If you consider the animal's consent important then the law breaks down in terms of ownership of animals, neutering animals, breeding programmes, showing animals and killing animals as some examples.
Or maybe that is why many people consistently argue against those things too. Or maybe why some people argue against some of those, but not others, because they take into account the intent and purpose of various actions, some of which are related to the animal's health. And yeah, there are many other people who have inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean the ideas are necessarily inconsistent.
Sometimes it does require attaching special significance to acts of sex compared to other acts, that might not be universal. But then one could ask what need is there to risk being wrong about, when you could seek out a companion of the same species for the animal? And arguments that animals are more complex don't help, as they open up more possibilities of negative consequences on the animals' psychology parallel to what can happen to humans with sex.
Or maybe that is why many people consistently argue against those things too. Or maybe why some people argue against some of those, but not others, because they take into account the intent and purpose of various actions, some of which are related to the animal's health. And yeah, there are many other people who have inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean the ideas are necessarily inconsistent.
Sometimes it does require attaching special significance to acts of sex compared to other acts, that might not be universal. But then one could ask what need is there to risk being wrong about, when you could seek out a companion of the same species for the animal? And arguments that animals are more complex don't help, as they open up more possibilities of negative consequences on the animals' psychology parallel to what can happen to humans with sex.