Free State Project Forum

New Hampshire -- The "Live Free or Die" State => NH Information and News => Topic started by: JbbF on January 05, 2016, 06:26:41 pm

Title: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on January 05, 2016, 06:26:41 pm
House Bill 1547 is a bill in the NH 2016 legislative session which would ban interspecies sex (sex between humans and beings that are non-human). This bill is an unnecessary infringement on liberty as there are already laws in New Hampshire that prosecute animal cruelty. Interspecies sex does not always involve cruelty/harm, therefore there should not be a law prohibiting it. Creating a law would not stop these activities from happening, they would only push them (people who have interspecies sex) further underground. If New Hampshire really wants to be a state of liberty, freedom and "Live Free or Die", then it should tolerate those who are different, even if what those different people do is distasteful to the majority. That is the sign of whether a society is enlightened: whether they protect hated minorities from unjust laws.

Here is what was said regarding this from an anonymous person:

Quote
"Zoosexuality [sexual orientation]: The unusual attraction to animals, and to be specific the species of my orientation is dogs. I came to the realization that I was sexually different at a young age. This is something that I did not expect nor want. I just suddenly found dogs very attractive. I had very little to no interest in humans whatsoever. Growing up in the time of no internet I was not able to find any information to help. I didn’t dare ask anyone; how could I. I felt alone but also figured that I was not the only one. Eventually figuring things out I began having sexual relations with some male dogs at first. I was fearful of females out of heat at the time but that would soon change. I’m not going to really go into detail about my sexual experiences, By now I’m sure there are some degrading terms being used to describe me. Many of which I take great offense to. I am not an animal abuser or rapist. I actually hold the animal's well being and happiness to a high standard, even that which is higher than my own. Yes I really do care about animals and would never do anything to hurt them. I am the type of person who would risk their life to save an animal from a bad situation without question. The only thing I am guilty of is a hypocritical human moral standard and nothing more.

Regardless of what is led to believe I am not the type of person to harm animals. I am not a violent person. I do not abuse my human wife nor my child. I do not force sex upon the animals that I have nor do I force sex on any animal. I do not climb fences to get with other peoples animals. I do not cause pain or other emotional distress with the animals I do have sexual relations with or any animal for that matter. Those words should dispel that I am an animal abuser but oftentimes for those who are against human sexual relations with animals those words are meaningless. Those people will do whatever it takes to lead you into believing their agenda, and for what reason? Because they think I am sick. Well I must say that is the furthest from the truth you could get. Why must I be the sick one just because I have a sexual orientation that is not the norm in society? Why must loving families be broken up when there is absolutely no evidence of physical or emotional abuse?

What kind of abuse happens when the authorities come to remove animals from loving homes? I will give my answer for that. The animals are removed from their loving home by force. They are sent to a cage and isolated from the ones they love. And eventually they are sexually surgically altered [spayed/neutered]. This process repeats several times a year in the world. But a blind eye is turned towards those atrocities. And the people who did nothing wrong are sent to prison for lengthy terms often approaching 10 plus years, and not to mention hefty fines. All because of a human morality standard that says that all human sex with animals is "abusive". I can prove otherwise but if I did I myself would be locked away and my words would fall on deaf ears.

Animals for as long as there have been records have always been taken advantage of by humans. We raise them in cages for food, fur, leather, and so on. We care not about these animals on a daily basis as their carcases show up on store shelves. We give no thought to what these animals we rely on for food go through nor do we seem to care how they feel. Now don’t get me wrong I do eat meat. Animals eat other animals it is a natural order of things. But to raise an animal in misery just because it is going to be used for food is an inhumane act amongst itself. Where is human morality when it comes to those animals?

This madness of unjustly punishing people for just having sex with animals needs to stop. We do not deserve to be judged so harshly and punished for our orientation. We do not harm our animals in any way and we can prove it. I want to call on lawmakers to fully address the issue and include [zoosexual people] in the decision making process. I would also like to call for the release of [zoosexual people] who are currently being imprisoned for their actions that were not abusive to the animals involved, and the return of their animals when possible. I seek to help give others a understanding of this orientation. And it is my greatest hope that the public in general will start speaking out against the continued onslaught of anti-zoosexual laws that do way more harm than good."

For those who argue that non-human animals cannot "consent" to sex, remember that non-human animals have sex with each other without needing to use human words. And humans do all kinds of things to animals without their "consent" (spaying/neutering, artificial insemination, slaughter, hunting, experimentation, etc) -- and a lot of those things, such as slaughter, cause far more harm to animals than interspecies sex ever could. Non-human animals don't care about "informed consent" the way humans do. Non-human animals have sex with one another through body language, and humans are no exception (humans are animals).

So I am asking people to have an open mind and fight to stop HB 1547, which would have no justifiable benefit to the people or animals of New Hampshire. It is simply agenda-legislation made by the Humane Society of the United States. If people are apathetic and fail to take action to stop this bill, who knows what the government will regulate next. Remember that even animal rights proponents such as Peter Singer (author of "Animal Liberation") have said these laws are bad and ethically/morally wrong, and are the result of speciesism, intolerance and prejudice. Privacy should be of utmost importance, and the government should not be criminalizing what people do in private.

Please write to your New Hampshire representative and tell them NOT to vote for this bigoted bill. Tell them that if they vote for this bill, you will not vote for them again (due to their betrayal of liberty).

For those who still doubt that this bill is unjust and unnecessary, look at these academic/scientific articles on the subject:

http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1328310
http://www.breezejmu.org/opinion/columnists/article_f08fbb0c-42ca-11e0-ab43-00127992bc8b.html
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/animal-lovers-zoophiles-make-scientists-rethink-human-sexuality/
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: RidleyReport on January 12, 2016, 04:09:49 pm
there should not be any more laws that increase the power of the authorities or create new crimes.  Though it sounds like the stated purpose of this bill would be uphill to argue against. thanks for the warning...  Keep watching the bills Jb; it matters...

Hope to have wild night with intelligent space alien hottie someday without any bills interfering lol...Assuming this one does...
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: SkippyBob on January 13, 2016, 02:10:18 pm
"Hope to have wild night with intelligent space alien hottie someday without any bills interfering lol"

http://datacore.sciflicks.com/galaxy_quest/sounds/galaxy_quest_not_right.wav
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on January 13, 2016, 06:09:19 pm
On a more serious note, people should vote Alfred Baldasaro and John Burt out of office; the fact that they are sponsoring this bill does not help our state in any way. And the fact that they are sponsoring this bill proves that they are not truly libertarian.

Other people that should be voted out of office for supporting this unjust bill:

Katherine Rogers
Susan Ford
Timothy Horrigan
Paul Berch
Cynthia Chase
Michael Abbott
Lou D'Allesandro (senator)

The "New Hampshire Liberty Rating" gives all of the above politicians (except Baldasaro and Burt) a grade of "F" or lower in terms of their support of personal liberty -- Rogers, Ford, Horrigan, Berch and Abbott are all each given the lowest possible grade (grade below F) known as "CT" ("Constitutional Threat").

If any of the above people are your representative, tell them they are making a mistake by supporting this unjust and unconstitutional bill; and tell them you will not vote for them if they continue supporting it.

Here are more quotes from people who would be negatively affected by this bill:

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."
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JasonPSorens on January 14, 2016, 10:24:53 am
Baldasaro and Burt vote with us on 99% of the issues; they're better than anyone who is likely to replace them in their districts. However, I don't trust Baldasaro because he also supports the fascist tyrant in the presidential race.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on January 15, 2016, 12:32:03 am
Baldasaro and Burt vote with us on 99% of the issues; they're better than anyone who is likely to replace them in their districts. However, I don't trust Baldasaro because he also supports the fascist tyrant in the presidential race.

Still, what Baldasaro and Burt are doing with HB 1547 is inexcusable. What is also inexcusable is that they (as well as Rogers and the others supporting HB 1547) are willing to pander to the Humane Society of the United States at the cost of the liberty of the individual citizen. They are ignoring zoosexuals and apparently they don't care; it may be zoosexuals this time but if they can screw over this group who knows what group they'll screw over next.

If NH really is libertarian, (which I getting more and more the feeling it isn't), then this bill should be killed (i.e. tabled indefinitely). There is no logic or reason behind this bill -- the bills exists due to a hateful, prejudicial agenda to regulate "morality". It is wrong for the government to force a certain kind of of "morality" on the people of New Hampshire (which would give police a lot more power to destroy the lives of innocent people).

And as I said, if you know any legislators/representatives, including the ones in your own voting district, meet with them face-to-face (or at least inform them via phone/email/etc.) that they should not support HB 1547.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: Jerry B on January 17, 2016, 01:01:03 pm
Baldasaro and Burt vote with us on 99% of the issues; they're better than anyone who is likely to replace them in their districts. However, I don't trust Baldasaro because he also supports the fascist tyrant in the presidential race.

And which of the 17 "fascist tyrants in the presidential race" are you referring to?
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on January 25, 2016, 08:00:55 pm
Just wanted to mention that New Hampshire's incarceration rate has been steadily getting worse over the past 10 years. For example, New Hampshire had one of the lowest incarceration rates in the U.S. in 2008 (at 209 per 100,000 people), but now it is now at 460 people per 100,000 people, meaning the incarceration rate in New Hampshire has more than doubled. There are now 6 places in the U.S. (Maine, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia) that have lower incarceration rates than New Hampshire. So far, NH is not the free state it claims to be.

Will bills like House Bill 1547 improve the situation in New Hampshire? The answer is definitely no. It will simply increase the incarceration population for no legitimate reason, making New Hampshire more like a police state than a state of liberty. It will create 13,000 new criminals out of normal hard-working people (assuming 1% of NH's population is zoosexual). One cannot argue that such a bill would prevent animal cruelty, because interspecies sex does not always involve animal cruelty, and there are already laws on the books to deal with actual animal cruelty. It is irrational and illogical to argue that interspecies sex automatically involves animal cruelty -- such an argument is a falsehood.

Here is a quote:

Quote
I personally object to the continuation and passing of House Bill 1547. While I understand concerns that you all might have , to be truthful you only have part of the story. At no time has anyone [in any state legislature] ever engaged our group to better understand zoosexuality. Only assumptions are made based on a few isolated cases time and time again. While I will admit right away there are those whom do not operate with a moral compass, those cases are far and few between compared to the extent of occurrence of zoosexuality. Studies that have been compiled to date suggest that anywhere from 1 - 50 percent of the population experience some desire for interspecies sexual relations. [Some people think] the 50 percent numbers are way out of line, so I will go off the 1 percent numbers. Your state [New Hampshire] has an estimated population of 1.33 million people in 2015, and [thus] 1% would mean around 13,306 people [living in NH] have zoosexual feelings. To dismiss those numbers blindly is outrageous. What do you all want to do -- incarcerate 13 thousand plus of your citizens? At what cost would that have on the justice system in your state?

I would like to suggest an alternative to House Bill 1547. Instead of blindly passing the bill how about opening a line of communication with the members of this forum? Get to understand us better and demand further research into the issues at hand. To us, zoosexuality is an undeniable sexual orientation just like being straight, gay, bi, and so on are human sexual orientations. For those like myself there was no choice in our feelings. Something that has tormented many and even driven some to suicide. Zoophilia is currently seen as a psychological problem when in fact it is not. If you look at other species there are those whom engage in interspecies relations [i.e. animals in the wild who have interspecies sex]. As I see it there is a natural correspondence that must be addressed and further understood.

I personally do not abuse my animals nor do I abuse my wife or daughter. I have no interests in anything other that my relation with my wife and my dog. I realize that this may be shocking in a way to many. But that shock comes from not understanding the matter at hand and personal moral beliefs. I sincerely ask the question, If the animals in question are well taken care of and there is no evidence whatsoever of abuse then what exactly is the problem? I could go into detail regarding the way animals are treated for agricultural purposes which quite frankly are deplorable when compared to [interspecies sex involving humans], but I am not going to go there at this time. We do not stand for physical harm to an animal. Nor do we force ourselves upon the animals. To physically harm an animal or to force an animal into sexual acts against it’s will is strictly forbidden and is not tolerated. Animals are actually sentient beings and recent studies are proving that.

I ask once again please open a line of communication with us before passing House Bill 1547.

Thank you for your time and consideration

And this quote:

Quote
Why criminalize everybody who has any form of sex with animals, when there are lots of ways and combinations of human/animal sex that are perfectly harmless, such as sex between humans and male animals where the animal is the active part? Is the legislation just a law [about] distastefulness [and] morals?

If not, then why can't [they] focus on what [they] claim is the intention of the legislation? To prevent animal cruelty? Don't [they] have any animal protection laws in [New Hampshire]? If the answer to that is yes, [which it is], then why do [they] need this law, if [they] already have laws by which any kind of harm against animals can be punished?

Why don't [they] drastically increase the penalties for violating those [existing animal cruelty laws] instead? That would definitely affect a whole lot more different kinds of animal abuse and animal abusers, than a small number of people who are having sex with animals in a harmful way. Oh and guess what, that would ALSO affect those, who actually are having harmful sex with animals [as opposed to humans who ethically have sex with animals].

What a win-win situation that would be! People who actually harm animals in any possible way - regardless why - will suffer the harsh consequences and people who don't, won't be wrongfully punished.

Wouldn't that be much more in line with the reason for this law, which [they] claim is to protect animals, and much more respectful to peoples privacy, their rights to pursue happiness and the human rights?

Using the law to regulate people's morals when it doesn't fit your own, is unheard of in a democratic western country. And it makes me wonder what's next, now that people seem to [be] accepting this one...
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: politicalGRAFFITI on January 27, 2016, 09:00:19 pm
As these are the only posts from this person... kind of seems like a one issue, dog fucking, troll.  ;D
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: SkippyBob on January 28, 2016, 01:39:20 pm
politicalGRAFFITI: "As these are the only posts from this person... kind of seems like a one issue, dog fucking, troll.  ;D"

I disagree with the "troll" assessment.  I think this person has expressed a particular position thoughtfully
and respectfully.  While the particular activity involved isn't my cup of tea, I agree with the position that,
so long as the animals are healthy and happy, it isn't anybody else's business.  There are many non-average
sexual activities in the world that I have a physical aversion to. However, since they involve only adults, and the adults
appear to be involved voluntarily, there is no reason for government interference.

I agree with Jason, though.  I don't think it would be wise to work against two politicians whose replacements
would be likely to negatively impact a larger portion of the populace.  I think JbbF should work to assist
the FSP, and when there are enough movers in New Hampshire, work can begin on eliminating all
"consensual crimes".
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: politicalGRAFFITI on January 28, 2016, 03:33:18 pm
There are different forms of trolling.

Think the Trump rally with the plant asking a question that can be used to make the Donald look bad. Or think an actual libertarian that can cause harm to the movement such as Zack Bass and the Free Town Project.

It reminds me of the reporter that asked an activist at a protest I was involved with what the libertarian position on cannibalism was. The reporter got a quote and it upstaged the real issue of the protest.

Lots of people come along, until someone establishes trust I would be a little wary.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on January 31, 2016, 01:50:14 am
As these are the only posts from this person... kind of seems like a one issue, dog fucking, troll.  ;D

I am not a "troll". It is insulting to be called a "troll". Just because an idea is outside of accepted social "norms" doesn't mean it should be ridiculed. There are probably many things that are legal today which would've been laughed at if one said 200 years ago, "Do you think this will be legal?"

Also, if a man was arguing for a pro-gay bill of some kind, would you call him a "human f**ker" or a "man f**ker"? This is what leads me to believe that the assumption that I was a "troll" was based on prejudice. Zoosexuality is more than sex, it is a sexual orientation, and interspecies sex is a component of that orientation.

Part of the reason bills such as HB 1547 are allowed to pass unopposed and without any critical thinking being applied to them is due to people either having an anti-zoosexual agenda, being apathetic to it, not treating it seriously, or not being aware that they even exist.

Interspecies sex between adult humans and mature non-human beings should not be illegal.

There are so many things that humans do to non-human beings that are blindly considered "normal" and not even questioned. For example, spaying and neutering is basically castration and completely violates the animal's sexual autonomy -- and it occurs without the animal's consent. And consider artificial insemination techniques performed on animals -- these are "accepted industry practices" which are legal throughout the United States, and yet those procedures are more invasive and more harmful than interspecies sex could ever be. And artificial insemination, like spaying/neutering, does not involve the animal's consent and violates their sexual autonomy more than interspecies sex does.

All things considered, with so many far worse things being done to animals legally, it makes no sense to criminalize something such as interspecies sex which is LESS harmful than the activities (such as slaughter) which are "legal". Creating such a law would just be a waste of taxpayer's money -- and for what? So police can spend their time going on witch hunts against zoosexuals when they could be spending that time doing more important things? Why criminalize MORE people with a NEW law when New Hampshire's incarceration rate has already been growing for the past 10 years?

In terms of Baldasaro and Burt, maybe they can be convinced that supporting this bill is wrong. Or perhaps the New Hampshire ACLU or NH Liberty Alliance should try to stop this bill. If people sit around and do nothing to stop this bill, it will show the true colors of all of New Hampshire's pro-liberty organizations -- they will have failed to protect the rights of a sexual minority, and allowed an onerous and oppressive law to be created, allowing police to persecute them.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: RidleyReport on February 01, 2016, 09:53:47 am
One of the reasons this bill actually is unusually dangerous, despite targeting a very small group, is that it's difficult to oppose such a questionable lifestyle.  So it has a good chance of passage and the bill meanwhile may include some obscure provision that winds up banning things that are not particularly controversial.   It would be pretty easy to get the wording slightly off so that it bans things most people do.  And I assume we won't know until later , after hearings and possible amendments, what the final wording will be.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: yiffySkippy on February 08, 2016, 05:43:40 pm
So was martin luther king a "one issue troll" for dedicating his life to helping himself and other black people overcome discrimination, hatred and bigotry?

Every time I speak up for the rights of zoosexual and trans species people, I'm always met with the same insults: "Dog fucker", "Troll", etc.

I prefer to be called yiffy.  Thanks.

There's so much about us that you don't know.  There's more than just sexuality involved.  And on top of that, you can be yiffy and not even be interested in having actual sex with animals.  I mean, wow, I just don't get that everyone is just so disinterested in us, and all they want to do is pass these stupid draconian laws and throw the book at people just for blowing their dogs.

I mean, really people?  So aggrevating.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: yiffySkippy on February 08, 2016, 05:50:14 pm
You people, you haters and bigots, act like it's our fault for not explaining ourselves enough.  Like we somehow deserve to be persecuted over something as dumb as having sex with an animal because we're not explaining ourselves well enough.

And then, when we do try to explain ourselves, it's "You're a one issue troll".  I mean, fuck you.  Seriously.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: yiffySkippy on February 08, 2016, 06:13:09 pm
I know this is three posts in a row, but for fucks sake, you have no idea how much you piss me off by calling the OP a troll.  What's he supposed to do, just let the nasty witch of new hampshire harass him with her dumb little house bill, and make up pretend felonies and accuse him of being a criminal?

So, here's basically what it means to be yiffy, or as psychology text books have described us: "Exclusive zoophiles"...

When I was growing up, I always wanted to become another species when I got older.  That's because I'm trans species.  I know I can never really change my species and will always be human, but it wasn't until the past few years (I'm almost 30 now) that I really accepted it.

I'm yiffy because I always wanted to find someone else who was like me... someone who wanted to become another species.  I also am not attracted to "normal" humans.  But when I'm around someone who's trans species, then there's a possibility of me being attracted to them.

But there really aren't a lot of trans species people out there.  In fact, I didn't realize that there were others like me until I was maybe 22-24.  So it's kind of depressing feeling like you're the only one.

And you can imagine that a young yiffy male is going to be pretty lonely.  But animals exist, and they're not human, right?  So that's why we end up fucking animals.

So, oddly enough, animals end up being the substitude for what yiffy, zoosexual, "exclusive zoophile" people are really attracted to: humans who want to actually become a different species.

That's what my experience tells me is the truth.  But some people don't care about the truth and just want to throw the book at people over stupid trivial stuff (like having sex with animals) and don't care about the fact that the person they're throwing under the bus has already had this awful, lonely, confusing life and is only trying to get through life the best they can.

I won't ever "compromise" with bigotry.  But I'm willing to admit that some legal restrictions COULD POSSIBLY be placed on having sex with animals.  But at least DEBATE the issue OBJECTIVELY, and actually listen to the actual ZOOSEXUALS themselves.  But no, it's not OK to send someone to prison for 10 years and label them a "felon" for engaging in sex acts with animals.

Look at it this way.  Animals provide meat, milk, wool, and so many other resources.  Sex is just another resource that animals can provide.  What's really wrong with using an animal for the sex it can provide?

Also, if I were to strap a woman down and forcibly take milk from her breasts, that would be sexual assault.  Do it to a cow, and it's "milking".  Oh, and what about artificial insemination?  Why can I stick my whole arm inside a horse, but not my penis?  What's the fucking difference?

The only reasonable "punishment" I can see for people having sex with animals, is maybe writing them a ticket, or not letting them have animals (as long as there's no physical harm done in the process).  And based on what I said previously, I think even those things are a little extreme.

In my opinion, the anti-zoosexuals, the yiffy bashers... these threats to freedom, are just the worst kind of people.  They don't even want to include us in the discussion.  And they stomp out all dissent to their efforts of persecuting zoosexuals by threatening to "embarass" and "out" anyone who sees their hatred for what it is.  It's just disgusting.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on February 12, 2016, 02:19:11 am
You people, you haters and bigots, act like it's our fault for not explaining ourselves enough.  Like we somehow deserve to be persecuted over something as dumb as having sex with an animal because we're not explaining ourselves well enough.

And then, when we do try to explain ourselves, it's "You're a one issue troll".  I mean, fuck you.  Seriously.

Thank you for defending the rights of zoosexual people. Unfortunately there are too many people who are either apathetic, ignorant, or have a hostile anti-zoosexual prejudice. It is amazing that these kinds of witch hunts are occurring in a state like New Hampshire which is supposed to be one of the most enlightened states in the United States.

Unfortunately, only 10 states still legally allow interspecies sex involving humans. As late as the year 2000 there were more than 30 states that legally allowed it, but due to the fact that anti-zoosexuals have been on a crusade for the past 15 years (and no one with the courage to fight against their propaganda and bigotry), there are now only 10 states. Anti-zoosexual bigots and demagogues have managed to unjustly and wrongfully criminalize interspecies sex involving humans at a rate of one state per year on average. This needs to stop, and these laws need to be repealed.

And New Hampshire is one of those 10 states, which makes HB 1547 even more critical to zoosexuals. There are probably a lot of zoosexuals out there who aspire to move to New Hampshire because of its supposed "Live Free Or Die" attitude, and some zoosexuals may even be supporters of the Free State Project (i.e. they intend to eventually move to New Hampshire). If HB 1547 passes and interspecies sex is wrongfully criminalized in New Hampshire, it will be a fatal blow to the dreams and aspirations of those people, crushing any chance of them being free from the grip of unjust laws while in NH.

Apparently some have tried to start a discussion with the NH Liberty Alliance and NH ACLU about trying to stop this bigoted, discriminatory, unjust, speciesist bill, but these organizations have been ignoring all requests to help stop it.

It all begs the question: when are zoosexuals going to say enough is enough (with these onerous, discriminatory, unjust laws) and have their own Stonewall? And will the representatives of New Hampshire actually listen to zoosexuals who are trying so desperately to stop this unjust, unethical and unnecessary bill?

Each states has been "falling" to the anti-zoosexuals, and year after year (and state after state) it is legal failure after legal failure for zoosexuals, because anti-zoosexual bigots keep pushing their prejudicial agenda in the form of bills in state legislatures, and everyone just blindly passes them because they're ignorant of zoosexuality and believe in the erroneous belief that "all interspecies sex is abuse". (In reality, NOT all interspecies sex involving humans is abusive).

Alaska criminalized interspecies sex in 2010, Florida criminalized it in 2011, Alabama criminalized it in 2014, and New Jersey criminalized it in 2015. And there is currently a bill in Ohio (Senate Bill 195) which intends to criminalize it there as well. I really don't want to see New Hampshire fall to the anti-zoosexuals the way these others states have. New Hampshire is better than that.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on February 27, 2016, 06:31:57 pm
Is anybody going to the public hearing at 1:00 PM on February 29th, 2016 at Legislative Office Building 204 in Concord, NH to oppose this bill? If not one member of the Free State Project goes to this hearing to protest this bill, it will show the organization's true colors, and will show that the FSP is an organization that cannot stand up to unethical anti-liberty bills.

I really hope people (especially those living near Concord) will stop being complacent, get up, go to the public hearing on Feb 29th, and explain why this bill is extremely unethical and must be stopped.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JLTW on March 01, 2016, 12:58:13 pm
Yiffy I can see your frustrated by some of the unempathic responses here. Being on a controversial fringe is usually pretty hard, lonely and isolating. I know full well that I am an outlier even to the FSP, and this is just a reality I accept.

That being said, don't give up just because of one conversation here. Anarchists and freestaters are more likely to give you space to coexist than any other group. I'm not a fan of zoosexuality/bestiality/etc. but I would engage in activism against this bill with you- if I were in New Hampshire.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on March 01, 2016, 09:41:01 pm
I am so pissed off that no one testified at the February 29th hearing in total opposition to this terrible bill. I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just very disappointed. I could not attend due to geography.

For those who are unaware, on February 29th 2016 a public hearing was held to determine what would happen to House Bill 1547 (the discriminatory, unjust, unethical, unconstitutional, irrational bigoted bill which would criminalize ALL interspecies sex in New Hampshire, make it a felony, and unjustly punish people who have ethical interspecies sex with 7 years in prison). Many anti-zoosexual bigots testified at the hearing (such as Jeremy Hoffman, an anti-zoosexual bigot who travels from state to state trying to convince state politicians to ban interspecies sex). It makes me so angry to hear about these people saying their bulls**t propaganda about how zoosexuality would "harm society". Also in attendance were pro-agriculture people who believed this law would interfere with their ethically-dubious practices such as artificial insemination. Of course, they were only selfishly thinking about their own interests in terms of the consequences of this bill, and not thinking for one second about the rights of zoosexuals and the unbelievable suffering that would be inflicted on zoosexuals by this bill.

There is still a chance to kill this bill: Please, people of the Free State Project, stop this bill before it's too late.

I encourage people to sign this petition:

http://www.change.org/p/the-legislature-of-new-hampshire-stop-new-hampshire-house-bill-1547-bill-criminalizing-interspecies-sex

People should sign this petition to tell New Hampshire legislators that they will NOT support an intolerant, discriminatory bill persecuting a sexual minority.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JLTW on March 02, 2016, 12:02:38 am
I signed it.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: LakesRegion on March 02, 2016, 12:18:12 am
The committee unanimously voted in support of the bill. There is very little chance the bill will fail now. A felony charge of 7 years may seem extreme to some of the legislatures. I don't think anyone will come out against the bill on the floor because it's too politically risky. The only winning fight I see would be a reduction in the penalty. Katherine Rogers was very sneaky with this bill. She knows that if the liberty legislatures oppose it they'll be seen as crazy. She is a sick twisted individual.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on March 02, 2016, 12:23:38 am
The committee unanimously voted in support of the bill. There is very little chance the bill will fail now. A felony charge of 7 years may seem extreme to some of the legislatures. I don't think anyone will come out against the bill on the floor because it's too politically risky. The only winning fight I see would be a reduction in the penalty. Katherine Rogers was very sneaky with this bill. She knows that if the liberty legislatures oppose it they'll be seen as crazy. She is a sick twisted individual.

There must be something that people can do to stop this bill before it's too late. The bill itself hasn't been voted on yet by the entire legislature. One of the legislators could theoretically filibuster it in order to block it. But even if that doesn't happen, perhaps the bill won't come up for a vote. Or if it does come up for a vote, legislators can vote against it. And if legislators vote for it, the governor can veto it. And if it becomes law, a pro-liberty organization such as the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance or the ACLU of New Hampshire should sue the state (file a lawsuit) on behalf of zoosexual people being discriminated against.

I will say it again: I am so tired of state after state creating these irrational and unjust laws banning interspecies sex. In the past years, Alaska, Florida, Alabama and New Jersey have all banned it. Why isn't anyone fighting these bills? I really had high hopes for New Hampshire (because it has so many pro-liberty organizations), but now I am starting to lose my faith in New Hampshire as a "beacon of liberty" -- it looks pretty authoritarian and intolerant to me. I will tell people to not move to New Hampshire if this bill becomes law, even if only out of principle. And if it does become law, it ought to be struck down by a judge for being an unconstitutional and discriminatory violation of people's rights and the rights of non-human beings. Zoosexuals would be really pissed off if it went before a judge and the judge upheld it. If the judicial method doesn't work, then a legislator should create a new bill at the start of 2017 which would repeal this bill if it became law.

Not only is the bill discriminatory, unjust, unconstitutional and bigoted, but it is irrational and unnecessary -- it would NOT benefit animals at all, because people who have interspecies sex are going to do it anyway regardless of whether there is a bulls**t law prohibiting it; by criminalizing their lifestyle, this bill will only push those people further underground and possibly cause more harm to animals than good, as the people who are going to have interspecies sex anyway will not have any guidance (social or legal) to help them. And as stated earlier, when a person says ALL interspecies sex is "animal abuse", that is a lie.

Again, I encourage people to sign this petition to stop this terrible bill:

http://www.change.org/p/the-legislature-of-new-hampshire-stop-new-hampshire-house-bill-1547-bill-criminalizing-interspecies-sex
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: LakesRegion on March 02, 2016, 01:08:39 am
Our legislator doesn't have a filibuster. The bill has to come up for a vote. I seriously doubt the legislators will vote against it or that the governor will veto it. I'm not zoosexual, but I can understand your frustration. Being in the minority sucks. Nobody is speaking out against the bill in NH because there is too much at stake for other liberties. NH is a “beacon of liberty” in the sense that it has attracted liberty lovers from around the world, but not everyone in NH agrees with liberty. Our state is a battleground between the liberty and ant-liberty individuals. Anti-liberty legislators like Katherine Rogers are fighting back. If this bill gets passed that doesn't mean that the liberty lovers living in NH agree with it. Push-back like this should be expected, but that doesn't mean we should give up and tell liberty lovers not to move to NH because of one loss. Considering all the wins liberty have achieved in NH over the years, this will be a minor setback. I'm discouraged by this news as well, but it's important to remain optimistic. Indeed there is much work to be done in NH. That's why people need to move here and fight for our rights.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on March 02, 2016, 02:12:17 am
Our legislator doesn't have a filibuster. The bill has to come up for a vote. I seriously doubt the legislators will vote against it or that the governor will veto it. I'm not zoosexual, but I can understand your frustration. Being in the minority sucks. Nobody is speaking out against the bill in NH because there is too much at stake for other liberties. NH is a “beacon of liberty” in the sense that it has attracted liberty lovers from around the world, but not everyone in NH agrees with liberty. Our state is a battleground between the liberty and ant-liberty individuals. Anti-liberty legislators like Katherine Rogers are fighting back. If this bill gets passed that doesn't mean that the liberty lovers living in NH agree with it. Push-back like this should be expected, but that doesn't mean we should give up and tell liberty lovers not to move to NH because of one loss. Considering all the wins liberty have achieved in NH over the years, this will be a minor setback. I'm discouraged by this news as well, but it's important to remain optimistic. Indeed there is much work to be done in NH. That's why people need to move here and fight for our rights.

I'm just worried that this bill will become law and then everyone will forget about this issue -- or, even worse, introduce more bills in the future which would make penalties even harsher for zoosexuals (that's what Oregon did). As an example, consider Maine: around the year 2001, when Maine created its anti-zoosexual law, there were zoosexual people protesting it based on the fact that it violated civil liberties. The bill in Maine became law, and for the past 15 years, no one has ever challenged the law, either judicially or legislatively. To this day, a zoosexual in Maine can be unjustly arrested, thrown in jail, and have their animals taken from them just because they had ethical interspecies sex. And there has been absolutely no discussion AT ALL in Maine about getting rid of that law. That's what I'm worried will happen in New Hampshire: that it will do the same thing as Maine and keep its anti-zoosexual "carved in stone" so-to-speak.

You said to be optimistic -- how can a zoosexual be optimistic in New Hampshire with representatives whose beliefs are so opposed to their own beliefs? Is it optimistic to believe that NH-liberty organizations such as the FSP, NH Liberty Alliance, and NH ACLU will try to undo the damage done by HB 1547 if it does become law? (And by "undo" I mean legislative repeal or lawsuit). Because if this doesn't happen, I worry that this bulls**t bill (if it becomes law) will stick around for decades and decades while zoosexuals in New Hampshire hide in fear and paranoia, fearful of suffering a devastating loss via persecution (such as their animal lovers being confiscated by them by police, being arrested, fined, police record, a ban on keeping animals, etc) if their interspecies sex is discovered. And at some point, if HB 1547 becomes law, there will eventually be a zoosexual that fails to hide himself/herself properly and he/she will be caught, arrested, and put in jail because of the bulls**t law.

It is worth noting that so far the ACLU, NH Liberty Alliance and Libetarian Party of NH have done absolutely nothing to stop this bill, which is disheartening and dejecting. What is even more disheartening is that whenever this kind of bill is brought up in a state legislature, whether it is in Alabama or Alaska or Florida, there is never any dissent, and it always passes unanimously -- I find that very troubling.

Consider this MLK Jr. quote:

“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ' an unjust law is no law at all.”

But unfortunately, that kind of civil disobedience will probably help zoosexuals very little in New Hampshire, as the state legislators in NH appear to be irrationally hostile towards anything zoosexual-related, and from their perspective, there is no difference between civil disobedience and being a "felonious criminal" (made a criminal under bad laws they wrote).

And I agree with you, there are of course people NH that are pro-liberty and would oppose this bill, but their voices aren't being heard, at least on this bill -- and worse, the anti-liberty forces appear to be getting their way.

If someone says to a zoosexual "well, we succeeded in 14 out of 15 pro-liberty goals in the NH state legislature, and the only one we failed at was failing to stop the interspecies sex ban", that wouldn't matter to a zoosexual: banning intespecies sex, a lifestyle viewed by some as even spiritual/religious, is extremely offensive to them -- whether they chose to live in NH or not would be their decision, but certainly it wouldn't be inviting.

And remember: no liberty is less important than another liberty. Just because interspecies sex is a marginalized, fringe, taboo subject doesn't mean their liberty (the liberty of zoosexuals) is less valuable than another person's (it's called equality before the law).
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: LakesRegion on March 02, 2016, 10:48:01 am
The liberty individuals in NH are not going to forget about this issue, but it may be awhile before something like this is repealed. I would stay optimistic the bill could fail, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I realize NH will be a less inviting state if the bill is passed, but that's exactly what the anti-liberty legislatures want. Why else do you think a democrat governor has vetoed every attempt by the legislature to decriminalize/legalize marijuana? Every other state in new england is better on the marijuana issue. The authoritarians fear making it a welcoming environment for liberty individuals.
The anti-liberty legislature are doing everything in their power to keep liberty lovers out of our state, even if it goes against their party principles. That's why marijuana has had such a hard time getting passed.

Like I said before, NH is a battleground for liberty. No one said this fight would be easy. There are more liberty legislatures in NH than any other legislature in the world, but they are not in the majority. I can't control what liberty zoosexuals will do, but not moving to NH plays right into the authoritarian's wishes. The marijuana laws in NH are absolutely horrible, yet liberty individuals still move to fight for our rights. Understand that most liberty individuals have their own priorities that they are working on. That doesn't mean they believe that their particular liberty goal is more important than yours, but there aren't many here who have that as a priority. There is a lot of work that needs to be done in NH, unfortunately it's called a project for a reason. My personal liberty goals are still far from being achieved, but I'm not going to run away to some other state/country. I feel NH is really the last hope liberty has.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on March 02, 2016, 07:13:59 pm
This doesn't have to do with HB 1547, but I just had to mention the following -- here is the title of a news article I just read:

[New Hampshire] State Lawmakers Push Bill to Make Exposing Breasts A Crime

I mean seriously, WTF? A bill to ban people from exposing their breasts (or nudity in general) is such bulls**t and clearly a violation of a person's individual rights. So clearly, it's not just HB 1547, it's other bills that are anti-liberty as well. And this may be the tip of the iceberg, as I haven't read the list of all the bills currently in the NH legislature. One thing to note: there are FAR more bills being proposed right now in NH than in Wyoming -- and most of the NH bills are probably trying to restrict people's freedom. This does not necessarily mean Wyoming is more free than NH, but it should cause someone to pause for a minute. Perhaps there is a chance for liberty in other low-population states such as Wyoming.

In any case, there really should NOT be a bill trying to ban woman from exposing their breasts. Why are the representatives in the New Hampshire legislature so prudish? Why can't they just STOP trying to enforce their own version of "morality"? Bans on interspecies sex and being naked are unethical and wrong, and yet they are being pushed by this delusional legislature.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: LakesRegion on March 02, 2016, 09:58:55 pm
There are 424 members in our legislature making it the largest legislature in the country. Obviously there are more bills proposed here than Wyoming, because there are more people proposing bills. Silly bills like this get proposed all the time, but they almost never get anywhere. The committee voted to unanimously kill the bill. With so many members in our legislature there are bound to be a few prudes. Right now the NH legislature is the most liberty oriented legislature in the world.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on March 02, 2016, 11:50:35 pm
There are 424 members in our legislature making it the largest legislature in the country. Obviously there are more bills proposed here than Wyoming, because there are more people proposing bills. Silly bills like this get proposed all the time, but they almost never get anywhere. The committee voted to unanimously kill the bill. With so many members in our legislature there are bound to be a few prudes. Right now the NH legislature is the most liberty oriented legislature in the world.

If they almost never get anywhere, then why does it appear that House Bill 1547 is on its way to becoming law? Why don't they kill that bill?

The fate of HB 1547 will be an indicator of whether the NH legislature is truly a liberty-oriented legislature.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: LakesRegion on March 03, 2016, 01:34:24 am
I feel like we're going around in circles here, but that's ok. House Bill 1547 will not be killed because opposing a bill that outlaws sex with animals is politically risky. Most people in NH do not approve of having sex with animals, just like everywhere else in the world. Opposing a bill that outlaws female public nudity is not politically risky. Most people in NH approve of females showing their breasts in public. Perhaps public opinion will change for zoosexuals someday, but someone has to make that happen. Realistically, I can't see that happening anywhere but NH. Over the next couple years I'm sure the rest of the US will ban sex with animals. If you are going to base whether the entire NH legislature is liberty friendly based on one bill that is extremely unpopular amongst society your going to have a bad time.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on March 03, 2016, 06:39:05 pm
I feel like we're going around in circles here, but that's ok. House Bill 1547 will not be killed because opposing a bill that outlaws sex with animals is politically risky. Most people in NH do not approve of having sex with animals, just like everywhere else in the world. Opposing a bill that outlaws female public nudity is not politically risky. Most people in NH approve of females showing their breasts in public. Perhaps public opinion will change for zoosexuals someday, but someone has to make that happen. Realistically, I can't see that happening anywhere but NH. Over the next couple years I'm sure the rest of the US will ban sex with animals. If you are going to base whether the entire NH legislature is liberty friendly based on one bill that is extremely unpopular amongst society your going to have a bad time.

It seems unfair and morally wrong for the government of NH to deny rights to a class of people just because they're unpopular. Rights are rights, regardless of their popularity.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: LakesRegion on March 03, 2016, 08:59:17 pm
Of course it's morally wrong. What government in the world isn't morally wrong? I don't think government can ever be moral.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on March 11, 2016, 07:55:36 pm
Yesterday the 400+ representatives of the NH House voted in favor of this bill, which really pisses me off. The bill should've been stopped, and yet it is getting closer and closer to becoming law. The bill now goes to the NH senate, which is composed of only 24 members.

I would like people reading this to send letters or emails to all 24 senators telling them to oppose this bill and NOT allow it to pass the senate.

As said before, there is a petition regarding this bill which so far has gotten very little traction:

http://www.change.org/p/the-legislature-of-new-hampshire-stop-new-hampshire-house-bill-1547-bill-criminalizing-interspecies-sex

If this bill passes and becomes law, zoosexuals are not going to want to live in NH due to the fear of potentially being labeled as a felon, being imprisoned for up to 7 years, having a police record, and having their animal lovers heartbreakingly confiscated from them (for no just reason). This bill is speciesist, discriminatory, oppressive and bigoted, and no one is doing anything to stop it. Here is a quote:

Quote
[This sucks], but all the people that are [actively having interspecies sex] aren't going to stop making physical love to their animals just because they make it illegal; the [zoosexuals] will just become more secret [about it].
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on March 22, 2016, 03:36:54 pm
Has anyone contacted any of the NH state legislators and told them to oppose this bill? I hope someone has, because the bill is now in the senate committee, and so far they've refused to involve zoosexuals in the discussion of this bill.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on April 14, 2016, 07:59:43 pm
Quote from another site:

Quote
There is now an audio file on the "NH General Court" website which has a 40-minute audio recording of the discussion about House Bill 1547 on March 29th. What was said is disgusting and horrifying. Almost the entire time was spent using the bulls**t argument that zoosexuality is linked to "the p word", and saying that when a person has interspecies sex it means they are going to be violent toward people -- not once did anyone question this flawed, preposterous and illogical reasoning. A large amount of time was also spent by arrogant "agriculture" animal breeders trying to defend their so-called "accepted" husbandry practices, while throwing zoosexuals under the bus. The "agriculture" people were basically anti-animal rights, saying that this bill would allow animal rights people to attack them.

One of the people compared non-human animals to human children -- a logical fallacy.

Another thing said: they said that non-human animals can't consent to sex with humans, so it [sex with animals] should be banned. This tired, flawed and hypocritical argument gets used over and over, and no one questions it. Why didn't someone say "well what about your so-called animal husbandry practices? Where was the 'consent' when you do that?" Why is non-human animal "consent" ONLY important when it comes to intespecies sex, but disregarded in every other situation?

The only "arguments" presented were the "consent" argument and bulls**t slippery-slope "argument" (attempting to link zoosexuality with "the p word" and violence). Absolutely no rational argument or justification for this bill that was presented. Yet everyone said they were in favor of it, blindly going along with the lies and propaganda. It was extremely anti-zoosexual and extremely ignorant -- and now it looks like this bulls**t bill is going to become law.

Katherine Rogers is completely delusional, and her thinking processes have been corrupted with false information and slanderous anti-zoosexual propaganda -- she needs to be removed from office or voted out of office. Please, citizens of New Hampshire, do your duty and get this authoritarian oppressor out of office.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on June 27, 2016, 12:40:19 am
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.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: Cp4056 on July 13, 2016, 09:59:00 pm
So sad-
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on November 29, 2016, 01:32:31 pm
The injustice and unfairness (violation of due process and also equality before the law) committed by the legislators of the state of NH upon zoosexuals and their rights needs to be confronted. When this unjust law takes effect on Jan 1 2017, there should be a lawsuit to overturn it and its bigotry.

Sex with non-humans is not "abuse", it is not "sexual assault", it is not "cruelty" -- these are anti-zoosexual propaganda terms. Plus how can they call it "abuse" when people are OK with artificially inseminating animals and murdering (slaughtering) them.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: Cp4056 on December 12, 2016, 10:23:50 am
Its an abomination
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on December 19, 2016, 02:18:53 am
Its an abomination

Yes, this new law is definitely an abomination, and it will wrongfully turn zoosexuals who are living in New Hampshire into "criminals" overnight (on January 1 2017) as viewed by the state. This new law is unacceptable; it cannot be tolerated, and it should not be obeyed. This is what I said in another topic:

Quote
Well, something has to be done to reverse this terrible law. In other states where an anti-zoosexual law has been made, nothing has been done to reverse them, and I'm hoping that trend will stop with New Hampshire, and that someone or some organization will fight this bulls**t law in court.

Part of the problem is the sheer ignorance of politicians: in every case, whether it is Alabama, Ohio or New Hampshire, legislative bodies vote unanimously on bills that destroy the rights of zoosexual people, which is a disgrace. NH was no exception -- they voted unanimously on this terrible anti-zoosexual bill which became law in June 2016.

And there is a bad trend: every year, it seems a new state bans interspecies sex (involving humans): Alabama banned it in 2014, New Jersey banned it in 2015, and now NH banned it. There are only 9 states left with no anti-zoosexual laws. This needs to stop.

If the law stands and no one does anything to fight it or repeal it, zoosexuals will be stigmatized, oppressed, persecuted and (for those caught) have their non-human lovers stolen from them by police, be forced to pay the state money for their bigoted persecution efforts, be forced to go to jail, and be forced to go onto the NH sex offender registry.

I don't know about you, but this does not sound like "Live Free Or Die" to me.

For now, zoosexuals in NH are probably going to start fleeing the state due to the persecution of this law, and those who may have moved there (including to help FSP) may have second thoughts due to the bigotry and discrimination of this new law. Starting on January 1 2017, zoosexuals will no longer be safe living in NH, when they are stripped of their rights and wrongfully viewed as "criminals" by the state.

Someone ought to get in contact with the New Hampshire ACLU and tell them to fight the law in court. I tried contacting them but they never responded.

By the way, in the close-minded discussions on the bill earlier this year in New Hampshire, not ONCE was an attempt ever made by bigots like Katherine Rogers to see things from a zoosexual's point-of-view, or to involve zoosexuals in the discussion of this oppressive and unjust new law; instead, zoosexuals were treated as automatic "criminals" (prejudice) and therefore a violation of the 14th Amendment, as you mentioned. Plus there was lots of anti-zoo propaganda as well (witch-hunting), and the lie that zoosexual sex is "animal cruelty".
Title: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: Cp4056 on December 20, 2016, 12:11:37 am
I wasn't talking about the law. I guess I'm just old fashioned and think people should only f#%! other people-
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on December 21, 2016, 10:50:24 pm
I wasn't talking about the law. I guess I'm just old fashioned and think people should only f#%! other people-

The attitude that humans should only have sex within their species is a speciesist attitude. (See Wikipedia article "speciesism" for more information). It is discrimination based on what species one belongs to.

Interspecies sex (involving humans) is not an "abomination", in the same way that interspecies sex between two non-human animals in the wild is not an "abomination". It is not morally wrong for a human to have interspecies sex. Saying that zoosexual sex is an "abomination" is not a rational thing to say, and is prejudicial.

What is abominable is the slaughtering of animals for meat, which is basically murdering them (the animals).
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: Cp4056 on December 21, 2016, 10:52:41 pm
Ok, I'm guilty of being a prejudicial speciesist. I get my moral law from a higher authority.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on December 28, 2016, 10:05:50 pm
Ok, I'm guilty of being a prejudicial speciesist. I get my moral law from a higher authority.

You have a right to not like zoosexuality, but the government of New Hampshire does not have a right to ban (criminalize) zoosexual sex, because they are forcing their morals onto zoosexuals and oppressing them by enacting such a law. Zoosexuals have a right to their own pursuit of happiness, and this new law ruins it for them. And there should be more outrage over this new law.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: Cp4056 on December 28, 2016, 10:14:58 pm
I saw a study recently, the conclusion was that sex with children isn't necessarily harmful to the child. That's the first step in legalizing/normalizing pedophilia.  Should moral, decent people standby and accept this? Where does it end. There IS a moral "right" and "wrong"  and there was a time when laws were derived from standards of morality.  We have gotten so far from this as a nation that we now have to make laws about having sex with animals. Something that wouldn't have even entered the cultural zeitgeist a few decades ago. That's evidence of some serious moral decay.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on December 30, 2016, 07:04:58 pm
I saw a study recently, the conclusion was that sex with children isn't necessarily harmful to the child. That's the first step in legalizing/normalizing pedophilia.  Should moral, decent people standby and accept this? Where does it end. There IS a moral "right" and "wrong"  and there was a time when laws were derived from standards of morality.  We have gotten so far from this as a nation that we now have to make laws about having sex with animals. Something that wouldn't have even entered the cultural zeitgeist a few decades ago. That's evidence of some serious moral decay.

This is a fallacy. Animals are not equivalent to younger humans. For example, younger humans are not put in cages, they are not put in kennels, they are not spayed/neutered, they are not slaughtered for meat, and they are not trained by police to look for explosives. There is no equivalency. Also, you are citing the "slippery slope" argument, which is yet another fallacy.

You are also saying that interspecies sex is immoral, which is not true. Interspecies sex, whether it involves a human or not, is not "immoral", so it is therefore not "moral decay". Just as it isn't wrong for a giraffe to have interspecies sex with a pig, it is also not wrong for a human to have interspecies sex with a pig.

Also, what you said about being "far from morality" is what people would've said about homosexuality in the early 20th century.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: Cp4056 on December 30, 2016, 07:08:29 pm
What I said, is that I get my moral law from a higher authority, homosexuality is still wrong, regardless of whether or not it is socially acceptable at the time. Note that I am not anti homosexuals, just anti homosexuality.  Interspecies sex is immoral, even if we wish it wasn't.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on December 30, 2016, 08:51:47 pm
What I said, is that I get my moral law from a higher authority, homosexuality is still wrong, regardless of whether or not it is socially acceptable at the time. Note that I am not anti homosexuals, just anti homosexuality.  Interspecies sex is immoral, even if we wish it wasn't.

There is no "higher authority". Morality is relative, and is determined by rationality and ethics. In the case of interspecies sex, it is not immoral because one can rationally come to the conclusion (based on what has already been said in this topic) that it is not immoral. Humans have the free will to decide for themselves what is moral/immoral, and they should decide that zoosexual sex is not immoral.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: Cp4056 on December 30, 2016, 09:20:45 pm
     I like that we are able to have a civil discussion while so far apart in our views, that said, really? Morality is relative? That kind of logic leads to a abuse. So Hitler wasn't inherently wrong, humans can decide that rape is acceptable? After all.. In the animal world.. The female of the species don't always necessarily consent to bring bred. We don't decide what's moral, well.. Society does, but it's decisions are irrelevant. There IS a right and a wrong. They are explained in scripture. Take a look at Romans 1:20 and the following few verses
     
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: Cp4056 on December 30, 2016, 09:24:11 pm
Also, you said animals weren't equivalent to younger humans, why? If you believe we are just animals- what makes us more important? If you acknowledge we are superior, were more than animals and there is a God
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on January 01, 2017, 03:04:38 pm
     I like that we are able to have a civil discussion while so far apart in our views, that said, really? Morality is relative? That kind of logic leads to a abuse. So Hitler wasn't inherently wrong, humans can decide that rape is acceptable? After all.. In the animal world.. The female of the species don't always necessarily consent to bring bred. We don't decide what's moral, well.. Society does, but it's decisions are irrelevant. There IS a right and a wrong. They are explained in scripture. Take a look at Romans 1:20 and the following few verses
   

Morality is relative, but people use rationality to determine whether something is moral or not; in the case of Hitler, people have determined his actions to be immoral.

When humans are interacting with a non-human animal sexually, "consent" is not relevant, just as "consent" is not relevant sexually when two non-humans have sex with each other. Morality is determined by whether harm/injury occurs. Artificial insemination and spaying/neutering do not involve animal's "consent", but interspecies sex (involving a human) involves "consent" by observing the animal's body language.

Regarding scripture: there is no God, at least in the manner in which humans define "God", so "scripture" is irrelevant.

Quote
Also, you said animals weren't equivalent to younger humans, why? If you believe we are just animals- what makes us more important? If you acknowledge we are superior, were more than animals and there is a God

Humans are animals, but species difference and age difference are two totally separate topics. I already explained the matter in the previous post. And humans are not superior, they are animals just like all other animal species.

As I said before, one has a right to their religious beliefs, but the New Hampshire government does not have a right to ban sex with animals (an unconstitutional ban) based on their prejudices and irrational views of "morality".

Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: Cp4056 on January 01, 2017, 03:19:58 pm
Humans, made in the image of God- who created us, the world, and all it contains- we are carbon life forms, but so much more than animals.  When Job endured his trials, and all he had was lost- God replaced his possessions two fold. Twice as many animals, but the same number of children. I propose that this is because the children still exist as spiritual beings beyond this life, where the animals, not made in His image don't.  If there is a God would you change your views? Its there a chance that you hold to your"no god" mantra because it would prove very inconvenient for your sexual preferences?
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on January 01, 2017, 03:38:40 pm
Humans, made in the image of God- who created us, the world, and all it contains- we are carbon life forms, but so much more than animals.  When Job endured his trials, and all he had was lost- God replaced his possessions two fold. Twice as many animals, but the same number of children. I propose that this is because the children still exist as spiritual beings beyond this life, where the animals, not made in His image don't.  If there is a God would you change your views? Its there a chance that you hold to your"no god" mantra because it would prove very inconvenient for your sexual preferences?

No, humans are just animals (in a moral way, in addition to a biological way). To answer your last question, my views about religion are separate from my views about sexuality, though I strongly disagree with the "moral values" of some religions. Besides, why does "God" have to be a "human" with certain moral views? Why can't it just be nothingness? Some people (Buddhists) believe that non-human animals ARE in an afterlife. My point is that none of this is verifiable. The arguments one makes about God aren't verifiable; religion is not relevant in terms of deciding whether zoosexual sex should be legal; see this topic:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=1350.0

From that topic:

Quote
But it is inappropriate to delve into discussions of technical differences of religious ordinances, excessive scriptural interpretation (word nit-picking) [...] This forum is not the proper venue to proselytize. Also inappropriate to this forum are arguments about the existence of God, because they are fruitless, and because they have nothing to do with the FSP, since we will never take an official position on the matter.
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: Cp4056 on January 01, 2017, 03:50:14 pm
No need to delve, I serve the God of the Bible, you appear to serve your own desires. I do agree that arguing is fruitless. However while the FSP need not take an official position, I don't think having a civil discourse on differing opinions and points of view violates any regulations. After all- we are promoting freedom right? I tend to think those rules are to keep people from being overly obnoxious and verbally cantankerous. We haven't needed this kind of moderation. 
Title: Re: Stop House Bill 1547
Post by: JbbF on January 01, 2017, 03:56:35 pm
No need to delve, I serve the God of the Bible, you appear to serve your own desires. I do agree that arguing is fruitless. However while the FSP need not take an official position, I don't think having a civil discourse on differing opinions and points of view violates any regulations. After all- we are promoting freedom right? I tend to think those rules are to keep people from being overly obnoxious and verbally cantankerous. We haven't needed this kind of moderation.

I agree, there's nothing wrong with civil discourse, and the quote I cited is something which I view as a guideline rather than a hard-rule. I was just worried that the discussion was starting to go on a religious tangent which could lead to arguing.

I don't do things only for my own desires, I just have moral values that differ from most. For example, I think that animals should not be killed (in slaughter for example), because I view that as immoral.