Hey, someone replying who´s not offended by criticism, but seems to have an interest in actual discussion...rare enough these days...
So I will curb my cynical sarcasm down to zero, but here´s what I need to set straight in your viewpoints:
1) Yes, entirely legal and unregulated "zoophilia" just won´t work. Retracting to the trench of "But...but...not all acts of bestiality are harmful to the animal!" is basically the same as saying "...not all drunk drivers cause car crashes!", followed by the typical "Only 10 % of all car accidents happen because of drunk driving...OMG! Who´s gonna keep all these sober people off the streets??? 90% of all accidents are caused by THEM!!" arguments....(Shit, I wanted to curb my cynical sarcasm for this post...2 sentences later I already failed at that....)
I can work with your reply´s first two paragraphs, but let me correct you on one thing : Zoophilia is a compositum of two Greek words, tó zóon = animal (singular) and háe phília whose meaning strongly leans towards a friendship kind of "love", a brotherly kind of love, not physical or emotional sexual attraction. Correctly translated, zoophilia means "friendship with an animal". So I wouldn´t use the word "lover of animals" here because this usually is associated with sexual love.
But that´s only a small mistake, the bigger mistake you make is correctly analysing our situation as zoophiles, but not drawing the right conclusions. One basic fact you forgot...animals can´t walk into the next police station to turn in their abuser, thus animals need some form of representation, they need a voice , an impartial and neutral one. If we don´t want to make the fox the hen house keeper here, there is no other way but to "expatriate" the decision whether an animal is in an abusive partnership. We need professionals who don´t outright condemn us zoos, but won´t fall for the bullshit some "zoos" spread. As Lenin said: "Trust is good. Control is better." (I´m not a Leninist though....) The true egocentrical nature of modern mankind is a factor we cannot dismiss here. For me as a zoo, it simply is unbearable if only ONE animal suffers in a "zoo" partnership...I´m obviously caring too much for them to place "zoo rights" over the animal´s rights.
You kept equally vague in how you want to dissolve the schism here. Who will define the strict requirements? Think this idea to its end, por favor. And remember: don´t make the fox into the hen house keeper here, it´s the animals who will have to pay for it. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" /> Canada hasn´t legalised "oral with animals", btw...according to my informations, Canada accidentally opened up a legal loophole for such practices by trying to restructure their penal code...at the time I am writing this, this hole has already been shut again or will be in the very near future. Your next sentence I wouldn´t subscribe to, though...yes, it is futile to strive for tolerance...NOW...we experience an era of conservatism and religiosity returning, with the autocratic style of politics massively returning, etc...the "revolution" destroyed all authority with its "doubt everything ad nauseam..except yourself!", but authorities are necessary in a civilisation! Shocking, isn´t it? Without authority, there is no society, even animals instinctively know this and preserve a lot of energy they would otherwise waste on perpetual status fights. In the light of this, is it still so surprising that people more and more tend towards electing "father figures", even women? Today´s person is exposed to plethora of different informations, reality tunnels, ideological streams, etc... and in your childhood, who was the one sorting it all out for you? Right, daddy...(individual experiences with your fathers may vary)
Cammpaigning on the behalf of zoophilia isn´t a bad thing per se, but it has to be done at the right time, which is definitely not now, with the right arguments, which we also don´t seem to have now as there still is no reliable clinical study about zoophilia and with a direction that includes "the society" and its views. Yes, society is influenced by religious befiefs, the "eeeeww!" factor and other issues like the consent issue, but what you forget to mention is that we zoos usually remain silent also when the one who´s been caught hurting an animal with his "zoophilia"...quis tacuisses, consentire videri...he who remains silent seems to agree. If we don´t want to be associated with animal rapists, why isn´t "our" voice louder in such cases? A cadre mentality has poisoned us and speaking out against "one of us" is generally seen as "Nestbeschmutzung" ( desecration of the nest). Is it really the best picture we zoos make in public, with our silence, with the egocentric views many of us have despite the fact that zoophilia should mainly and predominantly be about the animals, not those who want to have sex with them? It´s like demonstrating for the RIGHT to have sex with other races, but not doing anything about racial segregation...bigoted, foul and easily seen through. Is this community really incapable to think of anything else but itself?
Kudos for the "facts won´t win an argument alone" paragraph. You have it absolutely right here. Humans aren´t robots you can convince with cold logic, they also have an emotional side that is exponentially more susceptible for thoughts of clemency and compromise if you manage to connect to it. No one of those "rational" "zoo advocators" has tried this, it´s always the circlejerk of "But the study of Miletski said..." and "science has proven that..." when it in fact hasn´t. Straight and real facts, that´s the way we should go on the rational side, even if the shine an unfavourable light on zoophilia...people will judge you way more for the personality you have than your sexual orientation. At the moment, the middle ground between "MUH FREEDUM! FREE ZOOFILIAH!" and "LOCK ´ EM ALL UP AND CASTRATE ´EM WITH RUSTY NAILS!" seems totally abandoned...let´s fill this space again. We´re dependent on society, let´s just abandon the "I´m the only rational being on earth, fuck them!" attitude and try to find middle grounds with society.
At christmas eve in 1914, right in the middle of the first world war, some English and German soldiers ceased fire for one day, emerged from their trenches, celebrated christmas together and even played a match of football...if that is possible in one of the most senseless wars mankind has ever fought, it should be possible to find a middle ground with society for us zoophiles too...sadly, the next day the English and German soldiers went back to shooting at each other...but for one day, real reason and brothership was possible...let´s get out of our ideological trenches, just for one day, just to see if it is possible to meet on middle ground...
