Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

"I think your first two arguments for zoophilia ( it should be legal and it isn't inherently immoral) go hand in hand, since the morals of a nation dictate its laws. My argument against it is that it cannot be legal since most of society opposes it, and considers it to be immoral. Morals are dictated by a society based on what would be in the best interests of the society at large."I have quite a lot to say against that, but for the sake of keeping on subject I'll limit myself to pointing out that you are attempting to use appeal to popularity fallacy.http://www.nizkor.org...A system of ethics is not true or correct just because people believe it is, no matter how many.Also, please note that the argument didn't start until "Under the constraints set out above the question is:" Above that was discussion of terms and premises of the debate."I think that zoophilia is inherently immoral because you are forcing an animal to do what they are not usually able to do."1. Force is not necessary.2. Most adult animals are able to have sex. Zoophiles don't try with animals who are incapable of mating with humans."A counter-argument for this could say that we shouldn't ride horses, either, since they aren't conditioned to do it by nature."Yes"I think that zoophilia could only be moral if the animal was raised so that having sex with humans would be considered normal by the animal, and not strange."If that is not inherently impossible then zoophilia would not be inherently immoral. However I wonder what you means exactly.It is rightly considered (by the zoophile community) cruel to subject sexually immature animals to sexual advances and indeed will confuse them more in the end.Zoophiles have raised animals and begun interacting with them sexually very soon after they start to show interest.Animals adapt and so do people, I don't see why it should be immoral if an old dog learns some new tricks. There is a first time for everything, including sex and being ridden. Whether it's with a human or another animal one must imagine it can be strange at first."Domestic pets and farm animals are brought up in a similar way, therefore they do not mind staying with humans and staying in man-made environments. But even if you were to bring up an animal to be conditioned for cross-species sex, it would be a massive waste of time to do so."People have tamed horses and dogs who did not grow up on farms or in houses. It's more a matter of psychology. The animal in question needs to have a wide tolerance for the types of creature they may come to see as pack or herd members. That is also why domesticated animals get along with each other better than you might expect.Again there is no need for special conditioning or training. Unlike being ridden, going to the vet, or following human rules about inside and outside behavior; sex is very natural to any relevant animal. It's more analogous to eating. You wouldn't say you need to condition an animal for years before you can give them a new kind of food. If they really don't like it they won't eat it.Finally as to it being a waste of time, that could be said of almost all human animal interactions. Doesn't stop millions of people from keeping eating pooping machines around that do little to nothing to pay their own way.Even most sex is a waste of time, we can use artificial insemination on humans and it's much more reliable way to make babies. People do it for the pleasure and for the relationship it often accompanies."To answer your second argument, your "mountain of previously derived facts" becomes a mountain of previously derived morals."Again, not an argument a premise. and a true moral is a type of fact."No one has tried to examine the health risks or psychological risks associated with bestiality."Zoophiles have, as well as some professionals. Not many I grant you but that's because it's taboo, generally illegal, and people like impossible think it's a waste of time to even examine the issue."According to your argument of "nothing is inherently moral or immoral on its own but becomes one when presented in the context of previously derived facts", bestiality would be considered inherently immoral."That does not follow in the slightest.If there were no facts, (which there are) then it would be neither moral nor immoral but unconsidered.