"whether you wish to call it "zoophilia" or beastiality and whatever attempts to philosophically tapdance around the definitions of consent, this still does not change the fact that this is illegal."
It doesn't matter to me if it's legal or not. I'm merely concerned with the morality of the issue.
"another can have their behavior modified to submit."
I agree that if an animal is coerced in such a way then it is most definitely rape. However this does nothing to refute my argument because all you're saying is that _some_ zoophiles could force the animal to do something it doesn't want to. That doesn't make sex with animals immoral in general.
"First off, dogs that have no human contact do not instinctively seek humans for sexual contact, leg or any other part. A dog that pursues this contact has in some way lost its concept of what species it is, what species humans are, and what species other dogs are."
Irrelevent. Even if a dog is as confused as you say, that does not change the fact that they are capable of making their own advances, which indicates that they want to have sex. You cannot have non-consentual sex with a willing partner. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
"This behavior can be corrected as simply as pushing Fido away, or putting him outside, and can be trained as not proper behavior."
This is exactly the kind of coercion you claim to be arguing against. It's forcing the animal to do something it does not want to.
"Arguing that a "zoo" [animal rapist in every instance] should be accepted or tolerated in any ordered society is selfish."
Claiming that my argument is selfish is an uninformed opinion. I do not have sex with animals and I never have or will.
"whether you wish to call it "zoophilia" or beastiality and whatever attempts to philosophically tapdance around the definitions of consent, this still does not change the fact that this is illegal."
It doesn't matter to me if it's legal or not. I'm merely concerned with the morality of the issue.
"another can have their behavior modified to submit."
I agree that if an animal is coerced in such a way then it is most definitely rape. However this does nothing to refute my argument because all you're saying is that _some_ zoophiles could force the animal to do something it doesn't want to. That doesn't make sex with animals immoral in general.
"First off, dogs that have no human contact do not instinctively seek humans for sexual contact, leg or any other part. A dog that pursues this contact has in some way lost its concept of what species it is, what species humans are, and what species other dogs are."
Irrelevent. Even if a dog is as confused as you say, that does not change the fact that they are capable of making their own advances, which indicates that they want to have sex. You cannot have non-consentual sex with a willing partner. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
"This behavior can be corrected as simply as pushing Fido away, or putting him outside, and can be trained as not proper behavior."
This is exactly the kind of coercion you claim to be arguing against. It's forcing the animal to do something it does not want to.
"Arguing that a "zoo" [animal rapist in every instance] should be accepted or tolerated in any ordered society is selfish."
Claiming that my argument is selfish is an uninformed opinion. I do not have sex with animals and I never have or will.