I can only speak for myself, not any kind of movement or 'the community', because it's not that tight knit in such regards:

Why should it be legal?

Zoophilia is imho a sexual orientation. Like homosexuality. If you have it, you cannot be cured or decide not to be this way. Having a sexual orientation should not be illegal per se, imho. Because you just have it. You can't not.

Sex with animals then is when the orientation is put into practice. Some of us (I do not claim to speak for all or be correct in what I spell out here) make a distinction: There's people who merely want to have sex with an animal as a fetish thing, like the animal is then a prop for them. Some call that bestiality. And there's people who have sex with an animal that they life with like husband and wife life together. It may look like grasping for straws, but isn't that a difference if you have someone who is in love with a specific dog, takes care of him every day the best possible way and they are like a couple vs. someone who just wants to fulfill a dirty fantasy and any stray dog would do for him? Somewhere in there this whole topic resides, and I think there shouldn't be an official 'do what you want', because loads of idiots will do loads of idiotic things then. On the other hand if you have such a couple, then tearing them apart, neutering the dog and adopting him out to someone else and handing the person 5 years in prison seems idiotic, as the dog couldn't have had a better life and the person didn't harm anyone. So maybe the laws could be written with much more skill and distinction, please, keep such cases apart. Maybe everyone could have realized that the sex part also falls under animal protection laws already existing in case someone 'just fucks a dog'. It's like between 2 humans, we also have acceptable sex (not in public please but otherwise nice the two found each other) vs. rape. Just because there are rapists we didn't ban all sex.

Is it Animal Abuse? if it's not how do you define Animal Abuse?

Given the above, the answer is "not necessarily". Certainly there can be some asshole just raping an animal. But you can have consensual sex with animals. How is it animal abuse e.g. if you present your behind to a dog, he jumps on and has sex with you? If it felt like abuse to him, why does he not pull out immediately and move away?

Can an animal consent if so how?

Actions and body language. Every dog owner will tell you that the dogs can tell them they want to go out or get a treat or when they are happy or not. Some of that is more the fantasy of the owner, but there is a lot of body language you can read. Animals have definitely this body language (simply put male animals can get erections on you and hump you e.g.; female animals can do their 'mating display' towards you as they would do towards a male of their species they want to entice). Otherwise actions. As I said above if the dog keeps penetrating you, i am quite sure that's consent by continued action. They can also dissent: If you pester a dog enough who wants to get rid of you he can bite you. A large dog can tear your arm apart if he's really enraged. Or a horse can kick you. A normal size horse can put so much punch behind a kick they chip out chunks from mason walls with it. Particulary when they have horseshoes being kicked would be bad. So read the body language with which they signal dissatisfaction before that.

Should it be legal for all animals or only some? where do you draw the line?

Simple animal protection. If the animal is too small (a Chihuahua, wtf?), if the genitals are not compatibel (hens, wtf?). Although most people want mammals anyway.

why do you consider Animal sex a legal right?

I never put it this way, and I wouldn't, but I'd like not to have my complete life destroyed in case it happens just because the majority formed the idea of illegality from a "yuck" reaction. If it isn't yuck to us two, why not just leave us alone given there's also no harm to each other?

Also, I don't like the reference to pedophilia at all, full grown animals are very different to children, and I don't want puppies or foals or anything.

Second also, consider this as a thought experiment: Say zoophilia and 'being married' to an animal is legal. Say society doesn't discriminate such people (as in flipping out and firing the person immediately). Sure, they don't have to love it, but they officially by and large accept it like homosexuality is now accepted. You have to register yourself and the animal somewhere officially, and a - idk - special pink collar is handed out then. Since now I don't have to be secret about it for fear of having my life blown up: Now the veterinarian we regularly go to can know this and specifically look for any scars, or examine the genitals in detail (whatever that means or should do), or judge the psychological state of the animal during this visit. Does this dog look happy with that guy? Now we can kiss in public. Now - every time we are in public - everyone can see us and watch whether I am being a good dog owner or not. Sure, that would just be a "seemingly" look of the public display, but better than hiding, or not? It would be like a deal: Dear public, yes I know it's a little bit yuck, BUT now you can see for yourself a lot of the time if the animal is treated well in general. Dear zoo person, be good or else, but in return you can finally live a life. Is that maybe a deal for all? Now you can come visit me if you want to and have a look how the dog lives, conclude for yourself if he or she has a good life. If we all agree you might even watch in person how we get it on in the living room and make up your mind if that falls under animal protection or not. It might be - wild thought experiment - that the reasons which are stated by the crowd that wants to ban it are better accomplished by making the husband and wife part legal and registered. Instead of pressing all and everyone into illegality i.e. in hiding. I would be on board with that given I receive protection as in the non-discrimination laws. And it would be cool if some minimal perks also come with that special pink collar, like if such an animal is brought to an animal shelter that it can't be killed nor adopted out (or only with much much longer waiting times), because this special collar tells us somewhere there's someone frantically searching for his loved one. - Although I guess there would be a registration number or so on that collar and one may look up the register. Just wildly dreaming, over here.

Why should it be legal?

There's a part in me that says it should stay illegal and a part in me that says it should be legal.

I'm the only one who has this opinion here but I think that bestiality being illegal actually protects a few animals from being sexually abused. Because you know, people are being caught by doing this and not all of them are real caring zoophiles.
Unless there is a very easy way to track sexual abuse in animals, I think this is a problem.
You can't ring every doorbell of people who claim to have sex with their animals and check them out regularly.
There is no 'benefit of the doubt' if animals can't say they've been sexually abused if the owner never told that they had sex with their animal.

But there's also that part in me that says it should be legal.
I don't think these laws are because of the reasons I mentioned above, but because people are bigoted, uneducated and discriminate against people who have sex with animals.
A lot of zoos are scared that they'll be caught and it's no comfortable feeling at all.
Also, we're constantly reminded that ''laws say that bestiality is wrong so it's true.''
It's probably one of the most annoying things I can mention about such people. Laws don't decide what's right or not.
And well... in the end zoosex on it's own is not harmful, so there is no reason to ban it for that reason.
Might as well ban all sex in that case...

So I'm not really decided on this yet.
But if things like having sex with underage animals or having sex with other people's animals are allowed then it's an instant no and would even fight against it.

Is it Animal Abuse? if it's not how do you define Animal Abuse?

There are so many things that I and many consider animal abuse.
I'd say using an animal for your own good is animal abuse. And there are exceptions. If it's harm I always consider it abuse.

Can an animal consent if so how?

With body language.
You think an animal wouldn't resist when being raped?
Even if they didn't, there's clear signs of wanting to have sex with the mating rituals of their species.
I'm not going to make a full list of it, but the most obvious and most common signs is male dogs trying to mount you and bitches flagging you. But humans can also make the first move.
No force should be used and the animal should want to participate in the act.

Here's a few examples of what I have witnessed. There's enough cases where I tried sexual stuff with my bitch and she denied by walking away and turning her vagina away from me.
She usually goes do other dog things right after that.

But when she's in the mood she definitely allows me to do it and if I stop she will lick me, try to 'mount' me and shove her vagina in my face.
So yes, she makes first moves too by doing any of the above.
This happens often as I can't penetrate her with my dick because... let's NEVER talk about that. Oh, I made myself sad again... sigh

So yes, they can consent with their mating rituals of their species but I also think it's experience that can change such behavior.
There's a reason she 'mounts' me. Let's just say I fingered her in really weird positions...

Honestly, I think 'Why can't animals give consent?' a better question as I always thought it was ridiculous that out of all things, they can't consent to sex. But I think that's just how people are. People even wanted bestiality to be illegal just because it was disgusting, even if they could consent to sex.
As soon as an animal puts their dick into the same species, it's fine.
As soon as an animal puts their dick into another animal species, it's fine.
As soon as animal puts their dick into a human, RAPE!
Yeaaaah... no.

Should it be legal for all animals or only some? where do you draw the line?

It should be illegal to have sex with animals that aren't sexually mature or that don't legally belong to you unless given permission by the owner.
And there's probably enough species out there where it's harder to decide about consent or harm, but I wouldn't know. But of course a few species would be scrapped off the list.
Another unpopular opinion: I think that you should be able to have sex with small animals. Of course there should be a limit, but if what you are doing causes no harm even though the animals seems too small, it should still be allowed.
No harm no problem. Smaller animals just have more risk, that's just it.

1 - Domestic animals are valuable property. As such, their owner is responsible for them but also gets to decide how the animal is used. It is hypocritical to maintain that it is ok to enslave animals for human entertainment or use, such as in circuses or meat production, but that it is not ok to do so for entertainment that is sexual in nature. If you think that it is not ok to enslave animals for work or entertainment, then you accept that circuses, races, zoos, pulling charts, participating in animal therapy for handicapped people and so on is abuse. If you think it is not ok to get involved in sexual activities related to animals, then you accept that most modern breeding programs are abuse, since they are based around artificial insemination procedures in which you masturbate males and inseminate the females with your hands. These positions are coherent but you will find that they are not supported among the wide public.

2- Zoophilia, understood as a romantic attraction, is not abuse, since abusing is an action and zoophilia is not. Obviously, there are cases of sexual abuse against animals.

3 - Animals in the wild consent. The way they do depends on the species, but in many case they make it perfectly clear if they are ok with sex or not.

4 - There are animals with whom you cannot have practical sex, so trying to force the issue would be morally wrong at the very least. Should that be illegal? That is a different matter. I tend not to mix morality with laws since they tend to screw each other in a bad way.

5 - See 1.

Nice to see someone seeking the other perspective. I'm a bit busy right now, but I'll try my hand at this later today hopefully.

Wow, what an absolute clustefuck...

Would it be worthwhile for us all to work on a non-agressive answer to hese questions and sticky it? I mean I've not seen discourse so wonderful since the last time I saw a Tumblr discourse.

The Trump video was A+, btw.

To answer the original question of this thread, yes, sex with animals should be legal, because any abuse would already be covered by other laws. (Sex with animals is not inherently abusive).

Animals don't care about the laws. If the laws were supposedly made for animals, but the aninals don't follow or don't care about the laws, then the laws were made only for the humans who supported it. Only the humans who support the laws should be subject to the laws because they're the only ones who cared to follow in the first place.

Criminals support the criminalization of sex with animals, because criminals benefit from the illegal trade of sex and porn for money.

Bottom line. The animals never consented to the laws because the animals cannot legally consent.

[deleted]

It seems you've already stepped on people's toes here.

If you want a legitimate discourse and not the mob mentality that will ensue from here, PM me. I of course can also only provide ancedotal evidence, but hey, I mean that's all we got. We kind of all are experts on first hand at this, and at some point even in science, first hand evidence counts.

The problem with this discussion is the basis in emotion, which has little place in discussions of law. Instead, confront the issue logically.

The best place to start is the topic of animal abuse. It is animal abuse to cause harm to an animal, such as deliberately feeding it poison or assaulting it. In other words, reducing the quality of life of the animal.

Next, animals and consent. Logically and legally speaking, this is very much a ridiculous argument. Consent is not required for animals to be forced to have sex with other animals for breeding purposes, a practice that is central to many industries. Choice is not something that is given to animals as a rule. As such, legally speaking, consent is not an issue in this case.

Given that consent is not an issue, abuse is damage to the animal, and breeding of animals is not only legal but in some cases industrially necessary, the ONLY reason people pass laws regarding sex with animals is the same reason sodomy laws were passed: supposed moral high ground, or in other words, religion. And, given the Constitution, these reasons hold no water.

Those are the coldly logical reasons. They won't be popular in the zoo community, but they can't really be denied at the moment.