Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

"There is no dichotomy between intelligence and libido" You have failed to recognize or address the studies and research I have presented which have shown the relation between intelligence and libido and then proceed to make a statement in which you cannot support, therefore there is no reason why I should change my thoughts of intelligence and libido. "You are suggesting that bestiality should be illegal because that might improve the intelligence of zoophiles" Can you objectively express what is incorrect about the said statement it instead of using ad Hominem? My beliefs are shaped by what I have observed and studied, and the studies have shown that those indulge in sexuality tend to be less intelligent. I'm not the one suggesting this, the studies are. "But the stereotypical portrait of the zoophile as a woman-deprived, down-on-the-farm, and poorly educated male is presently being challenged by some contemporary findings. The most fascinating of these, in my opinion, is a set of two case studies published by University of Montreal psychologist Christopher Earls and his colleague Martin Lalumi"re, of the University of Lethbridge. The first case study appeared in 2002 in the journal Sexual Abuse and documented the story of a low-IQ"ed, antisocial, fifty-four-year-old convict who had a strong sexual interest in horses. In fact, this was why he was in prison for the fourth time on related offenses; in the latest incident, he had cruelly killed a mare out of jealousy because he thought she"d been giving eyes to a certain stallion. (You thought you had issues.) The man"s self-reported sexual interest in mares was actually verified by a controlled, phallometric study. When hooked up to a penile plethysmograph and shown nude photos of all varieties and ages of humans, the man was decidedly flaccid. Nothing happening down there either when he looked at slides of cats, dogs, sheep, chickens, or cows. But he certainly wasn"t impotent, as the researchers clearly observed when the subject was shown images of horses." -Scientific American Again, another study that supports my claim that zoophiles tend to be less intelligent and have irregular mental health. "because a group of people or an activity is less useful to society than you would like does not give you the right to ban them/it." Debatable. I'm slightly a social darwinist, and i'm good at arguing my case for it, but this isn't the matter that is at hand, so, all I want to say is that I don't agree with this because I don't believe every man born is equal. "so if a plague was out there it would have hit us long ago." HIV was present in society since the early nineteenth century (recorded ones at least), but was not scientifically identified until 1983, so the problem you have is that because there are no recorded "pure" STDs from animals, you assume that there isn't any, when the more reasonable conclusion is that they probably do and that we just haven't found it yet. Furthermore, there are many more varaibles to this case, like, how many instances of zoophiles actually have intercourse with other human beings, how often, or are there types of animals that are more prone to sexual diseases than others . "Furthermore if risk of disease was a basis for banning consenting behavior then it would follow that we start with human sex given the danger posed by HIV and other well-known STDs." Of course, that is not practical in the society in which we live in today, but ideally, yes - If everyone was rid of their libido, i believe the society will become more intelligent and be more productive. "At this moment in time it is safer to have sex with a random domestic animal then it is to have sex with a random human." I doubt it. Although, not considered sexually transmitted, there are infections and diseases that comes through urine and feces which I doubt domesticated animals can clean themselves to the extent humans can. "It brings no harm, and I reject a moral standard which attempts to quantify and compare the good of sexual gratification and the risk of zoonosis infection without an objective method by which to do so." haha, you cannot objectively quantify how much pain someone goes through torture, so then are you to reject the moral standard that torture should be illegal? You do not need an absolute and objective method to make moral decisions. The point is that, there may exist a disease unknown at this point that may or may not devastate society, and the best decision is to limit and protect ourselves until complete, absolute, and thorough research that STDs are not present in animals (which I doubt by the way), not to extend our freedom and sexual gratification until such things do indeed become a problem. personal query: Are you sexually interested in human beings? Do you think your attraction towards animals are equivalent to that of, say, my attraction to women. (Equivalent in the sense that you are able to find them as attractive as I find other women attractive).