No, sorry, I just don’t find zoophilia or bestiality disturbing.

Like any form of sexual relations, there is a complete spectrum from light and benign to very nasty. I would denounce the nasty stuff, but human/animal sexual relations per se; no problem.

Humans get up to all sorts of disgusting behaviours.

All manner of crimes, environmental destruction, antisustainability… and on into a very long list of things that are all much worse than cross-species sex.

How can an animal consent?

Zoophilia must be one of the most bizarre and selfish of human behaviours.

How do animals consent to sex with other animals of their species?

Only the god botherers have problems with sex.
Or anything that is enjoyable.

Don't let them get political power or we will all suffer.

secular humanisn bereft of any moral base leads to having sex with animals as just another choice. Any thinking person with a conscience knows it is sick like many other behaviours that the moral relativists promote and condone (usually in the guise of being open minded when in fact it is sick minds).

I long for the day when animals need to give their consent to being used in farming - made to carry loads, pull a plough, have their eggs, milk and wool taken away, race, guard, hunt, guide, entertain, be experimented on and ultimately end up as chops on man's table.

Some meat-eaters justify their behaviour claiming that there's no greater merit for an animal than to end up in man's stomach and shoes, that it may even guarantee a higher incarnation next time around:

If man indeed is so superior that even the touch of his teeth and feet brings salvation, how much more grace would it attract to actually have physical intimacy with the superior ultimate species, man... it's usually not even as hard or painful!

runner

Why only humanism?

Perhaps animals may gain pleasure, solace and religious fulfilment from the act?

Call it the paedophile priest's defence?