Zoosexuality is not "degenerate" -- that word implies a sense of immorality, which is not the case. Interspecies sex (involving humans) isn't "normal", but that doesn't mean it's immoral. Interspecies sex (when it involves humans) CAN occur ethically. It is no more "degenerate" for a human to have sex with a non-human being than it is for a lion to have sex with a leopard.
You missed the point regarding artificial insemination -- non-human animals do not say "yes" or "no" to having machinery on their genitalia to artificially inseminate them. Non-human animals do not say "yes" or "no" (give their consent) to have a human cut off their genitalia (castration, aka spaying and neutering). Similarly, a non-human animal does not say "yes" or "no" to being slaughtered at a factory farm in Iowa. A non-human being doesn't say "yes" or "no" to be hunted. Why is it that in these cases, the "consent" of the animal is ignored, but when it comes to sex with humans, all of a sudden it is relevant? It doesn't make sense.
Non-human animals CAN consent to sex with humans without human words (with body language) -- this is what non-human animals do with each other all the time. Non-human animals do not attach "moral values" to sex the way humans do, so it is not immoral for a human to have sex with a non-human being. (Humans ARE animals, after all). It also not "unnatural" for interspecies sex to occur with a human, because interspecies sex occurs in the wild between different species.
If a dog is about to have sex with another dog, imagine requiring one of the dogs to "consent" in a human way to sex with the other dog -- that's how absurd it is to require human-oriented "consent" for zoosexual sex.
Regarding the issue of "consent", read these quotes:
"I have made many people run out of arguments [against zoosexuality], and had them up against the wall where the 'but it's disgusting', 'it's not normal', 'it's sick', are their last arguments. And when I got them there, I asked them if gay sex or SM also should be banned, because there also are people who think some of that is disgusting and immoral. But I do so without outing my self as a zoosexual.
If one's [jurisdiction] has a general animal welfare law, that states to protect animals from physical harm, [one should] ask people why it is necessary to have a law [which criminalizes interspecies sex involving humans]. This is double legislation. If their answer is that all [interspecies sex involving humans] is animal cruelty, you can ask them how a dog is harmed from a lonely woman putting peanut butter on her vagina, and lets the dog lick it off. If they reply that it can cause physical harm, then ask what the difference is between putting peanut butter on a finger and putting it on a penis or on a vagina. A dog doesn't care where it is put on, and don't know that it is done for a sexual purpose.
What [is] the difference between wanking a dog because it arouses you, and wanking a dog to collect semen for insemination? Is it OK to do it to collect semen, but the moment you get a boner you are a criminal? Or what is the problem, if instead of emptying it's semen in a person's hand when collecting it, a boar is emptying it into a human who is placed under the dummy sow. [referring to artificial insemination]
[Does] a man's penis cause harm to a horse or a cow, while a veterinarian putting his whole arm up there when checking for pregnancy or when inseminating 'doesn't'?
[How is] a male dog who is mating [with] a human not consenting, [if the dog is the one initiating the sex]? Or if it isn't to give consent, when a male dog is taking the initiative to mate with a human? Would a man who is having intercourse with a horse do it if it hurt the horse, when a horse would move away from him if it feels discomfort, and kick him if it can't move away?
And [how is it not] 'consent' when a horse in a field, instead of moving away, comes to the man who it recognizes from other sexual encounters. Or when a stallion is extending it's [erect] penis when he sees his [familiar] human lover approaching.
Why can't those who cause harm to animals when having sex with them, just be punished with [existing] animal welfare laws? Why it is necessary to have a law [prohibiting human sexual contact with animals] when cruelty always is punished with [existing] animal welfare laws, regardless if it is done when having sex? Why is a sexual minority who loves their animals and never would do harm to them, [being] criminalized because some people [hate it]? Why have an anti-zoosexual law, when it so clearly is [based on] morality? What other moral-laws are they willing to accept, since they are accepting this one?
[It is cruel] for an un-neutered male dog (or other male animals) to live its whole life without being allowed to mate, which is the strongest of all instincts in all animal species. What would the dog choose, if given the choice between that, and mating with its human?
[Think] about all the cruelty done to animals before/because we eat them. In [some countries] male piglets get neutered and both m and f piglets get's 2/3 of their tail cut off. Both operations without any kind of anesthetic, and no painkiller afterwards either, [yet these are legal]."
"Here's a thought on the consent issue: The [anti-zoosexuals] protest [interspecies sex] on the basis that the animal cannot consent to sex with humans. When pressed, they clarify that while an animal may choose such activity, it cannot understand the act and its consequences as fully as humans can, so an animal cannot give human level consent to such activity.
The next question to ask is why such a level of consent should be required? When dogs mate with dogs, or horses mate with horses, etc., the level of consent they give each other isn't human level consent, either. But we deem it enough. So why must animals be required to understand sex as deeply as humans before their consent counts as sufficiently informed?
Are veterinarians required to obtain human level consent from an animal before artificially inseminating her? Is the meat industry required to obtain human level consent from animals before slaughtering them for our dinner tables?
If a level of understanding that animals are not capable of giving is not required for any activity with them except for [interspecies sex with humans], why is it required for that? Where does the precedent to require it come from?
In artificial insemination, the process is more physically intrusive, and has longer lasting consequences, but it is legally protected. Based on that precedent, any similar activity that is less intrusive and has lesser consequences [such as interspecies sex] should be legally protected as well."
A NH legislator would not be a "jackass" to oppose this bill -- he (or she) would be virtuous
to oppose it. Instead, all of the NH legislators acted like sheep and followed the "herd", refusing to question the illogical-ness of this unjust bill (now law).
There is absolutely nothing
that is "sound" about this bill (now law). This new law is unjust, unethical, irrational, illogical, unconstitutional, discriminatory, oppressive, and based on lies, anti-zoosexual propaganda, and prejudice. The "arguments" in favor of this new law make no sense: they claimed that interspecies sex (involving humans) is "animal abuse" and "sexual assault" in ALL cases, which is not true. They made a "slippery slope" fallacy argument that zoosexuals are more likely to violent to humans, which isn't true and was illogically extrapolated from a limited sampling of criminals (like saying "most people in prison drink tea, therefore people who drink tea are likely to be criminals"). They made the prejudiced "argument" that zoosexuals are "criminals" no matter what. They made the illogical claim that non-human beings can't "consent" to sex with humans (which, as I already discussed, is invalid). They also unjustly defended the NH farm industry (giving them legal "privileges" and special treatment) while simultaneously bashing zoosexuals. They never made any effort to contact zoosexuals or get input from them on this asinine new law. The new law forces caught zoosexuals to go onto the "sex offender" registry, which is unjust discrimination.
Zoosexuals living in New Hampshire should disobey this unjust and unethical law by continuing to have interspecies sex.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the word "degeneracy" implies a sense of prejudice and intolerance. The FSP is supposed to be tolerant, but I'm feeling as though this is not the case.