I'm okay with this kind of digression, it's generating good discussion.
Because of the ambiguity between **** or consensual sex between animals and species, I think it's fair to keep it illegal.
It would be difficult to argue that it was
fair to maintain status quo, so much as
easier. Besides, there's less ambiguity than one thinks, there's only a double standard: either consent can be demonstrated in a manner other than verbally, as in our notion of informed consent between competent persons, or we can grant license to act in situations where the process of consent can not be demonstrated (which also applies to people acting on people). In this day and age, people who argue that we can't demonstrate meaningful interaction between certain different species without at least acknowledging that it varies per species need to brush up their knowledge on animal behaviours.
On the grounds of acting without consent, this is only an issue
wrt animal rights insofar as such action constitutes an act of abuse: there exist recent legal precedents in which certain individuals have commited acts of bestiality but no harm could be demonstrated, thus a conviction could not be made. Given that post the infamous case of Mr Hands the US states seemed generally to lean towards the criminalisation of bestiality (ostensibly on the grounds of risk to self, I suppose, given what happened to Mr Hands), these more recent judgements actually surprised me, but less so in the context of how animal philosophy is developing and actually starting to make an impact.
at what point do we determine that something is a mental illness?
For our purposes, behaviours are considered pathological if:
1) They cause harm to self.
2) They cause harm to others.
3) They cause significant distress to oneself in considering them unacceptable.
4) They are considerably detrimental to a person's social functioning.
This covers all forms of pathological behaviours, like addictions, personality disorders, mood disorders, eating disorders, schizophrenia, as well as paraphilias. In fact, to this end this definition has led to sexual behaviours becoming progressively considered not necessarily a form of mental illness in itself, though controversy does remain as a result: note that paedophilic behaviours are by definition pathological given the above, as we currently consider engaging in sexual behaviours with a minor to constitute abuse of the minor, which has led to the interesting phenomenon of activist groups attempting to argue that this shouldn't be the case and the definitions need to be reviewed (after all it wasn't a problem in Ancient Greece or Rome!)
Tangent: I remember reading about the case of a man who was brought before the court having stolen the corpse of his ex-girlfriend's recently deceased (female) dog. If I recall correctly, he was found, er, attempting intercourse with said dog,
in the middle of the street. The prosecution wanted to charge him with "a crime against nature". As bizarre as the incident was and as mentally unwell as this made the defendant seem, only the felony charge of stealing the dog's body, and the indecency charge of exposing himself in a public place, stuck!
