You can't be born hetero or gay because as I said, it only develops later.
If we were really born with our sexual orientations, then you are only proving my point.
I had never had any attraction to humans, ever.
As I already said, I was 10 when I already had slight zoophillic thoughts. That's extremely young for someone to think about such a thing.
EDIT: But I still don't believe you have a sexual orientation before you become sexually mature, or at least not before you start developing sexually. This is one of the many reasons that sex with underage creatures is rape.

And yes, it's possible to have an attraction for something you haven't seen before. I know that sounds very weird, but you would only realize that attraction when you see that animal for the first time.

And what's your reason for being here? Are you a furry?

Rude of me to barge in, but he's a non-zoo who's interested in zoophilia.
No, not animal fucking.

Pardon the long reply. I'll be diversifying my answer a bit as well, so don't fret if something doesn't seem directly related to what you said.

Innate sexual attraction is developed in part through schemas, the same schemas that would make a goose treat a golf ball like an egg, or make a child more readily fear spiders after a traumatic experience than flowers. We can define the typical schemas of attraction as being masculine or feminine, but it's fair to say that there is much more nuance than that, and that it only really defines certain archetypes. After observing a number of studies and literature reviews on the topic, I have grounds to conclude that there are congenital causes to which zoophilia would be a more likely outcome -- even mild autism and schizophrenia, for instance, both carry statistically significant and outstanding correlations with the paraphilia. The samples of these studies were large and diversified enough to conclude that this proclivity was largely independent of living conditions or exposure to certain stimuli. This is no surprise of course, as mental disorders have almost invariably been correlated with deviant or abnormal sexuality. It has also surfaced in cases involving psychological trauma and sometimes physical trauma to the brain, but there isn't any overwhelming correlation between the two relative to other paraphilias. Given that schemas are general out of necessity (detailed schemas are extremely expensive from an evolutionary standpoint and render said traits limited in application within a diverse gene pool), it's not entirely surprising that nonhuman animals that only vaguely match what that schema is intended for provoke attraction in some cases. That's not to say that attraction isn't influenced by living conditions or experiences, of course. Someone that is never exposed to nonhuman animals, a specific breed, species, or class, can't possibly form an attraction to them, like how a lion that doesn't know the savannah can't desire savannahs specifically. It is also worth noting that like any gene(or set of genes, in the case of attraction), although they all share the same loci with what we can call null or normal genes, mutations may occur, or certain genetic traits may interact with one another to cause unexpected effects. This is especially true from a neurological standpoint.

However, we live in a culture where the expectation is attraction to humans, and that's visited upon regularly through the media and the typical familial structure. Humans are sexual and romantic icons -- as they should be in the capacity of common preference. So what would supercede the paradigm that society as well as their peers promulgate? It's not likely to be familiarity, as there are many that have had minimal exposure to nonhuman schemas but still formed that attraction. There is the possibility of familial dysfunction contributing to it, but there hasn't been any statistically significant correlation found. Misanthropy is a possible promoter, but that would necessitate a rethinking of innate attraction, as distaste for a schema shouldn't override an existing sexual or romantic preference for it. Then comes into question exclusive zoophiles. Why is it that some of our users, despite successfully securing desirable human partners and even having intercourse with other humans in the past found no romantic bonding or sexual attraction occurring with any available humans? It's supposedly an innate and consistent attraction, yet despite exhaustive efforts and a culture that promotes it, attraction to humans sometimes simply isn't possible for an individual, often at the consequence of great personal distress when they identify an attraction to nonhuman animals. If the last sentence hadn't made it clear, there have been a number of cases where people have identified as asexual for their entire lives before discovering an attraction to nonhuman animals -- sometimes after overcoming clinical depression and finally gaining or regaining the sexuality that it had sapped from them.

There is another thing I've found as well -- zoophiles have a proclivity to categorize and remember nonhuman animals that they are attracted to much better than the average person. I actually described this best in a previous post, which I'll past an except from here:

we don't look at another human and call them an animal, or even a human for that matter. We're more inclined to call them a woman, or a man, boy/girl, young/old or even identify their race alongside their gender because they're individually distinct to the average person. We may even begin speculating about their careers, interests, and lifestyles, not just because we can, but because of that individual distinctness, looking at clothing, hairstyle, demeanor, and so on. Sometimes, you can even identify certain mental traits at a glance, like whether they're on the autism spectrum or suffer from a sleep disorder. Generally speaking, you can tell who a person is, and their differences with another person at a glance. We're very good at that, and that's why it's pretty hard to pass yourself off as another person, even when you are very similar.

For a dog zoo, that same principle likely applies to dogs for them as well. They're individually distinct and are likely more precisely profiled by that individual, but they may still struggle telling cats apart. They don't look at organisms separate from dogs and humans the same way, and in alot of ways, that difference manifests itself in a lack of precision.

Whether it is a cause or effect of zoophilia is indeterminate, but the evidence I've observed during my time here has me erring on the side of this trait being an effect of a greater condition.

I'd like to note that when I say some horse zoos formed the attraction spontaneously, I meant exposed in such a way that it isn't intended to arouse and with only normal to light exposure to them. Never in person, and surfacing during the onset of sexual development if not before it in some instances. There are cases where the attraction seemingly developed later in life, but there isn't any evidence to suggest such instances aren't the result of latent attractions surfacing. Of course, that is partly due to a lack of investigation by the scientific community on the matter, but zoophilia isn't a priority for researchers as you can imagine.

I am neither a furry, nor do I have any immediate or personal reason to be here or moderate this community other than an enjoyment for helping others. Outside of this community, I'm pretty boring, all told.

EDIT: It may be worth noting, too, that some of our own users are, for instance, homosexual with humans but heterosexual or bisexual with nonhuman animals, or have distinct sexual preferences between each different species or breed.