Exactly.

• When we accept humans killing animals. We should also accept humans copulating with animals. In both cases, we are neglecting animal’s consent and perspective. It’s logically consistent.
• If we value Animal’s perspective and concent then both Killing and Raping of animals by the humans should be abolished. Another consistent argument.

Through Animal’s perspective - Raping an animal is bad but Killing is worst outcome as it removes them from the gene pool, which means they can’t be able to produce their offspring and continue their progeny/generation. ~ Humans justify killing animals because they think through their own benefits, because they neglect animal’s perspective.

You can’t compare living animals with inanimate objects. “Animals can’t consent” is a strong argument given against zoophilia. I want you look at the social inconsistent values; where killing animal without their consent is accepted but copulating with animal is condemned by giving the argument that “Animals can’t consent”. Here the consent is inconsistent and getting used for convenience. [Necrophilia is also condemned on the basis of corpses’ inability to consent.]

“Animals can’t consent” is one of the strongest arguments given against zoophilia. Any conditioned trickery by a human would get considered as sexual misconduct.

Thanks for taking this question in purely analytical manner and questioning the conflicting social values. There are many comments here which tries to answer the question but get engaged into sense of social shame and prejudice rather than focusing into the logical consistency with given premise.

I am sorry for making you feel this way.

Thanks for acknowledging the inconsistencies within social values and showing optimism for the ideal outcome.

I have no mischievous intent against any group. I just saw some moral inconsistency. So I though let’s AskLemmy about their opinion on this topic. People are answering pretty rationally and are not just outright dismissive.

I was looking for the logical consistency. They are accepting killing of animals (murder without consent) while condemning the rape (sex without consent) of animals.

Is there any historical evidence that relates zoophilia to decreasing the domesticated animals’ population thus causing food scarcity? Is there a material basis for the condemnation? [Some religious scriptures suggest to kill the animal after performing copulation.] I never thought that way.

Who do you personally consider a bigger criminal?

• Human murdering other animal without their consent?
• Human raping other animal without their consent?

(We are making judgments solely based on the animal’s perspective. So we can’t include disingenuous human arguments like “They died a noble death for our survival”.)

• Zoophilia is Rape (sex without consent)
• Killing animal is Murder .

In both cases we should be considering animal’s perspective (what animals feel in both cases). We can’t just involve human’s perspective for our own convenience. Do animals consent to be murdered? I don’t think so.

There are party loyalists out there. Unfortunately, they constitute the majority of population and they vote and decide who governs you. Can’t neglect these unconscious/unaware populace.

The question was about behavior. Imagine if there are 4 children - Voting Blue kills 2 children and voting Red kills 3 children. By voting Blue - we’ve saved 1 child and start celebrating. The problem here is the behavior of cheering such leadership, by cheering we’re burying the core problem of “Child killing” and erasing the acknowledgement of “No child should be killed” ideal from the mind of the masses.