Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

1.) "Also, slavery was once legal in our country, but that did not make it moral."If I thought legality and morality were equal I wouldn't be arguing that the law is immoral. Read more carefully, I said the law should reflect morality not that it always does.3.) "Since Pro is making the claim, he has the burden of proof to show that animals can, indeed, consent, and that pain or biological damage is avoided."Incorrect, the burden of proof is on the party that claims something exists, even if someone else made the original claim of non-existence. I have the burden of proof to show that animals can and have consented to sex with humans. If you are claiming they are necessarily harmed by sex the burden of proof is on you. I will not be called upon to prove a negative."This claim clearly contradicts number one above. If legality is inherently linked with morality, then if it is illegal that would mean that it is, indeed, immoral."Already addressed, please research the difference between the words "link" and "equal"."This point also seems to contradict his first point. He says that if I wish to talk about how dangerous it is, he will not entertain those statements."how it can sometimes be dangerous, as can almost anything in life. Also in this case I was referring to danger to the human whereas in the first case I referenced the harm to animals."Pro seems to want to avoid a philosophical debate, but an obvious problem with this is that a debate over consent is a philosophical argument."I don't wish to avoid it, but I know there is not enough time or space to debate whether consent is a valid standard and whether animals consent. You should not have accepted if you did not wish to accept the standard I specified in the scope of this debate."because animals are only instrumentally valuable, valuable only insofar as humans valuable them. They are not intrinsically valuable, that is, valuable as an ends unto themselves"I would like to point out that upon such a premise there is no way in hell that anyone could claim animal abuse is immoral much less claim that bestiality is animal abuse therefore it is immoral."I also disagree with Pro's contention that no human can give informed consent."They can, but not perfect informed consent - i.e. consenting while being aware of ALL possible consequences with infinite precision for the odds. I was pointing out that the concept itself is rooted in a general but arbitrary level of understanding. As you say when someone consents to something they are consenting to consequences they may not have predicted. It is only considered wrong if one party intentionally withholds relevant information from another party capable of receiving the information about an interaction."Pro's case of the surgeon is correct, but that is because the surgeon intends to help the patient and cannot wait for consent or the patient will die. However, if a woman is passed out drunk at a party and a guy asks for her consent, he still cannot have sexual relations with her, even though she is unable to receive the information. We call that rape, and rightly so."Two cases but the only objective difference is in the intentions of the person seeking interaction. Since the doctor wants to 'help' he can ignore a requirement for informed consent. But since the man at the party is being 'selfish' he cannot. Morality in such a system does not turn on informed consent but intention, arbitrarily deemed noble or base.Perhaps we should introduce the concept of implied consent. The doctor has good reason to believe that if awake and in their right mind the patient would consent to being helped. The man at the party probably does not have the same. Yet still, informed consent is not always considered a requirement.What if the woman was not passed out but merely drunk? What if in that state she consented to sex, but it was not something she would do if she was not drunk? Above you said you hold drunk drivers accountable for their accidents, do you hold drunk party goers accountable for their 'accidents' too?"So in short, Pro has not met his burden of proof. He has not proven that animals can consent. In fact, he seems to have based his case on the fact that they can't consent. Therefore, his case is self-refuting. If consent is important, and animals cannot consent, then it is tantamount to rape to have sex with animals."You totally lost me, you didn't even address my proof at this point. It was the negation of the two universal statements. I at no time said all animals can't consent. I hope your next post will be significantly more honest than this one appears to be."1. I'm not sure this is completely true."I am sure it is false, glad you agree."So even though an animal may seem to express sexual desire, it would be wrong to take advantage of an animal"Correct me if I'm wrong but I am reading "So even though an animal may consent, it would be wrong to take advantage of that consent"Why?"2. Pro seems to knock out number two, and I don't see it as important."If both 1. and 2. are false, and you seem to be admitting they are; then as I said A.) must be true in some cases. That was my proof which you said I had somehow contradicted."But the problem with Pro's claim is that the reason we forbid sex with animals is because we are rational beings (unlike animals). We can fully understand the gravity of our actions and accept the consequences."To be clear, you are not saying here that animals cannot consent, but are now shifting the goal posts to "animals can't understand what they are consenting to"I addressed this already with my comments on informed consent. I don't care if they understand sex as well as a human might, I challenge you to give a good reason why that would be necessary when they can't ever understand anything as well as we can."This is not to say that animals have no value, rather it actually protects animals when we realize this."You said :"because animals are only instrumentally valuable, valuable only insofar as humans valuable them. They are not intrinsically valuable, that is, valuable as an ends unto themselves"If an animal's only value is its value to a human, and a human only values it as a sex toy, then there is no value to protect if that animal can't be a sex toy.It comes down to this, you would let a human walk up to an animal slit it's throat and consume it's flesh, but if they have consenting mutually enjoyable sex you would disallow it because the animal isn't as smart as human. It's absurdly contradictory."it protects those animals from a species who is quite capable of doing unspeakably bizarre and harmful things that other animals could never even dream of."Prove that sex is unspeakably bizarre and harmful please."Again, I don't know that it would be impossible for an animal to pursue an action to which it does not consent. Pro has provided no evidence for these claims"Evidence is not required, I proved it by definition. It is a contradiction in terms for a consciousness to disagree with itself."I think that Pro's argument that animals can consent are dealt with by the argument that they don't really know what they are consenting to"The animal is consenting to sex, whatever sex means to them. The human is consenting to sex, whatever that means to them. Perceptions of the interaction need not be identical, and consent is consent no matter else the truth may be.You can't prove me wrong by ceding that I am right. You can't debunk my argument that animals are capable of consent by saying they don't consent in the 'right' way or for the 'right' reasons."Adult humans are capable of realizing the full gravity of a situation. Animals are't."The situation doesn't seem so very grave to me, and even if it was humans place themselves in the position of making grave decisions for animals all the time. Such as living another day or being eaten. Such as an expensive surgery or being put to death.Animals face life, death, disease, hunger, and sexual desire without our intelligence and guidance. It is no crime to make them the beneficiaries of that intelligence. When a human feeds an animal wholesome food they could not otherwise have, he/she is praised for their compassion. When they heal a disease that would undoubtedly have led to a painful death they are showered with compliments.Yet these acts are done with the same dumb animals who have no idea what the gravity of the situation is. Only when it comes to this one interaction sex, is that a problem; and only because a human might actually get something out of it.Do you think an animal realizes the importance of going to the vet or being fenced in? No of course not, and no one cares about their consent then.How ridiculous to pick on of the few things an animal could understand to some degree, one of the few things they could appreciate, and then single it out as the only thing they are not allowed to consent to."And to answer his question, I think horses can consent to being ridden."Then why not sex which is far more natural to them than riding?"What's important is whether or not animals can consent to sex"Yes that is what is important, not mindlessly categorizing them as human children. We know they can consent to sex because they do consent to sex and that consent takes the form of cooperation and primitive yet unmistakable body and verbal communication."and whether or not humans should be taking sexual advantage of them."I reject such terminology it is vague and subjective. Anyone could be said to be taking sexual advantage of another if they derive pleasure from sexual encounters with them. That is not to say that it is not a mutual pleasure or to say that they did not attain consent.