I have trouble following (again).
You think that having sex with an animal about whose state of consent we can only guess should be considered rape and therefore punishable (I gather) but that neutering, to which the animal would definitely not give its consent, is OK? I mean we do it anyway to dogs and to cats (neutering) because it is more convenient not to have litters all the time or the neighbour complaining - but is that really OKer than having sex with a pet (if you're of that persuasion?)
I don't know about AUS, but in Germany there was only recently a law that forbids circumcision of infants on the grounds that they can't give their consent to it and that it is therefore malicious injury and punishable. (Jews and Muslims were really not amused and special readjustments were made). And circumcision (male) is relatively harmless compared to neutering. Er... where was I heading again? Yes. As long as there is no harm done to the animals, I really don't care if people show more than normal affection.
Anyway, it won't help gay people if zoophiles are treated equally unequally - the other way round's the way to go. Just abolish that damn law.