>The argument is always consistent for the meat eater: Animals can not consent therefore there isn't moral dilemma while eating them, but because consent is necessary for sexual relations, there is a moral dilemma in having sex with them.
And before someone tries to engineer a "gotcha" from the wording, that statement means that consent for all parties must be present and possible for a sexual relationship involving a human.
>The argument is always consistent for the meat eater: Animals can not consent therefore there isn't moral dilemma while eating them, but because consent is necessary for sexual relations, there is a moral dilemma in having sex with them.
And before someone tries to engineer a "gotcha" from the wording, that statement means that consent for all parties must be present and possible for a sexual relationship involving a human.