Anti zoo arguments

[Bear28]

Quinazagga posted this over on Huma's old zoo sight zoosexuality.org that is long gone. We used to talk about stuff like this all the time on his place as it was just a decision sight and no porn. Quinazagga answered all the anti zoo arguments with this post. I do apologize about how this is formatted but it was a cut and copy onto a notepad years ago.
Quinazagga Answer to Anti Zoo Arguments
Zoosexuality is one of those subjects that is not only taboo, but that people love to criticize — much of this criticism is caused by pure ignorance. As with many other minority groups throughout history, the majority has always been quick to condemn the minority only because they are different.
Nonetheless, I have decided to take the time to examine some of the arguments (or should I say, myths) which unfairly condemn human-animal sexual interactions.
The following is a list of arguments against zoosexuality, and why they’re bogus.
Argument #1: Bestiality is unnatural — opponents of bestiality claim that it deviates from nature and the natural instincts of animals.
Why this argument fails: It has been proven that in nature, interspecies sex is fairly common. Therefore, when a human has sex with another animal (for example, a dog or a horse), this is also a form of interspecies sex. Also, remember that animals can and do have sex for non-reproductive purposes (for example, many animals in the animal kingdom masturbate and have homosexual sex). Thus, when a human has sex with another animal, it is not unnatural because interspecies sex occurs in the wild, and because animals do have sex for non-reproductive purposes. Thus, it makes no sense to say that it is “unnatural” for a human to have sex with another animal.
Also, keep in mind that many accepted practices which humans engage in all time are more unnatural than having sex with an animal (zoosexuality). For example, acts such as neutering, artificial insemination, experimentation, zoos/aquariums and factory slaughter are all unnatural activities, yet their “unnatural-ness” is never questioned. Even though zoosexual acts are more natural than neutering/slaughter etc, they are called “unnatural” by anti-zoosexual people as a “mask” to hide their underlying irrational prejudice and bigotry against zoosexuality.
Argument #2: Having sex with animals degrades people — opponents of bestiality claim that by having sex with an animal, a person “lowers” themselves to the “level” of non-human animals
Why this argument fails: Humans were never “above” non-human animals to begin with! The very idea that humans are special, privileged and “above” other animals is a ficticious delusion, created by humans as a way to satisfy their own egos. In our society, there is something known as “human exceptionalism” — this the delusional and arrogant belief that humans are “superior” to other animals and are somehow in a different category from them. What followers of “human exceptionalism” fail to realize is that humans are animals. Yes, humans have some strange quirks, like using money and building space shuttles, but ultimatelywe’re still animals — we have DNA, eat, sleep, and reproduce just like other animals. Most of the DNA humans have is the same DNA that other animals have.
People who subscribe to “human exceptionalism” use it as an excuse to take advantage of other animals (for example, it “allows” them to accept slaughtering animals and hunting them, because they arrogantly believe that non-human animals are “below” humans). People need to realize that the “human exceptionalism” concept is an ignorant, irrational, anthropocentric (human-centric) and speciesist belief. The term “speciesism” means a bias in favor of one species (usually humans) over another. Note that “speciesism” is a term much like “racism” or “sexism”, except in this case it is applied to discrimination against other species. So instead of a racist bigot saying “white power”, a speciesist bigot would be saying “human power”.
So when a person has sex with a non-human animal, it does not “degrade” that person because the human and the non-human animal are in the same category(they are BOTH animals). Humans are equal to non-human animals in terms of the basic essentials of life: consciousness, awareness, sentience, sleep, sex, consumption, and life itself. Humans are not “above” other animals; the value of a human life is the same as that of any other animal (dog, dolphin, elephant, etc). Thus, it makes absolutely no sense to claim that zoosexual sex between a human and another animal “degrades” that human.
Humans are not special and not important. In fact, humans are incredibly egotistical and arrogant. On a cosmic scale, the Earth is equivalent to a grain of sand on a beach. The animals of this planet (including humans) are in this world together. All animals (which includes humans) are part of the same family.
Argument #3: Having sex with animals is sick and disgusting.
Why this argument fails: First of all, the terms “sick” and “disgusting” are prejudicial and intolerant terms (they are a form of bigotry). The only reason people call it “sick” is because the majority of our society is ignorant and intolerant in regards to zoosexuality. They have visceral, knee-jerk beliefs which are not based on rationality.
Much of the reason why people call bestiality “sick” and “disgusting” is because of their own personal view of what they consider to be “beauty”. Most human males think of human females as being “beautiful”, and most human females think human males are “beautiful”. Only recently have these rigid definitions of “beauty” been challenged, with the introduction of homosexual relationships into the mainstream. Here’s the problem: society has failed to accept the fact that zoosexual people think that non-human animals are beautiful and sexy. Because they fail to understand this way of thinking, they become hostile.
Also, the “disgust gene” may be playing a factor in people’s irrational and unjustifiable “disgust” over bestiality. In other words, for thousands of years the people who reproduced (passed on their genes) were people who viewed humans as sexually attractive instead of non-human animals. The result is that today, themajority of human offspring have a “disgust bias” against zoosexuality.
No matter what the cause, there is no justification for disgust over human-animal relationships, just as there is no justification for disgust over homosexual relationships. There is no place for intolerance and bigotry in today’s modern society. With regard to zoophiles, any form of “disgust” toward them is discrimination.
Unfortunately, many people on the internet continue to spread their hateful, biogted, intolerant anti-zoosexual bull****.
Argument #4: Having sex with animals is against religious teachings. — opponents of bestiality claim that the act of bestiality “forbidden” by God.
Why this argument fails: Religion should not even be an “argument” at all, since it is not provable. It is worth saying this though: just because a few sentences in a religious text condemn something doesn’t mean it represents the entire religious text. For example, there are about 6 verses in the entire Bible that condemn homosexuality. But if one were to read the entire Bible, one could probably find many passages which support homosexuality. Similarly, there are only 4 passages in the entire Bible which seem to condemn bestiality/zoosexuality. But just as with homosexuality, one can easily dismiss these 4 verses and look at the Bible as a whole; additionally, there are probably many passages in the Bible which could be interpreted as supporting bestiality. For example, Matthew 6-26 states that humans are not “above” non-human animals. Consider this quote:
“[In response to a typical anti-zoosexual Bible-clinging person]: There’s enough people bastardizing and twisting the Bible to suit their own meaning and agenda. Do you really have to jump on that bandwagon? If you want to argue against something, study the matter and develop real, logical, rational arguments based on empirical evidence from actual observation and psychological/sociological research studies [and do not use religion]. [Do not try to] reinterpret lines from a book older than the concept of shaving. The Bible very explicitly condones slavery and the treatment of wives as property, yet modern society has abandoned those very antiquated ways for something more civilized. You don’t get to pick and choose what ancient mystical babble to attempt to control the private lives of people with. 
The above quote reminds us that there are plenty of things in the Bible that people conveniently ignore (such as its pro-slavery sentiments), and yet people fixate and focus on the very few passages which appear to be anti-gay and anti-zoosexual. They do this in order to satisfy their own prejudicial, bigoted, intolerant views.
Basically, religious texts are open to interpretation, and people who don’t like bestiality pick and choose the passages which most closely resemble their pre-conceived prejudicial views about bestiality.
Of course, don’t forget that there are lots of atheists out there who consider religion itself to be a delusional human social construction which creates a fantasy and has no bearing in reality.
Argument #5: Having sex with animals is bad because it’s against the law.
Why this argument fails: Just because there is a law against something doesn’t determine whether it is objectively ethical. For example, in some middle eastern countries, homosexual sex is against the law, and is punishable with the death penalty. Does that mean that being gay is wrong? No, of course not. Similarly, there were laws until the 1960s which enforced racial segregation in the U.S. South. Was racial segregation good? Of course not! The legal system of our society is aconstantly evolving entity and to assume that something is bad just because it is currently against the law is just plain ignorant. Just as there are people now who want anti-zoosexual laws to be repealed, there were people in the 1940s who wanted racial segregation laws to be repealed.
Ultimately, laws which prohibit consensual, non-abusive zoosexual activity are discriminatory and infringe on people’s rights. Right now, zoosexual activity is legal(de facto) in 13 U.S. States, 2 U.S. territories and DC. There are also some countries where it is legal, and many countries where it is “de facto” legal. The countries where zoosexual acts are legal include Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Japan and Mexico.
When zoosexual activity is criminalized, it gives anti-zoosexual people an excuse to claim it’s “immoral” (for example, people will say “it is immoral because it is illegal”.) This twisted logic enables them to criticize bestiality simply because of the fact that it is illegal (and not for any justifiable reason). Also, keep in mind that laws against zoosexuality are in part driven by delusional religious “morality”. In this sense, laws against bestiality are not only unethical and discriminatory, but also force everyone to obey hidden religious values.
Argument #6: Having sex with animals is immoral.
Why this argument fails: This argument is not a valid argument because it is only what the majority thinks. For example, the majority of people in the U.S. South in the early 1800s thought slavery was morally OK. Was it? Of course not! Not only is morality a societal construct, it is completely relative — what is “immoral” today might not be “immoral” 10 years from now.
Saying something is “immoral” is also a bad argument because morality is relative. The term for this is moral relativism; a related term is cultural relativism. In a nutshell, these terms refer to the fact that what one society thinks is “immoral” may be completely moral and acceptable to a different society. For example, historically the Maasai people of Africa and some Native American groups (such as the Hopi Indians and Copper Inuit) were accepting and tolerant of human-animal sexual activity. They did not have a negative attitude towards it because their societies had not yet been contaminated with the delusional, hateful, religiously-driven “moral” beliefs of Europeans (i.e. Puritans). The fact that there were (and are) societies that accept zoosexual activity is proof that morality is relative. Interspecies zoosexual activity is not objectively “immoral”; depending on who one talks to, the response will be negative or positive. Unfortunately, the “negative” culture (i.e. the culture which is hostile towards zoosexuality) is the dominant culture right now. But that does not make it a correct culture.
Also, many zoosexual people will argue that when they have sex with an animal, it is not an “immoral” action because it is non-abusive, does not inflict pain or suffering on the animal, and because of other factors (i.e. the animal is willing to have sex, the animal enjoys sex with the human, the animal initiated the sex, etc). In terms of ethics, having sex with an animal can be seen as morally acceptable according to specific ethical viewpoints (for example, the utilitarian viewpoint or the harm principle viewpoint). From these viewpoints, it can be argued that some kinds of zoosexual activity (i.e. those which involve zoosadism) are immoral/cruel, but that other kinds of zoosexual activity are not immoral. People often fallaciously and erroneously lump the bad kinds of zoosex into the same category as the good kind.
Typically, when someone says zoosexuality is “immoral”, they’re not really thinking hard about the issue — they’re simply thinking with their “gut” and using emotional, hateful, knee-jerk beliefs and their own irrational aversion to it. They’re also probably conforming to what the dominant culture thinks (in other words, they aren’t thinking for themselves. They are letting the culture do the thinking for them — brainwashing).
And keep in mind this quote:
“The personal morals of the majority, whether based on religion or traditions, cannot be used as a reason to deprive a person of their personal liberties”
Argument #7: Animals are unable to consent to sex, so it is rape.
Why this argument fails: This is perhaps the most common argument used against bestiality. Although people love to use this argument against it, consider this: did a cow consent to be killed and turned into a hamburger? Do deer consent to be hunted? Do dogs consent to be neutered? Do lab animals consent to be tested on? Of course not.
Consider this quote:
“At first I went for the obvious ‘the animal can’t give consent’ argument, but in retrospect it is an incredibly weak and absurd argument. We generally don’t treat animals as conscious beings – we treat them as resources and as such; we almost never delegate human morals and rights onto animals which is why, in the grand majority of cases, we don’t care about consent.
Anything which we use animals for [animal exploitation] – whether it be food, entertainment or medical tests – we don’t ask for their consent. We don’t care. When we forcefully breed two horses or when we forcefully jam a pipe in into a mare’s womb to forcefully inseminate it – we again don’t care what they think or whether they give consent to it. We treat them as property. A dog [or a pig] has as much say in whether he is eaten or whether he wants to take a walk.
Basically, when someone gives me the consent argument, I honestly doubt he goes home and hopes that the steak he’s about to eat came from a consenting animal 
What the “consenters” fail to realize is that non-human animals are sentient beings just like humans, with their own rights and their own means of consenting. When it comes to sex, animals in the wild have sex all the time without ever verbally communicating with human words. The fact is, non-human animals canconsent by using body language, and if they don’t want something they can show it by kicking, biting, etc. In this sense, having sex with an animal would only be considered “rape” if the animal is question were clearly forced into having sex against its will. But if the animal’s body language is interpreted correctly, then it is not “rape”. There are many instances in which the animal (for example, a dog) was clearly the one who initiated the sexual contact, not the human (this is known as “reverse bestiality”).
And keep in mind this situation: a woman is naked and on the floor in a doggy-style position. A dog approaches her from behind and uses his penis to penetrate the woman. This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that in this situation, the dog was consenting to have sex with the human. The dog engaged in sexual intercourse with its own free will; the human did not force it to have sex.
Also, when it comes to sex, non-human animals are more mature than humans.
In the future, perhaps people will be able to hook up devices to the brains of non-human animals which will be able to convert what they’re thinking into human words. Until that happens, it is reasonable to conclude that an animal’s physical behavior is enough to indicate whether it wants to have sex or not.
So in summary, consider these points concerning the issue of “consent”:
>Non-human animals do not verbally communicate (with human words) when they have sex with one another in the wild
>The Animal Kingdom has no attachment to “morality”, because “morality” is a human-created concept; thus animals probably don’t care about “consent” the way humans do, because sex itself is not a “big deal” for non-human animals (unlike humans, who are very sensitive about sex and treat the issue far too seriously).
>Zoosexuals have noticed physical signs of pleasure in human-animal relationships; for example, a dolphin’s vaginal area changing color — this indicates consent
>One does not need to know “what it’s like” to be a non-human animal in order to obtain its “consent”; in other words, people don’t need to “see the world the way a dog sees the world” in order to have sex with it. Humans are animals, and because of this we are on the same “level” as other animals, at least when it comes to intelligent mammals (such as dogs, dolphins, horses, etc.) Humans may be more advanced than other animals when it comes to cognitive abilities (i.e. solving math equations), but when it comes to basic consciousness and basic sex drive, humans are the same as other animals.
>In many cases, consent is self-evident when the non-human animal is the one that makes the “first move” in regards to sexual intercourse (i.e. when a naked human is in a doggy-style position and a dog voluntarily penetrates him/her from behind with his penis).
Lastly, it is important to remember that the “consent argument” is a smokescreen and a red herring used by the anti-zoosexuals. In other words, it is bigotrydisguised as something which at first glance appears to be legitimate (but is not). Ultimately, the consent argument is a logical fallacy.
Argument #8: Being zoosexual is only a choice, so it is unnecessary.
Why this argument fails: Zoosexuality is a sexual orientation just like any other sexual orientation. People are born zoosexual in the same way people are born homosexual — it is an orientation that cannot be changed.
Argument #9: Having sex with an animal is automatically animal abuse and animal cruelty.
Why this argument fails: The idea that having sex with an animal is “abusive” is tied together with many of the things already mentioned: That because people think it is “immoral” and “disgusting” and “rape”, they erroneously conclude that it is “abusive”. But people need to realize something. When two humans have sex, it can either be abusive, or non-abusive. Similarly, when a human and a non-human have sex, it can either be abusive or non-abusive. Generally speaking, sexual activity between humans and non-human animals is only abusive in a few cases. If the human is deliberately trying to inflict pain or harm on the animal, then it could be considered abusive, but this is rarely the case. Sexual activity between humans and non-human animals is also abusive if the two participants involved are very different in terms of size. For example, if a male human were to penetrate a hen, this would be abusive because of the size difference. But if a large dog were to penetrate a human of either gender (either vaginally or anally), this would not be abusive because there would not be a size difference. Basically, having sex with a small animal is abusive, but having sex with a large animal isn’t.
According to the Scientific American, the majority of zoophiles are not cruel to animals, and most zoophiles are also animal rights activists because they passionately value the well-being of the animals they have sex with. In many ways, zoophiles and zoosexual people treat their animals better than the average person, because they care for them so much.
Unfortunately, because zoosexuality is taboo and unfairly loathed by our ignorant society, there are no laws or guidelines for what zoosexual activity is abusive and what isn’t, which is why all of it gets unfairly put into one lump “abuse” category.
Consider the fact that anti-zoosexual laws are not about “animal cruelty”, they are about an ignorant, delusional and irrational perception of morality. As I said in another post, Indiana is a really good example of how lawmakers have created a terrible legal framework. In Indiana, it is a felony for a dog to lick peanut butter off a woman’s vagina, but it is only a misdemeanor to torture and kill an animal with a decompression chamber, it is only a misdemeanor to rip out a dog’s vocal chords, and it is legal to brutally hunt and kill an animal with a gun. Indiana’s abominable legal framework is an example of how anti-zoosexual laws are not about “animal cruelty”, they are about forcing a flawed, irrational and prejudicial belief on the average person. Zoosexual acts should be legal, and acts which really harm animals (such as hunting and killing animals, slaughter, etc) should be illegal.
Argument #10: Having sex with an animal will spread diseases.
Why this argument fails: Although sexual contact between humans and non-human animals can spread diseases (such as brucellosis), having sex with a non-human animal is actually safer than having sex with another human. This is because there are many diseases and viruses, such as HIV, which cannot be transmitted from non-human animals to humans. It may seem counter-intuitive, but having sex with a non-human animal is actually a good way to practice safe sex. And remember, non-human animals are actually a lot cleaner than humans. For example, the human mouth has many more bacteria than the canine mouth. When it comes to sex, having sex with a non-human animal can actually lessen the spread of diseases.
The only reason people think that humans are cleaner and safer to have sex with other humans is because our genes and our irrational society are telling us to think that.
Also, remember that a non-human animal cannot make a female human pregnant, and a human cannot make a female non-human animal pregnant — it’s because of the difference in chromosomes between species. The only way to mix the genes would be to create a human-animal hybrid in a laboratory. And also remember that zoosexual-related diseases such as brucellosis are rare and can be transmitted in ways other then just sex — so strictly speaking, brucellosis isn’t an “STD”.
During human-to-human sex AND interspecies sex, there will always be the possibility of something unpleasant being transmitted (in other words, it doesn’t matter whether a person has sex with a person or another animal — sex is sex). Thus, using protection (such as male condoms and female condoms) should provide protection during zoosexual acts in the same way they provide protection in “regular” human-to-human sex.
And also remember: there is a common misconception and stereotype that sex between a human and a non-human animal is “dirty” and a “defilement”. As I have discussed, sex between a human and a non-human animal is just as “dirty” as sex between a human and another human. The only reason people think sex between two humans is “cleaner” is because they have a pro-human bias (speciesism) and a prejudice against anything zoosexual-related (it is also because of theirignorance). Remember that in some ways, sex between a human and a non-human animal is actually “cleaner” than human-to-human sex (in the sense that the number of diseases spread via zoosexual contact is smaller than the number of diseases spread via “regular” human-to-human sexual contact).
Argument #11: Having sex with animals is similar to pedophilia.
Why this argument fails: This argument fails because it is absolutely false. Studies which have attempted to link zoosexuals and pedophiles have been called “severely flawed” because they use insufficient data from only a small sampling — prison inmates. So of course the results are going to be distorted (or should I say “warped”) in favor of the pre-conceived beliefs of the researchers. The truth is that there is NO link between zoophilia and pedophilia. What people need to remember is that zoosexuality deals with mature animals, whereas pedophilia deals with immature humans. If a person had sex with an immature animal, that would be abusive, but the vast majority of zoophiles only have sex with mature animals. And remember that other animals age at different rates. For example, a 10-year old dog is equivalent to a 53-year old human. So because of this, a 10-year old dog is mature, and it is not unethical to have sex with it so long as it is willing to have sex and is a large breed.
It should also be noted that some people believe that being a zoophile will somehow “cause” the person to “become” a pedophile, which is complete bullsh*t.
Argument #12: Animals don’t enjoy having sex with humans.
Why this argument fails: This argument is false. Non-human animals are capable of enjoying sex with humans, because both humans and non-human animals have the same chemicals in their brains: such as dopamine and seratonin. That’s because, as I’ve already mentioned, humans are animals. The response to sexual stimulation in the genitals of non-human animals is similar (if not the same) to that of humans — it causes pleasure. And remember, the reason animals (both human and non-human) have sex in the first place is because it feels good, and that is an evolutionary trait. The animals who didn’t get pleasure from sex all died out, and thus their genes were never passed on to the next generation.
Argument #13: People only have sex with animals because it’s easy and convenient.
why this argument fails: This argument is not true. Zoophiles and zoosexuals have sex with animals because they have a genuine attraction to those animals. Non-human animals are not just some “sex toy” that people grab when no human is around; in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. People choose to be in relationships with non-human animals. There are many zoosexual people who are only attracted to non-human animals; on the other hand, there are people who are attracted to both humans AND non-human animals. But the fact remains — whether a person is “bi-species” (i.e. attracted to humans and non-human animals), or a person is a “zoo exclusive” (only attracted to non-human animals), in both cases there is a legitimate attraction. Zoosexuals love animals, they don’t use them as convenient sex toys. Additionally, there are people who are attracted to animals such as dolphins (animals they will probably never have contact with).
It is critical to remember that zoosexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation.
Also, here is a quote by Michael Kiok, a member of the ZETA zoosexual rights group:
“We [zoosexuals] see animals as partners and not as vessels for gratification.” — Michael Kiok, ZETA zoosexual rights group
Argument #14: People who have sex with animals are mentally ill and are psychopaths.
Why this argument fails: Zoophiles are not psychopaths — they are perfectly normal people just like anyone else. They are your co-workers, friends, collegues, etc. They probably just don’t tell you about it because it’s so taboo and stigmatized. The notion that zoophiles are “mentally ill” is derived from the prejudicial views of our society already discussed in this post (i.e. that because it is “disgusting” and “immoral”, it is thus “mentally ill”). But remember this: in the 1950s, homosexuality was considered to be a mental illness. Then in the 1970s, homosexuality was taken off the list of “mental disorders”. This just proves how subjective it is to call something a “mental disorder”. What is a “mental disorder” right now might not be a “mental disorder” 20 years from now. And I believe that in the future, zoosexuality will not be considered a mental disorder because it is a sexual orientation and because zoosexuals are perfectly rational people who are happy to live their lives as zoosexuals (however, they must do it behind closed doors and on the Internet because of the extreme hostility of society on this subject).
Zoophiles are not mentally ill, and zoosexuality is not a mental disorder — it is a way of life. A state of mind is only considered to be a “mental disorder” if it causesdistress to the person in question. Since most zoosexuals are not “distressed” by their attraction to animals, it is not a “mental disorder” (See the term “Ipso facto”). Just because zoosexuality isn’t “normal” behavior doesn’t mean it is a “disorder”.
It is worth mentioning though that a lot of zoosexual people have developed mental disorders and anxiety disorders due to the constant hostility and “angry mob” intolerance which has been aimed at them by society in general. This vicious hostility forces them to hide in the shadows (i.e. the “closet”) and worry all the time. These disorders and anxieties are caused by society’s hostility towards them; they are not caused by the zoosexuality itself.
Just as with homosexuality, people who are zoosexual can live out normal, mentally stable lives while still being true to their sexuality — so long as they don’t let society’s anti-zoosexual hostility get to them.
Argument #15: Zoophiles can’t be trusted
Anti-zoophile bigots think that zoophiles simply go around “raping” animals and that they “can’t be trusted” around people’s pets
Why this argument fails: People thing that zoophiles go around raping people’s animals — this is not true. Most zoophiles (i.e. ethical zoosexual people) only have sex with their own animals (the ones they are in a relationship with). Also, as discussed with Argument #7, it is inappropriate to use the term “rape” when referring to interspecies sex — that is a prejudicial, inaccurate term.
Some people are “bestialists” (i.e. people who don’t care about the welfare of animals and have sex with them just because they can) and some people are “fence hoppers” (i.e. people who go onto other people’s property in order to have sex with an animal that doesn’t belong to them.) However, most zoophiles are notbestialists and not fence hoppers. Most zoophiles do care about the welfare of their animals (and love them), and most would not trespass to have sex with an animal that isn’t theirs. Thus, a person who says “that [zoophile] can’t be trusted around your pets” is an ignorant person (because he/she is unaware of the fact that most zoophiles treat animals ethically, and would only have sex with his/her own animal).
The act of sex alone does not equal animal abuse. Such an act only becomes abusive if other factors are involved (i.e. size difference, violence, etc.) This is similar to how human-to-human sex is only abusive under certain conditions. This is what most people fail to understand. The reality is that the act of sex between a human and another animal can be ethical so long as certain conditions are met. And because of this, zoophiles can be trusted — most have the same integrity that any ordinary person would have. And as said before, for most human-animal sexual interactions, the word “rape” is extremely inaccurate and insulting to zoophiles.
Unlike the majority of people in society, most zoosexual people treat animals the way they would want to be treated. Most zoosexuals are compassionate towards non-human animals and believe that non-human animals have souls just like people. This is why many zoosexual people are also vegetarians — they treat animals with respect and would never hurt them. They also view non-human animals as being equal to humans. In general, your average zoosexual person is more likely to be compassionate to animals than your average non-zoosexual person.
Below is a Yahoo answers quote which reflects much of the above info:
“There is nothing to be ashamed of. A person who is sexually attracted to animals is called a “zoosexual”. There is nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to animals. Zoosexuals should be proud of who they are. There are thousands of zoosexuals out there. For proof, just visit beastforum.com (a website which has more than 874,000 members). There is nothing wrong with zoosexuality 
“In much of the world bestiality is illegal. Even in my liberal state of Washington, if someone “Knowingly engages in any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal,” it is a considered “Animal cruelty in the first degree [and it] is a Class C Felony,” which is a “maximum penalty [of] 5 years in prison and [a] $10,000 fine.” Is this justified or is it just another form of irrational prejudice?
First I would like to point out that humans are animals. So, in Washington State, because of how the law is worded, Washingtonians cannot even legally have sex with other humans! However, I doubt anyone will be charged with a Class C Felony because they had sex with their spouse. (“But judge, it was our wedding night!” says Jennifer after being sentenced to 5 years in prison for having sex with her new husband.)
Seven common arguments against bestiality (in no particular order):
1. It is unnatural. Therefore it is wrong.
2. It goes against God’s will. Therefore it is wrong.
3. You could contract an STD. Therefore it is wrong.
4. If you had sex with something like a horse, it could hurt you badly. Therefore it is wrong.
5. Animals cannot consent. So it is rape. Therefore it is wrong.
6. It is disgusting! Therefore it is wrong.
7. Only a pervert would want to do that! Therefore it is wrong.
The first argument listed is an appeal to Nature. You cannot appeal to Nature because She is neither moral nor immoral: She is amoral. This is an overused logical fallacy. It is similar to Hume’s is-ought problem. The Naturalistic fallacy, as it is sometimes called, is part of the fact-value distinction.
The second argument is for religious fundamentalism. It is about mandating, possibly by law, what one’s religion says its followers should do. If your religion tells you to do something, like only have sex within marriage, you should not hold people who are not part of your religion to the same standards as the people in your religion for keeping its laws.
If the third argument was followed to its logical conclusion, you would have to conclude that sex between humans is also wrong; because, as we all know too well, humans can pass on STDs to other humans as well. Just because someone chooses to do something that is dangerous, even life threatening, that does not mean that thing is inherently wrong.
The fourth argument is flawed because it assumes danger, even if an individual consciously chose to partake in it, presupposes wrongness. If that were true, though, skydiving and bungee jumping would both be immoral. Like John Stuart Mill said in On Liberty: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.”
The firth argument is flawed because its premise it is based on is incorrect. Some non-human animals can consent. For instance, if a woman lets her dog give her oral sex, it is consensual. The dog could choose not to lick the woman’s vagina, but the dog continues. Having sex with, say, a chicken, though, cannot be consensual and it would probably harm the poor bird. So in some cases it can be consensual, but surely not with all cases.
The sixth argument is the yuck-factor. It is a type of appeal to emotion, which is a logical fallacy. Just because you personally find something disgusting, it does not necessarily mean that thing is wrong. Disgust does not imply wrongness. Poop is disgusting, in my opinion, however, that does not mean poop is inherently wrong.
The seventh argument is an ad hominem argument. It is fallacious because it derives its conclusion from an insult and not deductively from the premise(s).
If someone looked objectively at the case, one would find that this norm, this phobia, is surely not justifiable, especially when it comes to making laws banning bestiality. The religious have a claim that can be justified for themselves, only within their religion, but they should not impose their religiosity onto others. The rest of the arguments, however, are classic fallacies.
So let’s end this irrational prejudice!