Bestiality should be illegal in all cases in the United States

Remember, my opponent has the burden of proof because he is arguing for a change in the law. He asks that I not use extreme examples, but I already made clear that if I prove bestiality should not be made illegal in a single instance, I win. My opponent accepted the topic by accepting the debate. == Rebuttal == STD"s "[T]he STIs (sexually transmitted infections) we associate with person-to-person sexual contact, including HIV, cannot be transmitted through sexual contact between humans and animals because these infections are species-specific." [1] Most infections cannot cross the species barrier because they are designed to bind to certain specific sites in the body of one specific species. Therefore, all of my opponent"s arguments that humans will get STD"s from animals or that animals will get STD"s from humans are wrong based on basic biology. -->My opponent cites a number of non-STD"s that can cross the species barrier, such as rabies, fleas, tapeworms, and salmonella. However: ===>(1) Many of the diseases are not transmitted via seminal or vaginal fluid (e.g. tapeworms, cysts). ===>(2) Many of the diseases can be transmitted to humans by mere contract with the fur of the animal or being bit by the animal (e.g. ticks, salmonella, rabies). People should be careful around these animals anyway. ===>(3) Most zoophiles have sex with their pets, who are unlikely to contract these diseases and can be tested on a regular basis. It"s probably easier to get your animal tested regularly than to convince a significant other to get tested regularly for STD"s. ===>(4) Similar risks of STD"s are present for human-to-human sex. If anything, the risk is higher for human-on-human action. By the time people reach their 40"s, 26% of Americans will have genital herpes. [2] Around 2 million people in the US have HIV. [3] 12 million new Americans are infected with an STD annually. People should be given the freedom to assess these risks and decide for themselves what to do, whether their partner is a person or an animal. ===>(5) If the human is a male, he can wear a condom. If the human is a female, she can buy special pet condoms for cats and dogs. [5] My opponent claims condoms do not prevent STD"s. His source says that the Catholic Church has told members that condoms do not protect against HIV because of micro-tears, but the same source says that the World Health Organization has debunked this myth. Consent My opponent concedes that there are some intelligent animals, like chimps, that can consent. Therefore, my opponent loses. I only had to prove that bestiality should be legal in some cases. My opponent claims that chimps would go crazy and attack people, but obviously, if a chimp says in sign language, "Let"s have sex," then it is not going to attack a person for doing just that. So my opponent loses off this example alone. --->Aliens My opponent claims that I win this argument if I prove that aliens exist. However, based on the number of habitable planets and the time scales involves, the existence of another intelligent life form is nearly a certainty. [6] Physicists testifying before the House of Representatives concluded that "[the discovery of] life on other planets is inevitable." [6] If we find intelligent life, we should be able to f**k it too [as long as those life forms consent]. Because aliens are part of the Animal Kingdom in our taxonomy system, legal sex with rational aliens would prove that sex with non-humans should not be illegal in all cases. Therefore, Con wins. --->My opponent"s animals My opponent claims that his dogs have never tried to have sex with him. However, my opponent has probably witnessed his dogs humping his legs or various other things. If not, his dogs are either female or neutered. Given this behavior, my opponent probably just misinterpreted this as something funny, when really it is the dog conveying a willingness to use the human body for its pleasure. Dogs don"t seem to care what they hump, so consent for many dogs comes easily. My opponent therefore concedes my argument that when the animal initiates sex, particularly when it is male dog on female human, there is obviously consent. Therefore, my opponent fails to provide a moral justification for why bestiality should be illegal. Humans have no right to do this to animals My opponent"s only argument is that animal cruelty laws prevent gratuitous cruelty to animals. However: ===>(1) Hunting for pleasure is not deemed a gratuitous reason for causing harm. Likewise, sex for pleasure should not be considered a gratuitous cruelty, particularly if the animal consents. ===>(2) Many states, such as Texas, only ban cruelty to domesticated animals [not wild animals]. [7] These laws exists so that if someone shoots your dog with BB pellets or otherwise hurts your dog, there is a criminal statute to punish the person. It has more to do with protecting your property interest in your pets. These laws do not prove that animals have their own rights or are morally considerable beings. My opponent drops all my arguments about how no system of morality can support granting rights to animals. Animals are not part of the social contract because they do not agree to play by the rules of society. Harm to animals cannot be considered under utilitarianism or else we couldn"t hunt animals, could not breed animals (because this often involves the male raping the female), and could not even eat animals. Because the US does not plan on changing any of these other laws, there is no moral justification for banning bestiality. Pro therefore fails to meet his BOP. --->My opponent argues monkeys will attack humans if they try to rape them I agree, this would probably happen. People attempt to rape monkeys at their own risk. However, we allow people to do other things that are dangerous, like skydiving. Unless my opponent proves that animals have rights, which he has so far failed to do, then there is no moral justification for disallowing animal rape. Utilitarianism --->My opponent claims that illegality would not cost trillions of dollars because we simply wouldn"t lock up every person that has sex with animals. However: ===>(1) What is the point of the law if we don"t enforce it? My opponent claims that we have drug laws and selectively enforce those laws. This result is precisely what is wrong with drug laws in this country. They are almost exclusively enforced against black males, but not any other drug users. The fact that we don"t care enough about the law to enforce it against all drug users proves that drugs should be decriminalized. ===>(2) My opponent has raised a new point: it is impossible to enforce a bestiality law without violating the Constitution. People have a right to privacy, and the Supreme Court said in Griswold v. Connecticut and reaffirmed in Lawrence v. Texas that the bedroom is a private place that the state should not be barging into. The Constitution does not allow the law enforcement tactics that would be necessary to enforce bestiality laws because such methods violate the Constitutional right to privacy inherent in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, because bestiality laws are unconstitutional, vote Con. ===>(3) Even if only 10% of zoophiles were arrested, the cost is still $500 billion. Many people are exclusive zoophiles, so it is hard to believe they would not break the law since they are only sexually attracted to animals and not humans. This cost of incarceration is hard to justify since people are not harming another person and usually not even harming an animal because the animal often consents. In addition, my opponent drops my argument that if zoophiles are denied an outlet for their sexual urges, they may resort to rape against other humans. Thus, on balance, making bestiality illegal is simply not worth it. Very few people benefit from illegality, but many people are potentially harmed. The Bible The US has separation of church and state. The Bible cannot justify the adoption of a particular law. Regardless, Leviticus also says that gay sex should be illegal. Lawrence v. Texas says it is unconstitutional to outlaw gay sex. Leviticus is also not even a good source of morality, since it also says to stone disobedient children to death. == Conclusion == My opponent loses because I only needed to show a single case where bestiality should be legal. I showed that it should be legal with (1) primates that can verbally consent using sign language, (2) hyper-intelligent aliens, (3) when the animal consents. Alternatively, I show that under various philosophical theories, animals cannot have moral rights, so Pro fails his BOP to justify why we should adopt such a law. And lastly, I show that such a law is net harmful to the extent it costs a lot of money and potentially causes rape. Because I offer five independent reasons to vote Con, I urge a Con vote in today"s debate. P.S. [1] http://goaskalice.columbia.edu... [2] http://commonhealth.wbur.org... [3] https://www.cia.gov... [4] http://www.iaff.org... [5] http://petcondoms.org... (lol) [6] http://www.upi.com... [7] http://www.animallaw.info...