@Devonin. I am not and have not been saying that Homosexuality and Bestiality are identical. My point is to prove that the same reasons advocates use to make homosexuality right are also the same reasons that can be used to approve acts of bestiality and other morally reprehensible acts.
To the rest who are hung up over the issue of consent. If I'm correct, you are saying that the only moral issue separating acts of homosexuality from acts of bestiality is the issue of consent. So then putting consent aside, (just assume consent was not an issue) would you then approve of bestiality?
Remember that consent is much more a legal than a practical definition, and it's not unfeasible to create some type of consent laws in regards to animals, as consent is not limited to verbal communications. Consider the dog who rolls over when petted, would that not constitute consent?
And finally, for those accusers who show little knowledge by calling bestiality rape. It is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for bestiality to be classified as rape.
Consider the Californian statutory penal code SECTION 261-269. It starts with
"Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:" *feel free to view the rest
http://davismaar.org/definition.htm
notice the requirement of a person, and most states have something similar to this effect. For this very same reason one who kills a cat can not legally be charged with a homicide even though a killing occurred, because a homicide MUST occur between a human being.