Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

"While it is true that that would cut down on rape, utilitarianism states quite clearly that in such an instance we must weigh the good done against the harm done. In this case, the harm done includes an incredible amount of interference in people's private lives (pretty much everyone's), making sex flat-out impossible for some people, and gigantic enforcement costs." Unless you are admitting that this utilitarian princible is subjective (and nobody can argue against the subjective, it's a bit like faith in that way) you have some objective method to quantify good done and harm done, obviousy in the same units if you are checking if good >= harm. May I see this calculation in full in the next round? I would also ask for your explanation as to how your argument is not essentially that preempted in C.1. It seems you are just ignoring my argument that it is moral and saying that doesn't matter because it would cause more harm if it was legal. (although causing harm is inaccurate, it wouldn't cause any harm any more than the right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure causes harm by making it easier to escape punishment) "Banning zoophilia, meanwhile, means that a very small number of people will not be able to have sex with something they are attracted to (and frequently it isn't the only thing). The trade-off seems to favor making it illegal." What is the cut off point for you? When do the rights of a minority cease to be critical? Is it an absolute number as in the case of God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah or a percentage of the population? What right do you have to sacrifice the liberty of even one man? (Sorry to be melodramatic but you invited it by leaning entirely on pragmatism) "Simple. Physical signs. Being beaten, malnourished, or forced to be someplace uncomfortable is usually obvious, and leaves distinct signs. Not so with rape, especially rape that involves drugs." Not if the investigation occurs a month afterward. There are ways to inflict pain without leaving evidence. The electric collars often used to keep animals in an area can be manually triggered at one's sadistic will and if the police ask one can just say "that stupid dog just won't learn." Food can be laced with very unpleasant tastes and yet not malnourish the animal. If the animal is taken out of the very uncomfortable place they could recover and have no physical signs within minutes. An animal could be completely immobilized by ropes and restraints and left that way for days and yet when the ropes are gone no one can tell it happened after the blood starts flowing again. The animal could be subjected to mental torture, being constantly yelled at and frightened. Being worked to exhaustion looks like a well exercised animal after a nights rest. Is it really your postulation that sex is the only form of animal abuse in existence that can't be easily detected after the fact? If it is, doesn't that say something in of itself?... like maybe sex was arbitrarily added to the list despite having little in common with the rest? "That applies to people breaking laws. Not people doing things that are morally incorrect." Well correct me if I'm wrong but your last argument seemed to have nothing to do with the morality of human-animal sex. You tried to justify a ban by saying it would catch more animal rapist. You did not say having consensual sex with an animal is immoral because somewhere out there someone else might be having non-consensual sex (and I thank you for not saying it because it is ridiculous). You said it was risky, not wrong. Just as in a hypothetical world where all sex had to be recorded by camera abolishing that requirement would risk more rape but it would not make sex without a camera wrong (because it never was wrong). You clearly implied that animal rape was what was immoral, and that was your basis for banning animal sex. My counter is then: If rape is the real crime (that which is immoral and deserves punishment) then people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty (as with all other crimes) no matter what the inherent difficulties in gathering evidence may be. It is unjust to take something that does not deserve punishment and make it a crime because you find the presumption of innocence troublesome for the real crime. "Not always, and especially not if time has passed." That's true for most everything except deep tissue scaring and bone breaks. "I would see it as a necessary evil." I must ask what your standard of good and evil are then, and what inviolate goal gives context to 'necessary' in that statement. It's not necessary (for survival) to eat meat or have pets so we could stop all animal breeding programs right now. In fact every animal who has have contributed to the gene pool has 'risked rape' so why should they not be dealt with as you deal with humans who take this 'risk'? "Porn. Pornography that is not photography or video." If someone falls in love with a painting, I think there really is something wrong with them. If the painting loves them back there is something wrong with my understanding of reality. Porn is a poor substitute for a lover.