Granted, with regard to an animal that actively had sex with a person or an animal that was the object of bestiality, you find circumstances in which the exemption for one who slaughters it outside the Temple courtyard cannot be based on the fact that it is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, e.g., a case where one initially consecrated it, at which point it was fit to be brought to the Temple courtyard, and then engaged in bestiality with it. Since it was initially fit to be brought to the Temple courtyard, another verse is needed to exclude it.
אלא מוקצה ונעבד – אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו! בקדשים קלים, ואליבא דרבי יוסי הגלילי – דאמר: קדשים קלים ממון בעלים הוא.
But with regard to an animal that was set aside for idol worship or one that was worshipped, this explanation is not tenable, since an animal that was already consecrated would not become disqualified because a person does not render forbidden an item that is not his. The Talmud responds that it is possible to disqualify a consecrated item in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, such as a peace offering, and in accordance with the opinion of R' Yosei HaGelili, who says: An offering of lesser sanctity is the property of the owner.
דתניא: ״ומעלה מעל בה׳״ – לרבות קדשים קלים, שהן ממונו. דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי.
This is as it is taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the obligation to bring a guilt offering for robbery for taking a false oath concerning unlawful possession of the property of another: “If anyone sin, and commit a trespass against YHWH, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbor” (Leviticus 5:21). The term “against YHWH” serves to include one who takes an oath with regard to another’s offerings of lesser sanctity, since they are the property of their owner. This is the statement of R' Yosei HaGelili.