It's less deviant than homosexuality and nobody can prove otherwise. Compare a zoophile who maintains a normal family life with his or her animal lover in plain sight to a fag who has to go out of town for secret buttsex adventures until he gives his wife aids, or some mutilated tranny monster. The same propaganda machine that forced normies to tolerate faggots could easily do the same for animal fuckers if the lever pullers wanted to, but it seems that the sexual revolution has passed over the beast question and is going straight to pedophilia. This is probably because the entire purpose of the faggot/tranny/pedo agenda is to promote antisocial behaviors, and sex with animals doesn't provide the same ROI.

Consent theory is unsound, idiotic feminist gibberish when it concerns humans, let alone animals, and the only reason it gets misapplied to animals is because it's the only moral framework that liberal morons can grasp to justify their emotional rejection and disgust (keep in mind that these reddit ethicists could easily be forced to unconditionally accept zoo just as they accepted homos and trannies if the order came down from their masters). These retards treat "consent" like some intractable metaphysical problem as if we aren't discussing creatures that mindlessly rape and brutalize whatever they feel like, or claim that domestic animals possess the theory of mind to trick humans into unwittingly abusing them (but are somehow still too stupid to communicate "no").

It's really nobody's business what a man or woman does with his dog, horse, sheep, etc. so long as the creature isn't being subjected to serious pain or injury. It certainly shouldn't be more damaging to a man's reputation than being outed as an HIV+ gay anal degenerate meth addict, but this is the world we live in.