Quantcast

Zoophiles March On Berlin To Demand Equal Rights

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:


[ Life]

Since 1969, zoophiles have enjoyed protection under German law as the practice of bestiality was completely legal. Fast forward to last year, Germany was looking into getting rid of the law and replacing it with a ban on bestiality. The zoophile community didn’t like it one bit, and filed a suit against the government saying the law violated their rights.

A few months later, the folks at ZETA, a German zoophile-rights group, put together a peaceful protest/march that would make its way through the street of Berlin. The group used the march to highlight the persecution that zoophiles face every day. The civil rights group, Equality for All, showed up to the protest as well. Here’s a picture of their display from Germany’s largest newspaper The Bild, courtesy of Free Thinker Unlimited:

(image)

It remains to be seen if ZETA’s efforts will have any effect on the national dialog regarding bestiality, but this first march may have inspired other zoophile groups around the world to go public. We may even start seeing other marches in other countries that ban bestiality.

That being said, it’s hard to believe that any progress towards legalization will actually happen. The core argument here is whether or not bestiality is animal abuse, and there’s no easy way to prove either scenario. Most lawmakers are probably going to err on the side of caution in the debate, however, and outlaw it until compelling evidence can validate either side’s argument.

Zoophiles March On Berlin To Demand Equal Rights
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • Mark Brown

    Wow!!!

    I think this is huge milestone in the struggle for equality.

    Speechless!

  • http://www.chandleredwards.org Jenny Edwards

    While I admire the tenacity of the Zeta organizations, sex with animals is not a viable choice and should not be an equal rights issue. Animals must be conditioned to accept sex with humans and should something happen that they are removed from their owner for whatever reason, it’s very difficult (sometimes impossible) to change their behavior in ways that would be acceptable to most owners.

    Animals are often injured or even die from sexual relations with humans. Because zoosexualism is considered taboo in most countries around the world, many people who practice this sexual attraction often resist taking their animals to vets in a timely manner, or will try to concel what actually caused an injury or infection. This can make diagnosis and treatment more difficult or completely unsuccessful.

    Our organization (chandleredwards.org) tracks and reports on hundreds of animal sex abuse cases each year. While we do not believe that all zoosexuals are “bad” people, laws exist to protect innocent victims from “bad” behavior. Germany is taking a step in the right direction to protect the animals who cannot protect themselves — not from the zoos who say they love their pets and provide adequate care for them — but from the fence-hoppers (animal rapists), and sadists who are willing to cause an animal’s death for their own sexual pleasure.

    • Mary Romney

      Ms. Edwards,

      As an admirer of E.F.A. I applaud your efforts on behalf of all helpless, abused animals. There is nothing sadder to me – and many of us – than seeing defenseless animals abused for human gratification, whether it be sexual, financial, cosmetic, culinary, ornamental, entertainment or any other well-documented type of abuse.

      But, as you point out, not all zoophiles are cruel, or even indifferent, to their animal partners. On the contrary, true zoophiles are more concerned about their non-human partners than anyone else. To lump everyone into one category and make all zoophiles criminals just to save law-enforcement the ‘trouble’ of discerning between the lovers and the abusers is a very dangerous step in the wrong direction. you open the door to criminalizing entire swaths of human population every time a problem arise. That attitude brings you prohibition, drug wars, Patriot act and numerous other absurd over-kills. To criminalize hundreds of millions of people just to protect some animals is also absurd as humans are also animals. We can’t be lazy and we must carefully outlaw the abusers without panicking and pushing several percentage of the human population underground.

      Watch Sir Tijn Po’s COMING SOON, read Peter Singer’s HEAVY PETTING, and you might change your approach a bit. Perhaps you can even join forces with E.F.A.

    • Ryan D

      Jenny I just want to address the points you have made as I doubt you realise how daft some of your things you have said are.

      1) Animals do not need to be trained or conditioned into having sex with people. Usually animals need to be discouraged from displaying sexual behaviour towards people either through careful training or simply just neutering. Personally I think to imply that no animals can enjoy sex either with their own or other with other species is only really possible if you have no understanding of animal sexual behaviour. Often the only reason these animals are removed from their true owners is because of these anti-zoo laws. The laws themselves are creating problems that shouldn’t exist in the first place.

      2)It is utter rubbish that animals are often injured by sex with humans and in the cases where this does happen it is usually due to the person deliberately trying to cause harm or causing harm due to ignorance. In many cases better understanding could prevent those injuries due to ignorance and better understanding is not gained by banning and criminalising something which can prevent people finding out the information they need.
      Also it only takes a quick look through history to see that criminalising things does NOT stop them happening, does NOT decrease them and usually only serves to make a situation worse. You have said yourself that the current legal/taboo status can cause problems with injured animals getting prompt treatment they need. Well surely (and I mean this doesn’t take a genius to work this out) that if it wasn’t viewed so negatively these delays would not arise. If you make a situation where people are scared to bring their animals in for treatment then guess what. they aren’t going to do it.

      3) Finally I want to point out the huge flaw in your “but it is for the good of the animals” argument that you use in your last paragraph. If you were up to date with what had been happening in Germany you would know that Germany already had a law in place to prosecute those who harmed animals either through sexual or non-sexual activity. So this law to protect innocent victims was already in place. The existing law could already be used to target abusers and fencehoppers and maybe could even have been made stricter to better prosecute people convicted of causing this harm. The new law ignores this and is equally or even more devoted to simply targeting those who haven’t ever caused harm. This would seem to be good solid evidence that the new law is not for animal protection (as that law already existed) but simply to enforce morality.
      In terms of what you say about having to criminalise all sex with animals to try and prevent the actions of a tiny minority of people engaging in sexual activity with animals I think forgets the basic fundamental fact that this law won’t change anything. Zoophiles who still love their animals will still have sex with them and the horrible sadists who genuinely enjoy and revel in causing pain and suffering will still continue to do so. If we are to take the banning something to prevent the actions of a tiny negative minority then why are we not campaigning to ban sex between men and women to protect women from rapists, domestic abusers and serial killers? Why are we not trying to ban homosexual sex to protect gay men against someone akin to Jeffrey Dahmer? Why are we not banning all pet ownership full stop to protect animals from the few horrifically neglectful owners that exist? I could go on and on with these examples but it simply points to the same thing. This new law is neither an effective tool to achieve its planned ends and worse it has not been brought in to actually do anything more than subject a group of people to the uneducated moral opinion of others.

    • Ryan D

      I also wanted to add that zoophilia is not a choice people make. It is (and is starting to be recognised as such by professionals) a sexual orientation. A zoophile can no more choose not to be zoo than a homosexual man can simply choose not to be gay.
      And yes it IS an equal rights issue.
      We live in a world where people who work in animal breeding industries are allowed to sexually arouse animals for profit. They are allowed to restrain female animals to be raped by a male of their choosing so they can get the offspring they want. They can perform almost any manipulation or mutilation to an animals genitals they want as long as this is done for either profit or for “medical” reasons. These things are ok but an act performed for the mutual enjoyment of both parties or in some cases simply for the enjoyment of the non-human party is bad. Even some of those acts that can legally be performed for profit are illegal if done in a non-commercial situation!

      • MB

        Beautifully said Ryan D!!!

      • Sarn

        Though I do see your point, the ‘it’s a sexual orientation’ argument doesn’t work. Mainly due to consent. Pedophilia is also a sexual orientation. The issue comes into play when they act upon it. Kids can’t consent, and it’s really damn hard to tell when animals can and can’t.

    • Xander

      it is arguements like this that glue society into the past and ensure its stuck there. Open your mind and look into the facts, dont just play debate team with the topic just because u dont believe in it. See it from both sides, and only then make your own decision.

  • Xander

    Ryan D i agree fully. I really hope some day we can be accepted by our peers and not witch hunted and looked upon as if we are abusers. I have met many fellow zoos and none of them believe in any form of abuse, most of us treat our beloved animals as if they were human to us, our own kind if you will. And as such, we cant even bring ourselves to scold them for anything. We love them without regret, or question just as they are.

    My animals are spoiled beyond belief because i love them so. I dont even own whips, i dont ever hurt, or even yell at them ever. Honestly i think i treat them better then i am treated by most of my fellow man. And i would quite happily keep things this way untill my last day comes. This kindness doesnt just cover my mate, but any animal that might come upon me, if injured, i will take care of. It is just the right thing to do. Life is precious, from creatures tall to creatures small.

    And someone enevitably will post something saying they cant love us back or animals dont have emotions like that. Well ill head that one off early, i have been around animals full time since i was 3 on ranch land. Animals feel the exact same range of emotions as us, just without the words to make them easily as obvious. When im in bed asleep and my dog comes in, jumps on the bed next to me and starts slowly licking my cheek, does that just happen at random?

    Does the fact my dog gets depressed and sad, sometimes even wont eat much when im gone for many days just mean coincidence??

    Its called love, and to believe that only us humans are capable of such is elitist and stupid. Even elephants have been seen sorrowfull over the loss of a mate or offspring, my horse wouldnt eat for days when her filly died from birth complications. Was she imagining or pretending to be devastated? NO!

  • http://GodHelp.us RUSerious

    Are you people serious? This is sick! And to say “Zoos” and homosexuals don’t have a choice is pure fiction (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/yes_gay_is_a_choice_get_over_it.html / http://exodusinternational.org/) — merely their way to abdicate personal responsibility for their aberrant behavior.

    • Wistala

      I should just like to point out that you, sir, are a moron. I would imagine that you are straight, probably a rabid Republican if from the United States, and more than likely a *religious* Christian. Meaning you have no personal experience of being only sexually attracted to someone and/or something other than a member of the same species and the opposite sex, you are out of touch with reality, and you believe your religious teachings are more accurate and valid than facts gained through science and observation of the natural world.

      Sexual orientations are not a choice, they dictate what you are attracted to sexually and romantically, and they cannot be changed. That does not mean that you have to act upon them, but it does mean that you will have very little romantic interest in people and/or animals that are not what your orientation is directed at.

      A gay man can marry a straight woman, the woman can even love him thinking he loves her in the same way. But he won’t, he’ll more than likely love her dearly, as a friend and perhaps as the mother of his children, but not as she loves him. And he will have no choice in the matter of how he loves her, no matter how much he might wish otherwise so that he could be happy. To maintain the lie that he is straight, so that he does not cause grief and turmoil in his family, he must keep his true self hidden, he can never be with someone whom he can truly love, he can never truly live.

      How do I know this? Because I have an uncle who was in that very situation for most of his adult life, because I have heard plenty of similar stories, because I have the capacity to place myself in another person’s shoes, and because I am and have always been zoosexually oriented. And believe me, my life would be a great deal easier if I didn’t have to keep that fact from my family, which I wouldn’t have to if I were simply attracted to human women (because then I would be ‘normal’). But even though my life would be easier, I have no desire to be ‘normal’, and haven’t since I was in my junior year of high school and thought a boy didn’t become a man until he started having sex with human women (because American society is too focused on pleasure and not focused enough on things that truly matter such as honor, integrity, truth, and treating others with respect).

      And I’m not even going to touch on the subject of it being ‘sick’ (beyond this one sentence), because it’s quite obvious you think anything other than a man with a woman is ‘sick’, and because ‘sick’ is a matter of personal opinion that is better left unsaid when describing someone else’s intimate relationships as it simply shows how ignorant and closed minded you are.

      *religious* – I would like to point out that my use of religious Christian in the first paragraph is to denote a Christian that believes blindly in what he or she is taught in Church as being the absolute truth with no room for interpretation other than for backing up the person’s own racist and/or bigoted beliefs. This is different from an actual religious Christian who believes in following the ideas and teachings of the religion (rather than a literal interpretation of every line being absolute truth), meaning they believe in being good people and in being good to other people and who still have the ability to learn and accept new things (typically with the underlying idea being that God created everything, thus if science says it’s so it probably is… because God made it that way and we just didn’t figure it out until now).

  • Sam

    Yes, this is serious.
    The double standard that humans apply to judge what is wrong and right needs to go. There is only one morale absolute. Each life form has an equal right to be on this earth. The morally right thing to do is to treat fellow sentient beings nicely. Killing, mutilating and eating your fellow sentient being is not nice. Taking away freedom, living space or food and water from your fellow sentient being is not nice. Having a mutually joyous relationship with your fellow sentient being is nice. A mutually joyous relationship among adult sentient beings usually has a sexual component. It is a natural, and usually very nice component. As long as all involved sentient beings enjoy this relationship, it cannot be morally wrong.
    -
    PS for the narrow minded:
    Animals of all species (homo sapiens sapiens included) are sentient beings. How do I know? If a sentient being does not like you it tries to get away. If it does like you, it scoots closer and sometimes cuddles up to you.

  • bumsniffer

    Bravo.

    Well done.

    ;^) ;^)

    All the best,

    Shiny

  • Artiewhitefox

    People are supposed to love each other. The people against the zoosexual are not loving anyone. Devils don’t love anyone. Devils will see Gods glory as hell. Love the zoo avoid that end. Love that is eternal has to start in whoever NOW!

  • William DeLaney

    Those here who are condemnatory toward zoophiles don’t seem to know anything about zoophiles. The zoophiles that I have known have an intense, wholehearted love for their animals. They believe that they communicate with their animals at a deep, empathetic level. Their feelings are not just sexual, but there is a bond there beyond just that between “master and pet.”

    If you don’t believe that there could be such a bond, then you haven’t had the experience with animals that I have. If you think that communication is limited to speech, then you are hopelessly ignorant, and you are probably determined to stay that way.

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter