Bestiality ought to be illegal

On a quick note of conduct, my opponent has now incorrectly referred to me as a man multiple times. This is despite my portrait, my profile, and having been corrected in the comments section. BURDEN OF PROOF "Con has refused my challenge, instead of answering he shifted the burden back to me. This implies he does not have an answer" Simply, no. I, in fact, did respond to my opponent's "challenge" by showing that it was a flawed argument. I will do so again but with greater clarity. First, my opponent does not recognize that he has the burden of proof. I maintain that he DOES, and it it not difficult to understand why. Our legal system does not hold that everything is illegal unless made legal -- rather, the opposite. So by default, bestiality is legal unless specifically prohibited, the action which my opponent argues in favor of. By making this positive claim, he has the burden of proof. Thus, it is not up to me to "justify legalizing bestiality. " And second, I will address my opponent's defense of his challenge. He has, indeed, shown the POSSIBILITY that a person could sexually abuse an animal, either knowingly or unknowingly. It remains that he needs to demonstrate that making bestiality illegal would be an effective deterrent for this offense, what he implies to be true. CONSENT My opponent's argument is largely based on the notion that an act of bestiality could be non-consensual, which he implies is bad enough on its own to justify legislating against the entirety of bestiality. Clearly he regards "consent" with great importance, but I will continue to show that this perspective is flawed. --> Non-consensual sex does not necessarily harm an animal. Our society regards non-consensual sex as inherently harmful and deviant. But it is important to ask, does an animal suffer when they experience non-consensual sex? I reason that we should not assume they suffer in the same way that humans do, primarily because sexual coercion is, to some extent, a normal part of animal behavior. My opponent on cross-species sexual coercion: "according to your source it is incredibly rare, and has only been observed in non-closely related species once. " This is a heavy misrepresentation of my source. Allow me to quote it directly: "Harassment is common among pinnipeds . .. and occasionally it happens between related species. Male grey seals have been known to harass and mate with female harbour seals, for example. " It is, of course, more common in closer-related species, but the only "incredibly rare" part is when it occurs between different classes of vertebrates (bird, fish, reptile, etc. ). --> The consent principle conflicts with existing condoned practices. As I noted in my previous post, consent is not required to slaughter, enslave, or breed animals, all acts sometimes committed for no benefit to society other than our own enjoyment. It would be difficult to argue that sex causes more harm to an animal than being killed, enslaved, or forcibly impregnated, yet that is the act for which my opponent believes deserves a high standard of consent. The hypocrisy needs no further explanation. My opponent on other practices that abuse animals: "This could possibly be the most dangerous argument in history. 'We are not perfect so lets do whatever we want. '" By making the straw man fallacy, he has failed to refute the hypocrisy I have identified. I have clearly shown what my opponent needs, and what he has neglected, to demonstrate. His argument in regards to consent simply falls through.