The Inevitability of Acceptance

Original von:

Acceptance; I believe it will come, it may take quite a while yet, but I do believe it will come.

Of the non-zoos I've come out to, which is now quite a few, every single one of them has understood the concept of zoophilia as presented by zoophiles themselves. Every one has seen a clear difference between exploitative bestiality and loving and consentual zoophilia. All of them have said that the only reasons that they can see for anyone to take a stand against zoophiles are where someone's beliefs or the culture that they live in simply say, "It is wrong". There is no meaningful reason for it.

There are no rational arguments against zoophilia. People may pick words with you for hours over the precise definition of consent, but their final argument always returns to the basic surmise that animals are not truly conscious and that they are simple, almost robotic, entities who's responses to stimuli are governed by strict rules that can, and eventually will, all be explained and written down, like a manual.

I think it's clear to any rational person that humans and animals are the same. We all descended down the same routes of evolution from ancient times and the same evolution was responsible for each of us. There is no different, special, human evolution that somehow is utterly different from the evolutionary process that brought about all other life on the planet. Is it really intelligent to believe that despite the fact that all mammalian brains share absolutely common ancestry, that somewhere along the line, human brains aquired the power of consciousness whilst no other types of brain did? I don't think so.

Animals have personalities. Animals are individuals. Individuals have rights over themselves. Individiuals have the ultimate right, the right of choosing their own destiny. Perhaps the hardest types of non-zoo arguments to defend against are those that stem from religeous belief. Again, the right of choice comes into play. I choose to believe what I believe, and you may well choose differently. What we believe should not affect what choices others have, should not impinge on their right of choice.

In our increasingly diverse world, there are an ever growing number of possbilities. Advancing technology, travel, communication, these things all conspire to mean that for each invividual on the planet, there are now simply more choices, more options than there have ever been before. This means that people will become ever more aware of the need to protect their own right of choice. And as they see that their right to choose their own personal preference needs to be defended, or advanced, it'll become obvious that the best possible way to defend your own right of choice is to defend everyone's right of choice.

The right to choose, call it freedom if you like, this right is the easiest thing in the world to understand. And, I believe, the single best law to base any society upon.

You have the right to do anything that you wish, unless your wishes impinge upon the freedom of anyone else to also do exactly as they wish.

I believe that, as the number of choices that can be made by individuals increase, everyone who worries at all about the possiblity of having to defend their right to choose, will eventually come to realise that the only way is to embrace the philosophy that everyone must share that right.

I believe that zoophilia is not wrong, in any way, and yet, I will defend the right of anyone to speak out against zoophiles, since they undeniably have the right to do that if they wish. So long as no harm is brought by their actions, and nobody else has their choices reduced.

That kind of speaking out is, of course, very different from goverments or societies declaring that zoophila is a crime, and putting in place systems to punish people who practice it. That is a damaging action that definitely impinges on the rights of others, whether they be zoos that are imprisoned for their practices or zoos who suffer a lifetime of self-hate and secret torture over their personal feelings.

Nobody has a right to make that kind of declaration, and I believe that this will increasingly be realised by people and that all things will gradually change to reflect the philosophy:

An' it hurt none, do as thou wilt!