Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

To clarify, the BoP is on Pro. In order for Pro to stand a chance of winning this debate, he needs to prove animals can consent to having sexual intercourse with humans, which he hasn't done in any of his debates so far. I will start by negating some of Pro's highly flawed premises. Premise B.1) "Legality and morality are inherently linked, if something is moral it should be legal and if is legal it should be moral. Note this is not implying that if something is illegal at a given time or place it is immoral nor is it implying that if something is legal it is moral. Morality is independent of law, but law should be dependent on morality."Right here, Pro's argument already fails, legality and morality are not inherently linked. For example, cheating on your wife is generally viewed as immoral by the public. Does that mean it's illegal to cheat on your wife? Abosolutely not, since law isn't dependent on morality. In the U.S, you are not legally obligated to report a crime. Morally, most people would, but you don't legally have to. This premise is highly flawed. Morality isn't dependent on law, it's dependent on the person. Laws were not created to force morals on people. Premise B.2) Baring a full derivation and support of a moral theory, the relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage.Again, Pro needs to prove bestiality/zoophilia is indeed mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of forseeable pain or biological damage. Pro has defined consent as “permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.” My opponent has yet to show that animals can physically show that they are willing to have sexual intercourse with humans. Many countries such as the U.S. view bestiality as animal cruelty.[1] Does Pro mean to legalize bestiality all over the world, or just in the U.S. where he lives? (F) Informed/legal Consent vs Consent"No one who has a pet, no one who has partook in any animal derived products has ever had informed consent from any animals. It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action." True, no animal has consented to becoming a pet, nor have animals consented to being killed to be used as food. However, an animal is not being harmed by becoming a pet. They are given food and shelter, and can benefit humans i.e. exercise, companionship (non-sexual). As for use of animal products, food is necessary for survival. Meat provides an important nutrient (protein) to humans in order to sustain their well-being. Animal coats provide necessary warmth for humans to prevent hypothermia from occuring. Since Pro has not shown that bestiality is necessary for human's survival, there's no reason for this to be legal."The point is that informed consent, while an objective standard, relies on the context of the typical human mind and language. It loses applicability beyond the scope of the human race, attempting to apply it to morals involving non-humans leads to contradictions and absurdities." Exactly, we cannot apply these morals to non-humans since it does indeed lead to contradictions and absurdities. Animals cannot consent to having sex with humans."If in the ‘eyes of the law’ no animal can ever consent then no animal has ever consented to another animal. That means every single sexual encounter in the whole of history before mankind was in fact rape.""In the eyes of law" animals cannot consent to having sexual intercourse with humans, since humans cannot completely understand animal behaviour beyond reasonable doubt. Two animals from the same species understand each other's behaviours and can communicate with each other. A human cannot communicate with an animal that doesn't speak the same language them. "(G) Core Argument:" / If a practice is moral it should be legal (Premise 1) / Bestiality is a moral practice – see Support of Morality // Bestiality should be legal Again, morality and legality are not inherently linked. Something that may be considered immoral isn't neccesarily illegal i.e. infidelity. Most laws are created so other humans don't violate other humans rights. "(H.4) – Negation of H.3 Why would humans be the only species capable of accepting interspecies sex? How can observed instances of interspecies sex between two non-human species be reconciled with H.3?" Your preemptive arguments aren't necessarily my arguments. My point is that animals cannot effectively communicate consent to having sexual intercourse with a human beyond reasonable doubt.(H.5.3) Therefore even in the absence of verbal or body language, if an animal pursues a course of action where no negative consequences have ever been employed as the result of failing to pursue said course of action, then it has implicitly communicated its intention and its acceptance of the action. If that action is in fact an interaction it must also consent to the interaction.Pro has still yet to prove this. Has an animal ever been proven to attempt to directly have sex with another human? The answer is no. We don't know exactly what the animal wants. When a male dog starts humping (rubbing it's genitilia on something) another humans leg, does it want to have sex with the human or does it want to stimulate it's sexual organs on another humans leg for pleasure. We might never know. We don't fully understand what an animal really wants. We can only assume, which is what Pro is doing.(I) Support of Morality - Harm:I will prove that in most cases, bestiality inflicts harm on animals. According to Frank Ascione PhD, University of Denver, "consent is a subject that is frequently deliberated and it is suggested that bestiality is abusive as it is not possible for an animal to give consent." Bestiality usually includes abusing the animal in a violent, sexual way. Consequently, some animals can die from the injuries inflicted upon it. Therefore, in most cases of bestiality, harm is necessary in order to get the animal to have sexual intercourse. [2] (J)"I want to wrap up with an example question: Horseback riding. Do you believe a horse can consent to being ridden? How would you know?"To be honest, we don't know 100% if a horse can consent to being ridden. In most cases, a horse will kick a human off if it doesn't want to be ridden, but we don't know for sure. If we assume a horse can't consent to being ridden, we have to look at the harm that's being done to the animal, and the benefits for the human. Riding a horse does not inflict physical harm on a horse, where as forcing an animal to have sexual intercourse does. Moreover, riding a horse is a means for transportation, as transportation is a means of survival. Before cars were invented, humans used horses to effeciently get around and to find food sources, and assist with work. Since riding a horse is beneficial to humans, and isn't considered to harm animals, it's legal.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.rspca.org.uk...;