Why isn’t zoosexuality accepted? So many double standards...?

[..]

The media reports stories of bestialists who harm animals or force them to have sex with them, but the majority of zoosexuals love animals, would never harm them, and treat animals as sentient beings with their own rights.

many reports of zoosexual crimes involve a human injuring or killing an animal while having sex with it. These incidents are definitely crimes, just as human-human rape is definitely a crime. However, if a non-rape, non-injury human-animal relationship is comparable to a non-rape, non-injury human-human relationship, can it still be condemned? In other words, where does one draw the line between zoosadism (harm to animals) and genuine zoosexuality, in which someone respects for and/or cares for the animal in question? Because only zoosadism events are reported by the media, is that why the social perception of zoosexuality is so negative?

“The use of the word “inhuman” [to describe zoosexuality] is inaccurate because humans were never “above” other animals to begin with. Also, when a lion has sex with a tiger, does that make a lion “in-lion”? And if a dog has sex with a cat, does that make the dog “in-dog”? Why is it that ONLY when it comes to humans, something is suddenly called “inhuman” if that person has sex with an animal? It’s all such bull****. Bestiality is not “inhuman”, it is not “barbaric” and it is not “repugnant”. Also, bestiality is not “unnatural” because interspecies sex happens in the wild.

"People need to change their moral compasses. When a human has sex with a non-human animal it is not “immoral” because humans ARE animals, and all animals (including humans) are sexual beings, many of whom are capable of having sex for pleasure. Zoophiles need to fight against bigotry.

Also, remember this fact: according to dictionary.com, the definition of “inhuman” is: “lacking qualities of sympathy, pity, warmth, compassion, or the like; cruel; brutal”. But most zoosexual people ARE compassionate and DO have warmth/sympathy for animals. In fact, it would appear that zoosexuals tend to be MORE compassionate towards animals than the average person. Thus, one cannot called zoosexuality “inhuman”, because it directly contradicts the dictionary definition.” - a quote from beastforum.com.

A lot of people put sex with animals in the same category as abuse...but the majority of zoophiles have a genuine love for animals. There have been legitimate studies done, and zoosexuality is a separate sexual orientation. There are zoosadists, who hurt animals or abuse them or force them to have sex, but they are quite the minority. True zoophiles treat their animals with respect and love, not fear and punishment.

“Lack of consent” cannot be used as a genuine argument against zoophilia. Why are people criticized for having sex with animals, but not criticized for eating them? Having sex with an animal can involve consent, whereas slaughtering an animal and eating its meat does not involve the animal’s consent. The same can be said for hunting.

A horse, for example, can certainly consent. Since most zoophiles are genuinely kind, caring people, the horse isn’t restrained and can walk away, kick, or defend itself in any way possible. If the horse stays, without showing aggression, it seems to be a no-brainer that the animal is actually enjoying itself. Good zoosexual people understand that an animal has a right to consent or not consent (by using signals and body language).

How is having sex with animals harmful? Is it more harmful that forcefully inseminating a female horse to act as a live breeding machine, which as a practice is ultra common? We’re basically raping them already.

Another claim is that bestiality is like pedophilia...this is completely false!!! Most people who are sexually attracted to animals are attracted to mature animals (the word “animal” includes both humans and non-humans). In other words, the vast majority of zoosexuals are attracted to mature animals who have reached adulthood. In this sense, zoosexuals have the same aversion to pedo-oriented sexuality that most people have. When people bring up the (non-existent) pedo “link”, it is highly offensive to most zoosexuals.

I don’t see why people are SO close-minded when it comes to this! Saying it’s “disgusting” or “immoral” is close-minded and not a genuine answer...humans are animals, too, and not “above” horses or dogs or any other animal.

If someone is attracted to animals and doesn’t abuse or hurt them, why should it be so wrong for them to enjoy each other in that way?
How is my logic “fucked up”?
Animals can’t communicate distress? You’ve never been around horses, obviously. If a horse doesn’t want something, they will kick, bite, strike, and get VIOLENT. They certainly know how to communicate.
I love animals too! I would never treat them wrong, why is it so wrong if the animal is NOT tied and is freely allowed to walk away and isn’t mistreated?!