Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

"PLEASE DO NOT TYPE AS IF YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO EVER SAW SUCH."If you have then explain how it cannot be described as 'an animal wanting you'. "NOW, SINCE YOU DIDN'T, PLEASE, CONSIDER THE FEMALES." It would be irrational to presume only males are capable of seeing humans as sexual partners, just so happens females tend to be very passive when they are consenting to sex so it's less obvious. We need to keep in mind that they behave pretty much the same for males of their own species. There are still strong indications, females will back up into men, show excitement in their species specific ways and immediately go on about other business right afterward. That last is important because if they simply didn't care at all they would go about their business and not wait. "SERIOUSLY, I DON'T CARE TO PREVENT THE SEX IF IT IS A GOOD THING"It is generally a good thing. Pleasure is good. <- caveman enough for you?"PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HURT THINGS, LIKE TO HURT ANIMALS BECAUSE ANIMALS DO NOT TELL ON THEM. BUT TOO MANY PEOPLE will HURT ANIMALS IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY."1. Zoophiles are not 'people who like to hurt things'.2. As I pointed out in the comments, anyone has the opportunity now. All they have to do is adopt an animal and then cause them pain in ways that don't leave permanent evidence. I am not offering a solution for that, and anti-zoophile laws never were a solution."WHY DO YOU TYPE THE ABOVE /\ AND THEN, STATE THAT THERE CAN BE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE PAST BELOW?"I didn't type "there can be no knowledge of the past" below. I implied that pinpointing the first instances of horseback riding or animal domestication is quite impossible, much less identifying the circumstances surrounding those events. We know roughly when animals and people started living together and it was a long time ago. We can observe right now that we have significantly greater capacity to communicate with these long domesticated animals than we do with wild animals."WE DO." You're ignorant of the law, there are animal cruelty laws that cover wanton violence."I DID NOT TYPE "ADOLESCENT" BECAUSE I DID NOT MEAN ADOLESCENT."Children who have not hit puberty will have little to no interest in sex even if they know about it. That is why I read it as 'adolescent'."IF YOU GIVE PERMISSION FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS, A LOT MORE OF IT WILL HAPPEN."Fine with me. "IF A LOT MORE OF IT HAPPENS, CHILDREN WILL ASSUME THAT THEY GET TO TRY."Children assume a lot, they assume they get to have sex with each other. Whether they are allowed to try or not should be a parents decision. All things considered it is safer for an adolesant to have sex with an animal.Animals won't betray the teen's trust by gossiping, won't get pregnant, won't transmit HIV. Even more an animal won't get it's heart broken when a fickle teen changes their attitude.I don't see the problem so long as legal guardian and animal are consenting."CHILDREN ARE NOT GOOD WITH MANY SORTS OF ANIMALS IN NON=SEXUAL ACTIVITIES...BITES, SCRATCHES, PERMANENT FEAR."If they are afraid of the animal why would they want to have sex with it? Or are you saying in trying they will get the animal mad and then get bitten?"I WOULD NOT WANT LITTLE KIDS PUTTING FINGERS IN FIDO AND I DON'T SEE HOW YOU ARE GOING TO STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING." Tell them "no"? Is this seriously your line of argument? Sensing the decriminalization of zoophilia legions of prepubescent children are going to somehow learn about sex before they get the birds and the bees speech. Shortly thereafter they will start sexually molesting animals despite having little to no sexual drive themselves?! Young children and animals typically learn to respect each other's boundries and ussually end up being pals for life, I have no idea where you are getting this 'hypothesis' from."THE SENTENCES ABOVE ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE OF THIS - NEXT - SENTENCE"No... they aren't. Disease transmission is not unique to sex therefore any ban based on that justification would have to apply to more than sex. You would have to make it illegal for a dog to lick a person or a person to feed a horse without wearing gloves.Clearly it is not that big of an issue."I WANT TO INTRODUCE THE ABOVE SENTENCE /\ TO YOUR PREVIOUS SENTENCE"No one knows who built the first stone house, there is no way to be sure who did it, how, or what it looked like because it was 8000 years ago and it could have been buried somewhere we would never find it. Yet humans have a long history of stoneworking, and can now build fine stone houses.By the time writing and records were established animals were already well integrated into our life."WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF BEING NOT OFF? THERE IS ENOUGH INFO ON GAYNESS AND GENETICS FOR YOU TO LOOK SILLY SAYING THAT NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT GAY NESS."I said no one has a clue what causes it, not that nothing is known about it. I stand by that because it's correct not because I am afraid of being wrong (although I am afraid of being wrong, so should you).If you know what causes it I would be very interested in knowing."WHAT RELEVANCE IT HAS IS IN ANSWER TO YOUR LAST STATEMENT."Ah, so you believe speculation about ancient possibilities is how you know a horse can consent to being ridden... ok have it your way.-------------------------------------------------================------------------------------------------------------Plenty of room to address a question asked in the comments. Is zoophilia a sexual orientation or a disorder?I believe a lot of this stuff is more political than objective disctinctions, however I will quote from this document which was typical of the kind of arguments that got homosexuality reclassified as a sexual orientation instead of a disorder. http://www.torahdec.org... "For a mental or psychiatric condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder it must either regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning. With the exception of homosexuality (and perhaps some of the other sexual deviations when in mild form, such as voyeurism), all of the other mental disorders in DSM-11 fulfill either of these two criteria." The key things supposedly distinquishing an orientation from a disorder being "regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning"Both are false for zoophilia. It in of itself causes no distress nor social impairment. Zoophiles do tend to be eccentric in someway but most people seem to find it quite tolerable (if not charming). Many zoophiles hold jobs with a lot of social interaction with humans and handle it fine.The above paragraph is based on my person and conversations with other zoophiles online. I can of course not disclose any names for you to check on.Needless to say it is the truth and if it comes to it many zoophiles would volunteer to participate in an objective study. Until such time I would remind any who doubt it that ignorance is not the same as negation. If you are feeling brave you can visit a forum frequented by zoophiles, I think you'll their self-respect and social skills quite normal.On a last note I would like to remind readers that just because there may be some statistical association between a sexual orientation and a disorder does not mean they cause each other. Check out http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... that concludes "Findings from our study emphasize the fact that sexual orientation minorities are vulnerable to poor mental health outcomes, including suicide attempts. Clinicians need to be aware of these specific negative mental health consequences when assessing sexual orientation minorities." Does the orientation cause mental disorders or does the humiliation and fear of being part of a small taboo minority cause them?