I disagree. There is a serious problem with non humans not being able to be a legal entity if we want to provide them with rights similar to ours but it has little to do with sex. Ok, there would be no way to prove the abuse unless the animal gets physically hurt or the act itself gets recorded somehow but I can't see any other issue assuming public opinion doesn't get in the way of legislation process.
I don't know what your disagreeing with or about? What you wrote looks to me as if you are firmly in the live in reality camp........so help me out?
Maybe it's the area that I want to question you about? So....remember "corporations are people"? Now, any idiot knows they aren't, and I'll also go as far as to actually assume they don't "believe" corporations are people. But, what it DOES essentially mean is that they have the same rights or some of them, as ENTITIES that people have as people. Here's the problem with that scenario.........Corporations can, and DO kill people. LARGE NUMBERS of them. Not ted bundy style, but Love Canal style, i.e pollution, and a host of other ways. It's not direct throat cutting, but it's killing none the less. The problem legally of course being you can't execute an entity, nor in most cases can you hold the people who run the corporations responsible to society for their actions. It happens, but the standard of proof required to get to these douchebags is WAY WAY above the standard of criminal courts for people. At BEST, this is a very serious dilemma. NOW, I don't intend this to start a debate about that topic but I do want to bring it out as an example of legal buffoonery because that's what it is, buffoonery. It deifies logic and reason, and simple common sense.
Giving animals legal status is another example of legal buffoonery. And this might be the area where you disagree, I'm not sure, but it seems to me it is or is the most likely.
Legal status is insanity of the highest order. Animals can't talk, can't write, in fact do not even think (the same as people) nor are they capable of thinking in the same way as people. But now they have legal standing to inherit property, own companies, or any number of other insanities you care to name. They don't have the ability to DO anything related to that or any number of things, nor do they even care about such things, as those are in fact, human CONSTRUCTS, entirely. So.....as legal entities.....who speaks for them? Pet psychics? AT BEST, we interpret what we THINK they mean or want, or don't want, etc. We don't know and we never will. In a LOT of potential legal instances, they won't even HAVE any form of input to add, even if we could somehow read their thoughts.
Yes, I know, this seems like it's all a strawman argument meant to derail, but it isn't, it's meant to highlight the utter insanity of animals as legal entities.
Now, if you want to talk about a Universal Animal Bill of Rights or something, ok, that's WAY WAY WAY less insane, but Legal standing in court and in law is utterly insane, no other way to view that.
zoocommunity.org
