user21525: If homosexuality is okay because it is never explicitly stated in the canonical texts, then how about zoophilia, or necrophilia? Those aren't explicitly stated in the texts too, so are those 'okay'?

user17652: Maybe this will help with your question...

I, a monk, gone to the charnel ground, saw a woman cast away,
discarded there in the cemetery.
Though some were disgusted, seeing her — dead, evil —             lust
appeared,
as if I were blind  to the oozings.
In less time than it takes for rice to cook, I got out of that place.
Mindful, alert, I sat down to one side. Then apt attention arose in
me, the drawbacks appeared,   disenchantment stood    at an even keel:
With that, my heart was released. See the Dhamma's true rightness! The
three knowledges have been attained; the Awakened One's bidding,
done.
Thag 5.1

Here is the background to this verse, with an additional instance of lust by a monk called Kulla, in which the Buddha felt it neccessary to step in and assist Kulla with his practice due to his lust being so persistent.

Religious Reflections on the Human Body - Page 86
From memory, I cannot think of any instances regarding lust towards animals. There was the case of Nanda, who suffered greatly with lust, and who was mentioned in the Jataka tales. I believe Nanada was a donkey and suffered the plight of lust in that form too. That's the nearest I can get to animals and lust. In any cases, in no way whatsoever would I consider zoophilia to be inline with Buddhist practice.

user-1: There is a story about queen Mallika in the comy to Dhammapada

One day, Mallika went into the bathroom to wash her face, hands and feet. Her pet dog also came in; as she was bending to wash her feet, the dog tried to have sex with her, and the queen appeared to be amused and somewhat pleased. The king saw this strange incident through the window from his bedroom. When the queen came in, he said angrily to the queen, "Oh, you wicked woman! What were you doing with that dog in the bathroom? Do not deny what I saw with my own eyes."
https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=151

She then denies what she had done & goes to hell for a rather short time but it wasn't due to her misbehaving with dog.

From that time, the queen was full of remorse for having lied to the king and for having brazenly accused him of misbehaving with a she-goat. Thus, even when she was approaching death, she forgot to think about the great unrivalled charities she had shared with her husband and only remembered that she had been unfair to him. As a result of this, when she died she was reborn in niraya. After her burial, the king intended to ask the Buddha where she was reborn. The Buddha wished to spare his feelings, and also did not want him to lose faith in the Dhamma. So he willed that this question should not be put to him, and King Pasenadi forgot to ask the Buddha.
However, after seven days in niraya, the queen was reborn in the
Tusita deva world.


He who asserts what is not true, goes to hell, as do those who deny what they have done. The lowly behaving pair becomes equal after death. - dhp 22 (chapter on hell).


21525: <p>If homosexuality is okay because it is never explicitly stated in the canonical texts, then how about zoophilia, or necrophilia? Those aren't explicitly stated in the texts too, so are those 'okay'?</p>
 17652: <p>Maybe this will help with your question...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I, a monk, gone to the charnel ground, saw a woman cast away,
discarded there in the cemetery.</p>
<p>Though some were disgusted, seeing her — dead, evil —             <strong>lust
appeared,</strong>
<strong>as if I were blind  to the oozings.</strong></p>
<p>In less time than it takes for rice to cook, I got out of that place.
Mindful, alert, I sat down to one side. Then apt attention arose in
me, the drawbacks appeared,   disenchantment stood    at an even keel:</p>
<p>With that, my heart was released. See the Dhamma's true rightness! The
three knowledges have been attained; the Awakened One's bidding,
done.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thag/thag.05.01.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Thag 5.1</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here is the background to this verse, with an additional instance of lust by a monk called Kulla, in which the Buddha felt it neccessary to step in and assist Kulla with his practice due to his lust being so persistent.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/hHZ60.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/hHZ60.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p><a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DfgICZVIqkoC&amp;pg=PA86&amp;lpg=PA86&amp;dq=necrophilia%20in%20the%20Theragatha&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=n834HpNIwH&amp;sig=ACfU3U3hghTY8Pbh4iCT5IprVJCWVlsPQw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjFuPi12_jxAhUsQ0EAHWFwDi8Q6AEwBnoECA4QAg&amp;authuser=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Religious Reflections on the Human Body - Page 86</a></p>
<p>From memory, I cannot think of any instances regarding lust towards animals. There was the case of Nanda, who suffered greatly with lust, and who was mentioned in the Jataka tales. I believe Nanada was a donkey and suffered the plight of lust in that form too. That's the nearest I can get to animals and lust. In any cases, in no way whatsoever would I consider zoophilia to be inline with Buddhist practice.</p>
 -1: <p>There is a story about queen Mallika in the comy to Dhammapada</p>
<blockquote>
<p>One day, Mallika went into the bathroom to wash her face, hands and feet. Her pet dog also came in; as she was bending to wash her feet, the dog tried to have sex with her, and the queen appeared to be amused and somewhat pleased. The king saw this strange incident through the window from his bedroom. When the queen came in, he said angrily to the queen, &quot;Oh, you wicked woman! What were you doing with that dog in the bathroom? Do not deny what I saw with my own eyes.&quot;
<a href="https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=151" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=151</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>She then denies what she had done &amp; goes to hell for a rather short time but it wasn't due to her misbehaving with dog.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>From that time, the queen was full of remorse for having lied to the king and for having brazenly accused him of misbehaving with a she-goat. Thus, even when she was approaching death, she forgot to think about the great unrivalled charities she had shared with her husband and only remembered that she had been unfair to him. As a result of this, when she died she was reborn in niraya. After her burial, the king intended to ask the Buddha where she was reborn. The Buddha wished to spare his feelings, and also did not want him to lose faith in the Dhamma. So he willed that this question should not be put to him, and King Pasenadi forgot to ask the Buddha.</p>
<p>However, after seven days in niraya, the queen was reborn in the
Tusita deva world.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>He who asserts what is not true, goes to hell, as do those who deny what they have done. The lowly behaving pair becomes equal after death. - dhp 22 (chapter on hell).</p>
</blockquote>
