No this can't be an actual argument. Gotta be a troll. Maybe others hit no on accid-never mind. Actually I should start by saying for you to please clarify your argument. By the contention you just gave you put every odd attraction into the same boat as homosexuals (who have actually been gaining respectability in many circles). My argument is that the zoo-sexuality IS WRONG (not in usual taboo sense that can change with time and public opinion but in a biological sense). Human sexual intercourse is used for two things: pleasure and procreation. Pleasure's cause is usually an attraction to one or more trait-same as procreation. Procreation, while not the main point of most modern societies nowadays, is what sexual intercourse is objectively for; by extension, pleasure is "afterthought". By that extension what feels right is not always right. Zoo-sexuality, however pleasurable, does not procreate, therefore it is biologically wrong.
Zoo sexuality is not wrong. It is what people love like homosexuals love the same sex and heterosexuals love the opposite sex. It is just an attraction that some humans have. It is also found through in places like Rome, India, Native American tribes such as the Hopi, and India. So if it was accepted then, why can't it be accepted now.
As a relationship privacy without force, i can not see any problem. Lonely people maybe have animals for social company, and this can go to be sexual relationship. One of peoples needs are sex, and it may be better to act with an animal than make someone unhappy or maybe make crime. I am sure that many young people working in a farm in the the past have had sex with animals . Without to hurt anybody.
As long as one does not act on it, then it isn't wrong. But, if one does act on it, then it becomes an issue as animals cannot legally consent. Many may argue the animal consents by not violently reacting, but it cannot legally say "yes." So if it isn't acted on, not wrong, if it is, it is very wrong.