Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

My RefutationsFlaws in Pro's Evidence"Watch the youtube videos and read the linked blog article, and I can give you more links if you need more. I will not link to pornographic material so if you want to see a successfully completed sexual advance by an animal you will have to find it yourself. I promise you such videos exist. In other words, examine my opening argument more carefully."First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for not showing pornograhic bestiality videos, we wouldn't want DDO to turn into 4chan wouldn't we? I'd first like to point out the flaws in your videos. In the first video, it does ideed show a dog humping a pretty girl. However, this debate is about sexual intercourse with animals. All this could have proved was that dogs can get horny sometimes, and like to stimulate their sexual organs. This has not proved that the dog wanted to have sexual intercourse with the girl, the only other possibility was that dogs like to stimulate their sexual organs.The second video seemed to portray a donkey chasing a human. In this video, we don't know what the donkey was trying to accomplish. Was the donkey being playful? Or again, was the donkey attempting to stimulate it's sexual organs on the humans back. Again, we don't know for sure. Pro is just assuming that these animals have attempted to have sexual intercourse with humans, when in reality, this is unlikely. Even if we assume that the donkey was sexually attracted to the man, we don't know for sure that the donkey's penis made penetration into the man's anus.My opponent has clearly made blatant assumptions, he still hasn't proven that animals can consent to having sexual intercourse. Essentially, if an animal cannot consent, and a human forcefully coerces an organism into sexual intercourse, it's rape. Should we legalize this?Me: "Many countries such as the U.S. view bestiality as animal cruelty."Pro: Not this citizen.I said countries. The U.S. views bestiality as animal cruelty, and in order for this to change, consent needs to be shown in court. Your opinion is irrelevant to what the government thinks.Me:"However, an animal is not being harmed by becoming a pet."Pro: So you say, how do you know?You provide no evidence on how an animal is being harmed by becoming a pet. As long as an animal isn't neglected, I don't see how it is being harmed. An overwhelming majority of countries do allow humans to own domesticated animals such as dogs or cats. Are you saying that the majority of countries are allowing animals to become harmed by being pets?"You seem to have no problem calling these benefits yet animals have no better ability to communicate about these than sex. If you can have sex with an animal where the animal communicates no complaint and often actively participates and yet that is harmful and non-consenting I would like to know how you can do anything with an animal and be sure they consent or that they aren't being harmed?"Most things that are beneficial to humans that don't infringe on other people's rights or well-being are made legal. Bestiality has not been proven to be beneficial to humans. In fact, bestiality can increase illnesses in human population. Bestiality has been proven to increase rates of penile cancer amognst male humans. According to Men's Health Magazine, Bestiality can increase the risk of penile cancer to 42%. This was done by Brazilian researchers who took 500 men from 12 cities. 35% of them citied that they had sexual intercourse with an animal of another species. The original study was this: Sex with Animals (SWA): Behavioral Characteristics and Possible Association with Penile Cancer. A Multicenter Study. Think no harm is done to humans, think again. [1][2]Me:"As for use of animal products, food is necessary for survival."Pro: "You going to try the same lies as wrichcirw? Here is a list of people who would have died if meat was necessary to survive"Your first sentence is an ad hominem. Secondly, meat was orginally neccessary for survival, especially during "The caveman era." Killing and eating meat have been fundamental factors in the evolution of man-kind. Larger brains have actually come from consuming high amounts of protein in a meat based diet. "Cooperative hunting promoted the development of language and socialization; the evolution of Old World societies was, to a significant extent, based on domestication of animals." Obviously, hunting and the domestication of animals are still legal since they are beneficial to humans, while bestiality leads to factors that aren't so beneficial i.e. penile cancer. Since these have been beneficial to human survival, the law has made this legal. By the way, famous people who have survived being vegetarian is completly irrelevant. Ironically, Adolf Hitler was on that list. Not too many people miss him.... By the way, that list is a grand total of under 200 people. The point is, who cares? This is irrelevant to the debate. My point is that since meat is beneficial to human's survival, it is made legal. [3][4]"Cotton is a plant, wool doesn't require you to kill an animal (oh but it does require you to cut off their hair, I say they consent to that but according to people against bestiality that's all but impossible)."Sheep do not consent to having their wool shaved off. However, humans benefit from wool, and the wool industry is huge. Global wool production is about 1.3 tonnes per year, and offer thousands of jobs to humans in the industry. There is also dispute over how much animals are indeed harmed by being sheared. Again, laws are made legal if they are beneficial to humans. [5]"All you have done is prove that the status qua law and morality is subjective. You can kill without consent because you want easy protein, because you want to live in temperate zones, or because you want X. But since you don't want sex that's not a good enough reason for me to violate consent.I think I've stressed by point about laws being made legal if they're beneficial to humans enough. Since bestiality harms animals without benefiting human's survival, it's deemed illegal. Since I've proved that bestiality commonly involves violating animals, it's been deemed illegal (for the rspca link where I got this from, you have to search bestiality in the blank with bar, it doesn't seem to be working).Who are you to judge whether something is a good enough reason?It's true, I'm not the one to decide, it's governments like the U.S. and Canada that deem bestiality illegal.When they disemboweled sheep to make condoms out of their intestines so humans could have sex without consequences where were these objections?I don't know if this actually happened, but as long as they use other the other animal parts, I don't see why there would be any objections. If they use the meat for food an the wool for clothing, I see no reason why they can't also use sheep intestines for condoms.Since Con has not proven that keeping pets is necessary for human survival there's no reason for that to be legal... because as we all know bans are always justified unless they are banning something 'necessary for human survival' [sarcasm].Again, owning a domestic animal is deemed legal because of the benefits (I'm not sure how many times I have to say that) to humans. Again, Pro has not shown that owning a pet itself is harmful, so it's another reason why it's legal.Oh yes, but how? Vocalizations? Nope humans could hear that and eventually learn their meanings. Body language? Nope humans can see that and eventually learn its meaning. Direct action? No humans can observe that just as easily as other animals.Really? Why don't you give me a source to prove it. The affirmative especially needs sources to hold up the BoP.Most animals speak no language.If this is true, another reason why it's nearly impossible for animals to consent.My opponent states that morality is inherently linked to legality. I mentioned that many things that are considered immoral aren't illegal. He states this doesn't contradict his premise, but this creates fallacies in his BoP.Me: "Has an animal ever been proven to attempt to directly have sex with another human? The answer is no."PRo:"The answer is yes, as my two videos and the blog proved."Two videos that prove nothing ( see beggining refutation of Round 2), and a blog that Pro admits was meant for a joke. I don't think that's undisputed scientific evidence.Me:"When a male dog starts humping (rubbing it's genitilia on something) another humans leg, does it want to have sex with the human or does it want to stimulate it's sexual organs on another humans leg for pleasure.Pro: "They have a word for stimulating one's sexual organs inside another organism's sexual organs: Sexual intercourse."In those two videos, were the animals stimulating their organs The rest of Pro's argument is based on his opinion without any actual evidence, and two flawed videos and a joke blog isn't going to cut it. As for the harmfullness of bestiality, should we legalized something that has no benefit to humans, and is usually harmful to both humans and animals?As for Pro's last source, if it can be carried out without obvious force, what's the percentage of time that it can be. It's like saying that sexual relations between an adult and a minor can be carried out without obvious force. Should we legalize that too? It's all about consent, and the organisms mentality of the consequences.Sources:1.http://scienceblogs.com...2.http://www.livescience.com...3. http://www.scientificamerican.com...4.http://en.wikipedia.org...5. http://en.wikipedia.org...