Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Eliminate New Hampshire's anti-zoosexual law  (Read 1363 times)

JbbF

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Eliminate New Hampshire's anti-zoosexual law
« on: June 27, 2016, 12:55:10 am »

This subject is closely related to this topic:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=28501.0

(Read the above topic)

On June 24th 2016, governor Hassan signed into law House Bill 1547, one of the most unjust, unfair, bigoted, discriminatory, unconstitutional bills to ever exist in the history of NH. It is a bill criminalizing interspecies sex (when it involves a human) for no just reason. There are already anti-cruelty laws to deal with actual animal cruelty, and because interspecies sex (involving humans) does NOT always involve cruelty, this law is morally and ethically wrong. Starting from this month, people who care about liberty in New Hampshire need to stand up for the rights of zoosexual people who ethically have sex with non-human beings -- to them, that is what gives their lives meaning and happiness.

The unjust law is set to take effect on January 1 2017. So long as this law exists, New Hampshire will NOT be the "Live Free Or Die" state. This law is state-sponsored discrimination and proves that politicians in New Hampshire are willing to create 2 classes of citizens -- one (the farmers) who are given legal immunity and privileges, and zoosexuals who are automatically treated as "criminals" (social profiling and prejudice). Because this law is state-sponsored discrimination, I would like the Free State Project or some other liberty organization in New Hampshire to file a lawsuit against the government of the state of New Hampshire demanding that this law be overturned. One of the core values of the United States is protecting the rights of minorities (even if they are unpopular) from the tyranny of the majority -- in the case of this new bullshit anti-zoosexual law, the tyranny has clearly won, and that problem needs to be corrected.

What was said in the above-mentioned topic:

Quote
House Bill 1547 was just signed into law. This is devastating and heartbreaking news for zoosexuals living in New Hampshire. This new law is state-sponsored discrimination and will unjustly persecute zoosexual people in a number of ways, including:

- Seizing their animal lovers
- Arresting them and putting them in jail/prison
- Fining them
- Requiring them to be "psychoanalyzed"
- Putting them on the "sex offender" registry

This new law is a form of extreme bigotry -- it was created due to ignorance, hatred and intolerance. In addition, the new law prohibiting interspecies sex solely when a human is involved is completely unconstitutional, as well as speciesist.

It is unbelievable that the NH politicians were engaging the asinine practice of exempting farmers and their own unethical practices (such as artificial insemination) from the penalties of the law while excluding zoosexuals from protections of the law. Giving farmers "privileges" that are arguably more harmful than sex with animals is discrimination -- it is the creation of two "classes" of people: one class (farmers) given legal immunity, while the others (zoosexuals) are automatically treated as "criminals". This is such bullshit.

Also, the reasons the NH legislators have for the creation of this law were utter nonsense, garbage, and lies. One of the "reasons" they gave was that zoosexual people are somehow more "likely" to harm groups of humans (such as women and children), which is total bullshit -- it is part of the "slippery slope" fallacy. Another reason they gave was that "animals are like children", which is total nonsense (for example, humans don't put human children in kennels, slaughter them, etc.) Another "argument" was that having sex with a non-human being is "abuse" and "sexual assault" in ALL cases (which is NOT true), and that non-human animals can't "consent" to sex with humans (which is NOT true, because non-human animals CAN non-verbally consent to sex with humans). Non-human animals have sex with one another without "consent", and farmers do things like artificial insemination without the animal's "consent", so why is it all of a sudden "required" when a human is involved?

The Free State Project or another NH liberty organization needs to file a lawsuit against the government of the state of New Hampshire to get this new law abolished or repealed. This kind of discrimination, intolerance and bigotry in the 21st century cannot be tolerated. So long as this law exists, New Hampshire is NOT the "Live Free Or Die" state.

The Free State Project seeks to get people to move to New Hampshire, but what incentive will there be for zoosexuals to move to a state that now has one of the harshest anti-zoosexual laws in the United States, forcing them to go onto the "sex offender" registry? The law even says one cannot "promote" interspecies sex, which is in violation of the 1st amendment.

If you live in New Hampshire, I strongly urge you to vote out whoever voted for this bill, including bigot Katherine Rogers. In addition, when the law takes effect on January 1 2017, I strongly urge zoosexuals living in NH to disobey this unjust bullshit law and continue having interspecies sex.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2016, 01:11:35 am by JbbF »
Logged

Kamekazi Seagull

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 144
Re: Eliminate New Hampshire's anti-zoosexual law
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2016, 12:38:51 am »

Quote
that non-human animals can't "consent" to sex with humans (which is NOT true, because non-human animals CAN non-verbally consent to sex with humans). Non-human animals have sex with one another without "consent", and farmers do things like artificial insemination without the animal's "consent", so why is it all of a sudden "required" when a human is involved?

Artificial insemination is exactly that, artificial. Explain how animals have the capacity to consent to sex with humans and what constitutes consent?

From the looks of your posts, this seems to be your one and only concern. You're not going to get any sympathy from me. Just to be clear, the FSP is simply a vehicle to move people who agree with the SOI. Could the penalties associated with the bill be amended? Sure, but its intent is sound and any highly rated NHLA legislator would be a jackass to stake his or her political career for this degeneracy.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2016, 12:09:24 pm by Kamekazi Seagull »
Logged

JbbF

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Eliminate New Hampshire's anti-zoosexual law
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2016, 07:13:40 pm »

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:

Quote
"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]."

Quote
"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.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2016, 08:02:36 pm by JbbF »
Logged

Kamekazi Seagull

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 144
Re: Eliminate New Hampshire's anti-zoosexual law
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2016, 08:20:30 pm »

I can't think of a more appropriate usage of the word degenerate than for this. If you're expecting the FSP to step and referee this language you're wrong. The FSP is not about "tolerance" again it is simply a vehicle to move people to the state of New Hampshire that agree with the SOI which states: "I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property."

Come to think of it, you'll make more headway arguing that animals constitute property and that people should be free to do what they want with them. You're right in that animals don't consent to being slaughtered or castrated, as omnivores that eat animals for subsistence, and for pharmacology you can argue that this form of cruelty is necessary or of higher value. If the stand on human/animal sex is arbitrary, it is one that excites a visceral disgust amongst well adjusted human beings.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2016, 01:42:18 pm by Kamekazi Seagull »
Logged

JbbF

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Eliminate New Hampshire's anti-zoosexual law
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2016, 05:14:13 pm »

Quote
From the looks of your posts, this seems to be your one and only concern

This is an ad hominem argument.

I can't think of a more appropriate usage of the word degenerate than for this. If you're expecting the FSP to step and referee this language you're wrong. The FSP is not about "tolerance" again it is simply a vehicle to move people to the state of New Hampshire that agree with the SOI which states: "I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property."

Come to think of it, you'll make more headway arguing that animals constitute property and that people should be free to do what they want with them. You're right in that animals don't consent to being slaughtered or castrated, as omnivores that eat animals for subsistence, and for pharmacology you can argue that this form of cruelty is necessary or of higher value. If the stand on human/animal sex is arbitrary, it is one that excites a visceral disgust amongst well adjusted human beings.

"Disgust" is not a rational emotion, nor is it a rational argument in favor of (or against) something. If something is considered "disgusting", that does not make it immoral. Excretory functions are "disgusting", but that doesn't make them immoral. Regarding interspecies sex, what one persons views as "disgusting" may be viewed as beautiful by someone else. There are many people who have sex with their animal lover and view it as something beautiful.

One could say that sex between a human and a non-human is no more "disgusting" than sex between a human and another human. It's all just one mammal having sex with another mammal. Also, why would interspecies sex involving a human be any more "disgusting" than a lion having interspecies sex with a jaguar? For those who say humans are a "special" species, that is an attitude with speciesist prejudice (i.e. "human supremacy"), and it is an immoral attitude.

As you said, it is arbitrary to criminalize interspecies sex (involving humans) especially since the "consent" argument is invalid (because other far more unethical things such as slaughter don't involve the animal's "consent"). This a hypocrisy and double-standard in the law, taking into account an animal's "consent" only when it is convenient and fits people's prejudiced "moral values". Disgust alone is not a valid reason to criminalize something.

Non-human animals should not be treated as property, they should be treated as beings in their own rights (with "personhood"), on the same level as humans -- meaning it should not be illegal for a human to have sex with a non-human. This does not mean non-human animals will do things like pay taxes or vote, but it would mean that they are morally treated as equivalent to humans.

You said interspecies sex is "degenerate", and that you can't think of a more appropriate word -- why? Saying that zoosexuality is "degenerate" could be considered discrimination against zoosexual people, on the basis that "degenerate" means one is a 2nd-class citizen. If told that their lifestyle and sexual orientation is "degenerate", this would most likely offend most zoosexual people. "Degenerate" implies a sense of one's being "flawed" for being zoosexual, which is not the case. There is nothing "inferior" about the moral qualities of ethical zoosexuals -- they have sex with their non-human lovers ethically and their behavior is arguably more "moral" than people who murder animals in factory farms, or even those who artificially inseminate animals. In contrast to mainstream thinking, most zoosexuals are virtuous and morally-good people who place the well-being of their animal lover as higher than their own -- and sex with them is only one factor.

The important thing to remember here is that humans ARE animals, and they should be viewed legally and morally as in the same group as non-humans -- meaning interspecies sex (when it involves humans) should be legal.

The New Hampshire government has now enacted a law which is state-sponsored discrimination, and unjustly criminalizes ANY kind of sexual interaction between a human and a non-human in New Hampshire-- this directly violates the FSP SOI you stated, because it violates an individual's right to liberty, and thus exceeds the maximum role of government -- essentially, an unjust authoritarian intervention into the lives of zoosexuals, oppressing them and discriminating against them based on their sexual orientation and an anti-zoosexual prejudice (bigotry). The government is forcing their sense of "morals" onto a sexual minority. In addition, the new law contains provisions which have a chilling effect on free speech, meaning it will now be very difficult for zoosexuals to openly protest the law, because they risk being the target of harassment and prosecution.

« Last Edit: July 19, 2016, 05:25:21 pm by JbbF »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up