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

First, one would have to prove that the act of having intercourse or other sexual activity with another specie is, in fact, cruel. For if the animal has not experienced pain and/or suffering while in a sexual act with a human, surely one would agree that beastiality is not cruel. Therefore, if animals are not subjected to inhumane treatment then there is no premise for outlawing beastiality. One can reach a conclusion that the treatment of animals at slaughterhouses is more unethically justified than beastiality. In the natural world, sexual contact between other species is not, in many cases, a mutual act. Also, it is natural for the submissive animal to give in to the dominant animal's sexual advances. The animals show no sign of pain and/or suffering during the act of animal on animal sexual contact. The submissive animal might experience slight discomfort, but one can agree that this is not a cruel act performed by the other, more dominant animal. Also, if the submissive animal shows signs of sexual arousal and/or pleasure, this can conclude that the receiving animal is actually experiencing pleasure vs. pain. It can be argued that beastiality does not inflict pain and/or suffering on animals and also that those animals may experience pleasure. Therefore, can't one reach the conclusion that the treatment of animals at slaughterhouses is ultimately more cruel and inhumane than having sexual intercourse with another specie that may be able to experience sexual pleasure? My opponent states, "How awful. Though I find animals quite delicious and do not value their lives at all, I don't think they should be treated in such a horrible manner. However, this has nothing to do with beastiality." My opponent states that he does not "value their lives at all." But concludes, "they should not be treated in such a horrible manner." My opponent has obviously placed value on their lives if he is concerned with the treatment of animals at slaughterhouses. My opponent cannot argue that the treatment of animals at slaughterhouses "has nothing to do with beastiality." For the treatment of animals encompasses the question of whether or not beastiality should be legal. My opponent poses a question, "Is it a contradiction that society condones the slaughter of animals for food but condemns beastiality?" His response, "Maybe..." The question my opponent raises, is the very question I would like the readers to examine. Human morality is obviously flawed if we can condone the slaughter of animals, because, as my opponent suggests, they taste " quite delicious." But, on the other hand, condemn beastiality. Which does not nearly inflict, to the same degree, pain and/or suffering on animals. And which can also be argued that animals may experience pleasure. Beastiality is condemned in our society, not necessarily because we care about the treatment of animals, but because of the stigmatized view of beastiality. In his essay, "Animal Lovers: Zoophiles Make Scientist Rethink Human Sexuality." Research Psychologist, Jesse Bering writes, "Words like "pervert" and "unnatural" have all the theoretical depth of a thimble. Rationally, Singer is right to question our visceral aversion to interspecies sex. And having had an orangutan rudely thrust his penis into my ear, a chimpanzee in estrus forcibly back her swollen anogenital region into my midsection ("Darling," I said, "not only are you the wrong species, but the wrong sex"), and more dogs than I care to mention mount my leg, I know that it's not only humans who are at risk of misreading sexual interest in other species. The Arabian stallion that impaled a Seattle man with its erect penis in 2005, fatally perforating the man's colon, makes one wonder who the victim really was." Jesse Bering goes on to write, "As you can probably imagine, though, the subject of zoophilia is a highly charged one, attracting the ire of animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and causing a knee-jerk moralistic response in the rest of us platonic animal lovers. Ironically, it landed one prominent animal rights defender, Princeton philosopher Peter Singer, who authored the classic book Animal Liberation in 1975, in some hot water. Ten years ago, in an essay for Nerve magazine called "Heavy Petting," Singer was asked to review the book Dearest Pet (Verso, 2000) by Dutch biologist Midas Dekkers. But he did more than just review the book. As a professor of bioethics, Singer also asked readers to reconsider whether humans' having mutually pleasurable, nonabusive sex with other animals is as inherently wrong as we've been lead to believe by our traditional Judeo-Christian mores (go on, quote Leviticus)." "The vehemence with which this prohibition [against sex with other species] continues to be held, its persistence while other non-reproductive sexual acts have become acceptable, suggests that there is [a] powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals." Jesse Bering concludes that we are, in fact, part of the animal kingdom. He states, "Singer told me recently that he wasn't advocating sex with animals in "Heavy Petting," but rather just raising the question of why we find it so objectionable. Ever since, however, the piece has been used unfairly against Singer by his opponents, most of whom are trying to discredit his controversial views on human euthanasia and abortion: "Look," argue many of Singer's critics, "how can we take anything this guy says seriously when he wants us to have sex with animals!" But most zoophiles, of course, tend to agree with Singer's general assessment of human "speciesism" being cloaked under the tenuous justification of animal protection. After all, we are animals." This can lead one to question society's prevailing view of beastiality and whether we are justified in continuing its condemnation and/or legalization? If an animal shows no signs of pain and/or suffering and there is a genuine mutual love between animal and human, can one agree that (while this may be abnormal human behavior) it is not as unethical as the treatment of animals confined to slaughterhouses.