As Long as we Continue to Eat Meat, Beastiality should be Legalized!

I am pleased to see that this debate has actually gone somewhere because I have not had great experiences on this site lately. Now, my opponent's argument is more of an essay than a list of specific, related arguments so I will diverge from my typical style of debating and respond in turn. I have not studied the sexual behavior of animals and I do not have any intent to. However, my opponents entire second paragraph seems rather theoretical and quite notably lacks any citations. I would expect some sort of scientific documentation to affirm any alleged animal behavior since I doubt many of us have observed it directly. In any case, the topic of intercourse between non-sentient animals is not relevant to this debate. We are discussing sentient humans have sex with non-sentient animals, which is a different matter entirely. I will affirm that I am quite certain I do not value the lives of animals at all. Though I do not like to see them suffering and subjected to terrible conditions, I have no objection to humanely killing them. Hence, though I disapprove of slaughterhouses, I do not find it wrong to eat animals. I hope my stance on slaughterhouses and the eating of animals has been properly explained. I fully approve of the eating of animals but not the inhumane treatment of animals. Slaughterhouses are related to the inhumane treatment and are not a mutually nonexclusive with eating animals. As the title of the debate clearly states, I am to defend the eating of animals, not the killing of animals in slaughterhouses. It is not necessary to kill animals in a slaughterhouse in order to eat them. However, none of this really matters. Why we eat animals but condemn bestiality does not matter. We need only look to the resolution to see what I am arguing. "As long as we continue to eat meat, bestiality should be legalized." So, given that we eat meat, we can conclude that bestiality should be legalized? I see no logical connection that leads from one to the other, and as Con I expect my opponent to show this connection. The fact that eating meat MAY be wrong (and I don't believe it is) has no effect on the morality of bestiality. The resolution suggests that if we continue eat meat bestiality should be legal, which subsequently implies that if we don't eat meat, bestiality should not be legal. However, I fail to see how whether or not we presently eat meat had such a strong effect on whether or not bestiality should be legal. This becomes clearer when explained from the other direction. Suppose bestiality is ethical (as I will elaborate on later, I believe this is certainly not the case). Thus, if we stopped eating meat would it no longer be ethical for some unexplained reason? Suppose bestiality IS unethical, but none of us eat meat. If we started eating meat, would it become ethical? There is no necessary connection anywhere in this line of reasoning. Though I believe this is enough to conclude with certainly that bestiality should not be legal as long as we continue to eat meat, I think it will also be helpful to explain exactly why I believe eating meat is ethical and bestiality is not. In Defense of Eating Animals: Mary Anne Warren defines a person as a conscious, self-motivated, rational, self aware being with the ability to communicate. This definition is not anthropocentric, or even biocentric, and is used primarily in defense of abortion However, it works very well for these purposes as well. It also shows the most essential characteristics which differentiate sentient and non-sentient beings. Base on this definition, we can plainly see that animals are not people and therefore do not possess the right to life. Hence, as long as they are killed humanely, I see no problem with killing animals. Once they are killed, there is certainly no problem with killing them. Objections Against Bestiality: Now, I have already state that an animal is a non-rational creature. Hence, by definition, it lacks to ability to give its consent. Similarly, it is illegal to have sex with human children because they are not mentally advanced enough to give their consent. I find it rather unlikely that animals enjoy bestiality and not evidence has been provided to suggest that they do. However, regardless of any such evidence, it is still impossible to determine on an individual basis whether an animal consents to sexual intercourse. Given there is no way to determine of an animal consents to sex, any sex with an animal can be considered rape and therefore a form of violence. Though I do not object to quickly and painlessly killing animals for food, attacking and torturing them in this way is in no way acceptable. It is also probably not psychological healthy for humans to cultivate relationships with non-sentient creatures or objects and this behavior should not be encouraged. Conclusion: Even if eating animals is morally equivalent to bestiality, there is no necessary connect between the two. However, it is quite obvious that they are not morally equivalent. Eating animals is ethical provided that they are treated properly but bestiality is clearly not ethical.