Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

Unless you are admitting that this utilitarian princible is subjective (and nobody can argue against the subjective, it's a bit like faith in that way) you have some objective method to quantify good done and harm done, obviousy in the same units if you are checking if good >= harm.Well, obviously there isn't a scientific method to measure pain or harm--yet. However, it's absurd to argue that it is entirely subjective because of that. Most reasonable people can agree, for instance, that one death is less harmful than two deaths (barring side effects), that spending a relatively small amount of money is less harmful than widespread poverty, et cetera. I would also ask for your explanation as to how your argument is not essentially that preempted in C.1. It seems you are just ignoring my argument that it is moral and saying that doesn't matter because it would cause more harm if it was legal. (although causing harm is inaccurate, it wouldn't cause any harm any more than the right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure causes harm by making it easier to escape punishment)Well, to a certain extent one should reject section B, because you basically are trying to make it so that your opponent has no arguments by pre-emptively banning most of them. Not cool.But my argument depends on the quote, "Morality is independent of law, but law should be dependent on morality." There's arguably enough of an opening for me to get this argument through.Moreover, I would argue that how ethical taking an action is should be based on the probability of different results. For instance, it's unethical for me to shoot at someone even if I miss and kill a Hitler clone... unless I'm guaranteed to miss whatever I'm shooting at.How many zoophiles can honestly say that they are completely sure as to the behavior of animals they are attracted to? How many can say that they will not give the animal a disease, or vice versa? How many can say that they are sure that the pieces of anatomy in question are even compatible? We do not allow people to discharge firearms randomly because doing so is stupidly risky. The same, I think, applies to mating with an animal.Pro may argue that his explanation of the resolution eliminates my argument. Despite the problem that it is one more time when he tries to neuter his opponent, most people who drive cars manage to avoid doing something stupid with them. If something is so incredibly prone to abuse that it's too risky, then it should be banned. Or shall we allow people to own diseases like Ebola because one person might not screw it up?What is the cut off point for you? When do the rights of a minority cease to be critical? Is it an absolute number as in the case of God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah or a percentage of the population? To answer your questions in order:1. See below.2. When they are so prone to abuse that the most ethical thing to do is eliminate them. In otherwords, hardly ever.3. Percentage. Of course. What right do you have to sacrifice the liberty of even one man? (Sorry to be melodramatic but you invited it by leaning entirely on pragmatism)I don't care about liberty. I don't care about rights. I care about making sure people don't get hurt, and protecting them. I will do anything for that. There is no rule, in my opinion, that does not have a scenario where it should be violated. Freedom of speech? Still illegal to spill the location of the safehouse of people in witness protection. Freedom of religion? You don't get to sacrifice people, even if they're willing. Freedom of assembly? If there are so many people that the floor's going to fall in, we're going to break it up and move you someplace else.Nothing is absolute. I don't have some magical "right." What I do have is a brain, and reason, and the ability to use that to determine the most ethical course of action.Not if the investigation occurs a month afterward. There are ways to inflict pain without leaving evidence. The electric collars often used to keep animals in an area can be manually triggered at one's sadistic will and if the police ask one can just say "that stupid dog just won't learn." Food can be laced with very unpleasant tastes and yet not malnourish the animal. If the animal is taken out of the very uncomfortable place they could recover and have no physical signs within minutes. An animal could be completely immobilized by ropes and restraints and left that way for days and yet when the ropes are gone no one can tell it happened after the blood starts flowing again. The animal could be subjected to mental torture, being constantly yelled at and frightened. Being worked to exhaustion looks like a well exercised animal after a nights rest. Is it really your postulation that sex is the only form of animal abuse in existence that can't be easily detected after the fact? If it is, doesn't that say something in of itself?... like maybe sex was arbitrarily added to the list despite having little in common with the rest? To answer your questions respectively, yes (assuming that you screwed up and meant rape, and that detection is happening very shortly after the fact), and don't be ridiculous.Well correct me if I'm wrong but your last argument seemed to have nothing to do with the morality of human-animal sex. You tried to justify a ban by saying it would catch more animal rapist. You did not say having consensual sex with an animal is immoral because somewhere out there someone else might be having non-consensual sex (and I thank you for not saying it because it is ridiculous).It has everything to do with the morality of human-animal sex. Act-utilitarians are perfectly capable of supporting making something illegal even if it's acceptable in rare circumstances. Keep in mind that by not making something illegal, you're basically saying, "By all means, go out and do it!" When something does go wrong, that is at least partly your fault. You said it was risky, not wrong. Just as in a hypothetical world where all sex had to be recorded by camera abolishing that requirement would risk more rape but it would not make sex without a camera wrong (because it never was wrong). It's a great deal less risky, though, and the harm resulting from the law is a great deal more. You clearly implied that animal rape was what was immoral, and that was your basis for banning animal sex. Yep. My counter is then: If rape is the real crime (that which is immoral and deserves punishment) then people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty (as with all other crimes) no matter what the inherent difficulties in gathering evidence may be. It is unjust to take something that does not deserve punishment and make it a crime because you find the presumption of innocence troublesome for the real crime.Okay, I think you're misunderstanding me.After the fact, the rape is what's wrong. The action is completed. We can know what has happened and what the consequences are.Before the fact, the risk is what's wrong--the risk that you are committing rape, or will harm your partner. I must ask what your standard of good and evil are then, and what inviolate goal gives context to 'necessary' in that statement. It's not necessary (for survival) to eat meat or have pets so we could stop all animal breeding programs right now. See act-preference utilitarianism. In fact every animal who has have contributed to the gene pool has 'risked rape' so why should they not be dealt with as you deal with humans who take this 'risk'?Courts aren't equipped to take every single member of the animal kingdom out of the wild and put them on trial for a crime to which there are usually no witnesses, and for which the imprisonment of them would cause a total ecological collapse. Nature isn't great, but it's what we're stuck with.If someone falls in love with a painting, I think there really is something wrong with them. If the painting loves them back there is something wrong with my understanding of reality. Animals are not shown to have romantic love. Love, sure, but that's no different than the love they have for someone who isn't a sexual partner but a close friend or family member. As far as I know, romantic love is exclusive to humans.