House Bill 1547 is an unethical and speciesist bill in the 2016 New Hampshire legislature which unjustly criminalize ALL interspecies sex with humans, make it a felony, and punish people with up to 7 years in prison, solely because they had ethical interspecies sex with a being who is non-human. This bill must be stopped; here is why:

[Beginning of Block Quote]

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, do NOT support this bigoted bill. New Hampshire legislators: do not vote in favor of it. If legislators vote for this bill, a considerable number of liberty-minded people in organizations such as the Free State Project will likely 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/

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."

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 zoosexual people).

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 New Hampshire'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 ALL interspecies sex automatically involves animal cruelty -- such an argument is a falsehood.

Here is a 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:

"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..."

Interspecies sex between adult humans and mature non-human beings should not be illegal. It should not be a crime for a human to have interspecies sex just because the being involved is not of the human species.



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?

Quote:

"In my opinion, the anti-zoosexuals [are] 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."

Liberty groups such as the ACLU of New Hampshire, the Free State Project, the NH Liberty Alliance, and the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire need to unite to protect and defend the rights of a sexual minority (in this case zoosexuals) -- an onerous and oppressive law allowing police to persecute zoosexuals and discriminate against them for no just reason should not be created. New Hampshire is "Live Free Or Die", not "let's all go an a witch hunt".

[End of Block Quote]