I like that we are able to have a civil discussion while so far apart in our views, that said, really? Morality is relative? That kind of logic leads to a abuse. So Hitler wasn't inherently wrong, humans can decide that rape is acceptable? After all.. In the animal world.. The female of the species don't always necessarily consent to bring bred. We don't decide what's moral, well.. Society does, but it's decisions are irrelevant. There IS a right and a wrong. They are explained in scripture. Take a look at Romans 1:20 and the following few verses
Morality is relative, but people use rationality to determine whether something is moral or not; in the case of Hitler, people have determined his actions to be immoral.
When humans are interacting with a non-human animal sexually, "consent" is not relevant, just as "consent" is not relevant sexually when two non-humans have sex with each other. Morality is determined by whether harm/injury occurs. Artificial insemination and spaying/neutering do not involve animal's "consent", but interspecies sex (involving a human) involves "consent" by observing the animal's body language.
Regarding scripture: there is no God, at least in the manner in which humans define "God", so "scripture" is irrelevant.
Also, you said animals weren't equivalent to younger humans, why? If you believe we are just animals- what makes us more important? If you acknowledge we are superior, were more than animals and there is a God
Humans are animals, but species difference and age difference are two totally separate topics. I already explained the matter in the previous post. And humans are not superior, they are animals just like all other animal species.
As I said before, one has a right to their religious beliefs, but the New Hampshire government does not
have a right to ban sex with animals (an unconstitutional ban) based on their prejudices and irrational views of "morality".