Legalize Bestiality

AbuseIn some cases, yes bestiality can be animal abuse.As Con himself states rape is "The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse."For the sake of argument we'll assume you can substitute "animal" for "person".Even if nothing is said between the human and animal this does not mean the animal has been forced to have sex."In this scenario, my opponent is correct. This is not animal abuse."Con has conceded that consentual sex between a human and an animal is indeed possible."The resolution is that bestiality should be legal, not that animal initiated bestiality should be legal. Because the resolution is not limited in this way, my opponent is arguing that all bestiality should be legal. In many, if not most cases, bestiality is not animal initiated. The resolution would legalize these scenarios as well, thus giving way to animal abuse."This is a very huge stretch.For starters even if bestiality is legalized that does not mean that the separate animal abuse statutes which exist in every jurisdiction would have to be rewritten to make animal abuse legal in the case that the offense coincided with bestiality. "Animal abuse" would still be illegal, so in the case that an act of bestiality also happened to involve animal abuse(such as the use of force) then that act would still be illegal, it just wouldn't be prosecuted as "bestiality", only as "animal abuse". Bestiality being illegal necessarily implies that the person could be convicted if the prosecution merely proved beyond a reasonable doubt that sexual relations were going on, even if they didn't prove it was abusive in any way. Bestiality being legal, while animal abuse is illegal means that a person who rapes an animal could still be prosecuted for "animal abuse", just that merely proving there was sex would not be enough(and indeed unnecessary if they could prove there was any abuse outside of the sex as whether the abuse was sexual or not would be legally irrelevant), they would have to prove it was abusive.Saying that putting out a resolution as "Legalize Bestiality" necessarily means I am proposing to legalize it in each and every case no matter what else is involved is as ridiculous as saying that if I were to post the debate that "Sex Between Members of the Same Sex Should Be Legal" that this would mean I wanted it to be legal even when it was rape or involved minors, or that if the topic were "Legalize Marijuana" that this would mean I'd be in favor of letting children use it or letting people sell it laced with impurities or allowing people to force others to use it.If that was what I was proposing then the proper title of the debate would have been "The commission of bestiality during a crime ought to be an affirmative defense to any criminal charges". But that's not what I said, so any illegal action that is being committed at the same time whether it be animal abuse, stealing someone else's animals, unlicensed possession of some species that requires licensing to possess, or even a non-animal related crime like reckless driving if they are having sex while driving a car would still be illegal.""All I must do to fulfill my BoP is present a good reason to have laws against it."""It" being "bestiality" itself. Citing that some cases involve abuse and therefore we have a good reason for banning bestiality is like citing cases of women being raped by men and saying that we should ban heterosexual adult sex.On DolphinsNow that Con has conceded from his response to my example of the couple above that consent need not involve verbal communication to be valid this part of the debate is a moot point. Animals are clearly capable of non-verbal communication with humans, including whether something feels good or bad. Ever go to pet a cat or a dog? You can clearly tell whether the dog is OK with you petting it or is not in the mood.