Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

"Assuming that animals want YOU is a big leap."Not if you had seen what I have seen. When a male animal gets on your back and starts humping you, there is no other rational interpretation.The zoophile would have to believe that somehow they had telepathically taken over the animals mind. If you are going to say something like "they can't help themselves" don't bother, of course they can most people train their animals not to make aggressive moves of any kind towards humans. They learn and don't try but they couldn't learn if they had no choice."Size/pain is not mentioned in your post."Of course not, I should hope it is obvious that not all animals are valid sexual partners. Temperament, human sociability, anatomy, and of course individual variation are all factors in determining if an individual of a species should be considered an appropriate partner.None have considered these matters with as much depth and concern than zoophiles I assure you.If you must have some specific species to work with, zoophiles have established that dogs [of general wolfish dimensions], horses, sheep, goats, and bovids are generally acceptable partners.They all have long histories of domestication. Humans have a long history of developing and understanding communication with them, especially with dogs and horses. The genital structures of dogs, sheep, and goats are similar enough in size and shape to humans in order to interface.It is generally not safe to be penetrated by full sized stallions or bulls but that is more a risk to the human than to the animal. There is no way in hell a mature mare or cow could be damaged by being penetrated by a human (penis).When animals are in pain they tell you. A horse's ears are a good example of body language humans can understand, dog vocalizations such as whimpering or growling indicate how they feel about something.The reactions of these animals despite being contrary to popular expectation quite in line with what one would expect before irrational prejudice took over. Sex is pleasurable, and in nature they get it when they can. Their reactions range from passive neutrality to actively soliciting future events.Unless they were hurt by it, or have a serious lack of trust for the human they typically don't show any negative reactions.I don't see how anyone could expect otherwise, animals have no cultural taboos to violate no preconceptions on what is demeaning. They don't know what they don't know, so they don't know how much smarter humans are.If you want to hurt them mentally or physically you essentially have to hurt them physically or behave in a very non-pack/herd like manner, they don't have the intelligence to take insult many other ways. Hitting them, yelling at them constantly, not sharing food when they are starving, or leaving them in a pit would be examples of the kind of insults animals would understand.In summation, considering the absolute and complete void where evidence of pain might exist I dismiss it as a serious possibility in the relevant cases."You would need further regulation to prevent full sized humans for splitting chihuahuas"No I don't, intentionally causing severe pain or death to your animals is already covered by animal cruelty laws that need make no mention of sex. You may as well have said "you need further regulation to prevent a full sized human from hitting a Chihuahua with a hammer""and SOMEthing to limit child-experimentation"You mean sexually mature adolescents experimenting with animals? Why? that is their parents purview. Better animals than other humans their age, no unwanted pregnancies."AND, I do not see a comprehension of communicable diseases in your thinking."I comprehend communicable disease just fine, that is why my post does not make mention of it. Just like HIV doesn't make all human-human sex immoral no interspecies STD makes all interspecies sex immoral. Not to mention the fact that there isn't anything equivalent to HIV on the radar, all diseases communicable by sex are similarly communicable by any body fluid contact. Such may occur everytime you touch an animal unless the strictest precautions are taken."Pets started by them coming to us willingly and staying with humans willingly."You can't possibly know that it was 8,000 years ago. "Genetics plays a big role in homosexuality and has been studied a lot. So, your point that no one has a clue about gayness is way off course."Afraid I am not way off. It has been studied a lot that is true but to little avail. If you heard stuff about a 'gay gene' being discovered you have been the victim of sensationalist news stories. It has been inferred that genetics plays a big role in homosexuality. If a 'gay gene' has been identified being homosexual could be predicted. If you think it has been identified tell me what chromosome it is on? Is it dominant or recessive trait?"The studies of horseback-riding have postulated that the first time a human got on a horse, it was, probably, teen-aged boys and it was, probably, consensual."Aside from the fact that this can't postulation can't possibly be supported what relevance does it have at all?Tell me if you will how somebody can author a study which estimates the consent of an animal which died a hundred generations ago but a zoophile can't do the same with a horse standing right next to him?