12-16-2017, 08:40 PM
Quote:
On 11/12/2017 at 7:10 AM, silverwolf1 said:
. . . .
On "Zoo Rights": I've been asking since I came online exactly WHAT those "Rights" were and have yet to get a cognitive answer, or two answers that were the same. I've gotten no answer that has persuaded me that the life I already have or had with my lovers need change or become publicly open to pursue them. Such action only threatens my non-human partners and companions, which is unacceptable.
. . . .
sw
I've answered but it's an unpopular answer. Simply put, there is no such thing as "Zoo Rights", or "Gay Rights", or "Black Rights", or any other kind of right given to a group, race, religion or whatever. No person or government can give a right or take it away. If they could grant or revoke it, it would be a privilege. What the Constitution of the US has recognized and the Supreme Court of the US has reinforced is that there are Human Rights. Period. Lawrence v Texas simply said that being gay wasn't a sufficient reason to deny anyone a human right that they already had.
And right there is where we are being screwed. I don't have (or want) an inalienable right to fuck my horse or any other animal. What I do have is an absolute right to pursue my life in any direction that I choose as long as I neither harm nor endanger any one. And that is all that I want.
That's why consent is a red herring. My conduct with my property is measured against the standard of unnecessary pain and nothing else. If my horse isn't suffering from sex (a rather unlikely scenario for a stud), it's no one's business but mine. And no one has any business restraining me from an act that may or may not cause a future harm. The legal, moral, and logical way is to punish the harm strongly when it occurs and ignore the rest.
