self driving cars, they reduce the risk of legal violation so severely that many "leaders" in the US are forcing a high tax for owning one just because they wont make money off of ticketing people. So, you want change? Simple, scream louder then the autoritarian busy bodies who banned it in the first place.
silkythighs
BANNED
The first step in attaining any sought of "respectability" would be for real zoo's to distance themselves from the beastalists and fetish seekers. The forum allows bestiality porn because it wouldn't survive without it. So much for zoo principles eh
The forum survives from majority voluntary donations. The ones that actually count donate because of zoo discussion, not porn. Porn hounds rarely if ever donate. So no, zooville is not supported by pornography. The users support ZV. End of story.
BF was supported by pornography, they had tiered systems and vip and such other sites for profit. We are non-profit.
Sorry but the zoo community has moved on. Dont keep clinging to the past
Whether something is taboo and whether something is illegal are two different things, even though the reasoning behind banning something is often influenced by taboos.
In other words, if sex with animals was legalized (but continued to remain socially taboo), I'd be fine with that -- so long as someone couldn't be arrested and jailed just for having sex with a dog, the fact that sex with animals remained taboo wouldn't matter to me.
(People should not be arrested and jailed for having sex with a dog or a horse, because anti-zoo laws should not exist in the first place).
I also disagree with the defeatism of @silkythighs -- why even bother fighting bullshit anti-zoo laws in the courts if you think you're always going to fail?
silkythighs
BANNED
No, the decision simply ruled that there is no existing right to have sex with an animal. Zoo's will have to establish such a right.
Attachments
And how are zoos supposed to establish such a right if no court is willing to recognize it?
The court didn't just rule that people don't have a right to sex with animals -- they also actively defended existing anti-zoo laws with bullshit arguments, such as the argument that anti-zoo laws are "part of American tradition" and "diseases can spread [from sex with animals]".
silkythighs
BANNED
"Catch 22"
If you want to know exactly why gay marriage became a reality. Here's why,
"A Pew Research Center poll in 2001 found that 57 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and only 35 percent supported it. Fifteen years later, in 2016, a Pew poll found almost the complete opposite: Americans supported same-sex marriage by a margin of 55 percent to 37 percent."
True, both human-to-human sex and human-to-animal sex (interspecies sex) ought to be tolerated -- people should not be limited to only the human species.
Aluzky
Citizen of Zooville
I want to dissect that too and point counter arguments to their bullshit arguments.
"The claimed right must belong to the class of rights "long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."←Right to own animal property and use it sexually in private, would satisfy the condition of it being recognized as common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. It would not be any different from the right of some one to own a dildo and use it in private without fearing jail for doing it.
"Bestiality was a crime at common law."←So they were sodomy laws making gay sex illegal.
"A claimed right to engage in sexual conduct with animals simply fails this historical test."←By that logic, people trying to make gay sex legal would also fail this historical test. Yet, gay sex was deem constitutional.
"In one form or another, it has been criminalized in Virginia by statute since at least 1792."←So it was gay sex.
"Although we recognize these same authorities also may have prohibited acts of sodomy that Lawrence held may no longer be criminalized, we reject the attempt to equate private sexual acts among consenting adults with sexual acts between humans and animals."←And you reject it because... bananas?
"Warren has not identified any court that has concluded that bestiality is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the due process clause, and we decline his invitation to recognize bestiality as a fundamental right."←There is always a first time to concluded that bestiality is a fundamental liberty.
"As noted above, the due process clause not only prohibits states from infringing on fundamental rights, it requires that state prohibitions on certain conduct "be rationally related to legitimate government interests". Virginia's ban on bestiality passes this test as well. Assuming without deciding that Warren is correct that Lawrence removed morality as a legitimate reason for criminalizing certain sexual conduct such as bestiality, additional rationales exist for the General Assembly's decision to ban sex with animals."←Does not past the test, I will explain further ahead.
"First, there can be no serious argument that the Commonwealth does not have a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals."←Making bestiality legal, in no way shape or form nullifies animal protection laws. Even if bestialist is legal, any kind of abusive sex with an animal would still remain illegal under animal protection laws. The point of making bestiality legal, is that those who participate in non-abusive sex with animals, don't have to suffer unjust prosecution.
"Bestiality [can be] considered animal abuse because the sexual molestation of animals by humans may physically injure or kill the animal victim." ←In which case, only bestiality where molestation, rape, injury or abuse happen, can be considered animal abuse. The state does no persecute those who do artificial insemination of animals as doing animal abuse, despite them masturbating male and female animals with their own hands. The state is wrong to assume that any sexual act with an animal is by default 100% always animal cruelty.
"Most "[r]ecent bestiality laws ... are categorized as 'animal cruelty statutes,' demonstrating the belief that bestiality is a crime against an animal."←A belief that is not based on facts, a beliefs that falsely assume that all bestiality is always abusive. If this is truly the belief of the state, why is A.I. of animals always legal? How come if a vet masturbate a male dog to collect semen, that is legal, but if a zoosexual does the same in the exact same way with the exact same dog but not to collect semen but to make the dog happy, how come the state will only pursue legal charges against the zoosexual and ignore the veterinarian? Two identical acts yet one is deemed animal cruelty and legal and the other is not?
"The General Assembly's interest in protecting public health also provides a justification for the ban on bestiality. "Scientists estimate that more than 6 out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people are spread from animals, and 3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people are spread from animals." Although not all of these diseases are or were transmitted by sexual contact, interspecies sexual contact does provide a means of such transmission. Accordingly, numerous commentators have recognized that there is a public health justification for bestiality prohibitions."←95% of zoosexuals only have sex with dogs or horses. Number of zoonosis one can get from a dog are around 26, from horses are around 30. Majority of them quite harmless, like getting a flea on you or a tape worm.
This is nothing but a small number of zoonosis a human could get through sex (though any pet owner could also get them through non-sexual interaction, yet the state does not outlaw pet ownership, hypocrite state) how come only zoosexuals get restricted to protect public heath? If the state really wanted to protect public heath, they would outlaw pet ownership.
Not only that, there is a list of 400 infectious diseases that humans can get though sex with other humans, diseases that go from antrax to a common cold to AIDs that kill millions of humans every year (how many humans die to zoonosis contracted through zoosexual sex, hint: Not even a 100) Sex with humans is at least 16 times more of a health concern than sex with animals is and sex with humans kills millions of humans because of diseases they got from sex, compared to less than a hundred zoosexuals dying per year, how come the state does not outlaw sex with humans considering that it is 16 time a bigger health concern?
If the state wish to claim that humans can use condoms and practice safe sex. Well, zoosexuals can do the same thing. A dog or horse that is keep in good health, free from parasite, with vaccines up to date, has a very low risk of infecting anyone with an illness. Majority of domesticated animals are keep under these conditions.
"Given that Virginia's ban on bestiality is rationally related to these legitimate state interests and does not intrude upon a fundamental right, the General Assembly did not offend the due process clause when it adopted the current version of Code § 18.2-361(A) in 2014. Accordingly, Warren's as applied challenge to Code § 18.2-361(A) fails."←Your state interest are far from rational as I explained/proved. Ban on bestiality violates the fundamental right to own property and use that property how ever you want in private. Domestic animals are legally considered property. Banning bestiality is akin to banning the use of a dildo in private. Those who don't do abusive bestiality should have the right to practive non-abusive bestiality.
The state would only have a legitimate reason in banning abusive bestiality, which is already banned by animal protection laws as those laws makes it illegal to cause unnecessary distress, harm or death to an animal. Any kind of abusive bestiality would qualify as animal cruelty.
By making a blank ban on all bestiality (abusive and non-abusive) the rights of those who don't participate on abusive bestiality are being violated.
For the foregoing reasons, the General Assembly's prohibition of bestiality does violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
↑
I would chose a few lawyers to file an appeal with arguments like this, obviously, better made and sounding more lawyery. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer)
Also, I know that it sounds ugly to state that animals are property, but legally this is true. And exploiting that loophole seems to be the best way to get bestiality made legal, so bear with it.
Last edited:
If there are infectious diseases to be had, those who process animals into meat are more exposed than if they were having sex with the animals.
State interests are not rational, and when they explain themselves it just comes off as idiocy because they're going to force their lies on everyone anyway.
State interests are not rational, and when they explain themselves it just comes off as idiocy because they're going to force their lies on everyone anyway.
Aluzky
Citizen of Zooville
True. Also, from a vegan point of view, eating animals exposes you to several diseaes. Where eating vegan foods, barely has any risks. Like, you can't get plant viruses for example, unlike from animals that you can get several animal viruses and die or get very sick. Yet, I don't see the state banning all non-vegan diets. Despite the fact that vegan diets are healthier and less risky disease wise nd would save millions in health care saving and taxes.
gaiden88
Tourist
Trust me, we can tell. No lawyer in their right mind would argue in front of a judge that a right existed at common law to fuck your animal.
Aluzky
Citizen of Zooville
Ok, bad example, I take it back.
Last edited:
gaiden88
Tourist
No they didn't lol. The basis of the Lawrence decision was on constitutional grounds, not common law.
Aluzky
Citizen of Zooville
As long as they don't harm animals or violate property rights, why distance us from them? United we stand, divided we fall. Why reject a significant chunk that suport zoosexuals rights? To make them our enemies too? We need more allies, no more enemies.
Aluzky
Citizen of Zooville
If common law supports consensual sex between consenting heterosexuals in private, then the same law supported gay sex by means of equality under the law. Thing is, bigots didn't care about being equal, they enforced their bigoted laws anyways because they wanted to discriminate a minority they didn't like.
Anyways, I'm pretty sure common law support the right to own animal property and use it without abusing it (when it comes to non-sexual acts) so why should that be different for zoosexual acts that are not abusive.
Both a bull owned and used to tilt a filed and a bull owned and used to poke a zoosexual, both are the same, a property owner using their animals, without abusing them, to do something for them. If common law support one, it should support the other one.
Last edited:
gaiden88
Tourist
Property rights are not and have never been absolute. Barring a few constitutional exceptions the state's police power can put pretty much any restriction they want on how you use things. If they want to make it illegal to use a bull to till your field, they can. If they want to make it illegal to own any bull, they can. So it goes without saying that if they want to make fucking a bull illegal, they absolutely can.
Aluzky
Citizen of Zooville
Just because they can make it ilelgal, does not mean that we can't fight against such unjust law and WIN.
Aluzky
Citizen of Zooville
People though the same about anti-gay sex laws being ever found unconstitutional.
Anti-zoosex laws do violate human rights, countries that signed treaties to uphold human rights must abolish anti-zoosex laws as those laws violate human rights. US is a good example of a country that is violating human rights with his anti-zoosex laws. Is just a matter of time and fighting the law to have it deemed unconstitutional. It is not a waste of energy.
I agree, no zoo will get anywhere arguing the right to fuck an animal is a constitutional right. Zoo's can certainly get the laws repealed if they can get enough interest and support.
Aluzky
Citizen of Zooville
They said the same about gay sex not being a constitutional right and they where proven wrong.
caikgoch
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
The failures of the mdern education system are obvious every time you youngsters open your mouth. You're making Silky's favorite mistake. There is no right to have Zoo sex, or Gay sex, or str8 sex, or self sex. What there is is a right to be free from government interference without a compelling reason. That is where Zoos can win in court. I don't have a right to fuck my horse but I do have a list of rights that prohibit the government from interfering in anything I do without following specific rules that include proving that I hurt or threatened someone. You want to prove how I harmed my 1200 lb stallion by not outrunning him?
Aluzky
Citizen of Zooville
There is the right to own and use property, zoosex fall under that.
There are also several basic human rights that gives homosexuals and zoosexuals the right to have consensual sex in private. And countries that have ratified those human rights must obey them and not persecute homosexuals or zoosexuals with unfair laws.