Anti zoo arguments

[egoldstein]

Be that as it may, let's break down the definition of orientation shall we..
1. A familiarization with something
2. the direction of someone's interest or attitude, especially political or sexual
3. in Behaviorism is mentally directing attention or physically directing the body towards a stimulus of some kind
4. Sexual Orientation is a term used to describe our patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction—and our sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions. A person's sexual orientation is not a black or white matter; sexual orientation exists along a continuum, with exclusive attraction to the opposite sex on one end of the continuum and exclusive attraction to the same sex on the other, but it sometimes implies either or..
Claiming that in order for an orientation to be true; you have to have a genetic basis backing it does not apply for "all" orientations.. Some can be psychological, it is entirely possible to be attracted to something from the start but not be based biologically towards it.. You have the right to show skepticism, but are the above definitions not applicable to zoophilia?

​If that's the definition you want, sure. But that includes everything as an orientation, making the term useless. I'm not the one who picked the definition of it being genetic, it was inherent in not only the original post, but you reaffirmed it when you said:
 

...unchosen, inborn form of emotional and sexual attraction

The word "inborn" pretty much entails genetic, unless you want to start splitting hairs. Either way, be it genetic, environmental, or otherwise, unless there is evidence it's just an assertion. There's nothing wrong with an assertion, but let's go back to the original post for a second.....
 
Original
 

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.

Key points here are that it is asserting that people are born this way, what's the evidence for this? None has been presented, so the claim that it is an orientation we are born with is no more valid than the claim that it's a choice. Sure it's possible one is correct and the other is incorrect, but without evidence there's no way to know and nobody has any reason to believe either claim. That's why it's a piss-poor retort, it adds nothing factual, just another unsupported claim.
 

You have the right to show skepticism, but are the above definitions not applicable to zoophilia?

This isn't skepticism, it's plain logic. Anything one can assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If I say that I am The One True God, Creator of Everything, should that be believed? Of course not, there's no evidence to support the claim and while someone can choose to believe it, their doing so is not a logical decision.
I went on to offer a bit more than just criticism, I decided to show how the reasoning for the initial claim, zoophilia being unecessary, was fallacious, a non-sequitur (litterally "it does not follow"). For the sake of the point, even if we provisionally accept the claim that zoophilia is a chioce, that doesn't matter as an enormous number of other actions and preferences which are choices are not prevented merely because they are a choice. So even accepting the premise, the conclusion does not follow.