Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

(I'm also a male btw.) Oh sorry, that’s what I get from judging a poster by their avatar. Stupid language requires gendered pronouns, guess it could be worse (looking at you Latin language group). I really can't allow you to use the forum to bypass the character count, but I understand where you're coming from. Sorry! Alright forget the responding stuff, but the recounting of the video was not argumentation it was just description. I could have linked to a source with the same kind of stuff. For instance here https://docs.google.com... you (could if you wanted) search for first instance of “If a mare does not feel receptive” and read one more paragraph. Warning only zoosexuals can read the whole thing without going blind (JK, but remember it’s addressed to people who are already having sex with mares). -My opponent says that one must prove that the animal did not consent for prosecution. Therefore, Pro has to prove the above [Whether or not non-human animals would demonstrate LACK of consent in court reliably] in order to win, while I will oppose him. … Actually no. When it comes to the law better safe than sorry, and safe for the law is not throwing people in prison. Just as the inability to prove a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt would mean the person is innocent, the inability to prove a class of action immoral beyond a reasonable doubt would mean banning that class of action is immoral. If there truly was no reliable method of gauging consent, even in the presence of full documentary evidence that would mean that no one can prove rape is occurring beyond a reasonable doubt. That would mean any proposed ban on bestiality based on the premise that it is all or mostly rape would be unjustified. Observe: A man is innocent of a crime until proven guilty Raping animals is a crime <- this would be the proposed ban Therefore a man is innocent of raping an animal until proven guilty. It then follows that the state must prove he raped an animal. Which means the state must prove the animal did not consent. If they cannot determine whether the animal consented, they cannot prove that. Claiming that a ban against bestiality is justified precisely because they can’t prove it was rape is a sad mockery of justice if rape is the supposed immoral action. My argument has never been that the state always knows enough to determine consent, nor even that every human who ever tries this determines consent correctly; but that it is possible for it to be done in practical real world circumstances. Thus if I can know I’m not raping an animal I can know it’s moral. If I can know so can millions of other people. It is not about our inability or unwillingness to prove before a court of law that every animal consented every time. It is the opposition which must claim that the individual circumstances, the individual evidence doesn’t matter because it is rape each and every single time no matter where no matter when. It is the opposition’s failure to make that case which I have established to meet my BoP. Con follows this point with a few examples, the unifying characteristic of which is observing possible absences in the strength or definitiveness of evidence against an animal rapist. In general my response to this is “too bad”, too bad that there aren’t better ways to get evidence, but throwing people in jail you can’t prove committed an immoral act is not a fix it’s just another problem. I will respond to these points mostly by observing how this limitation also applies to proving sex occurred in the first place. they cannot be witness to their own rape. Or to their own consensual sex. This means that I would be free to rape an animal as long as I don't video tape it. You are free to rape an animal now if you don’t video tape it, don’t let someone see you, and don’t tell anyone you did it. You are free to steal a car as long as you don’t leave evidence. You are free to murder so long as nobody finds the body. Doesn’t sound correct? Con is merely pointing out that keeping evidence of a crime out of the hands of the justice system is a good way to avoid punishment. I cede that without a fight. I can even tell people that I'm going to rape the animal. That might fall under criminal intent. Because one could not prove that the animal did not want sex, I would walk free. And if the animal did want sex, you would walk free; as opposed to being thrown in jail because some people thought their inability to prove the animal did not want it justified the assumption they did not. Even if for some reason the perpetrator videotaped her/himself, the would have to show explicitly a "no" behavior. If an animals "says no" and the camera doesn't catch it, the perpetrator would walk for rape. They would walk for sex because without the no behaviors/vocalizations/actions it would just be sex before the law. it would have to be a certain enough behavior to "prove" that the animal did not want sex Yes, now you are getting the picture. There is always the possibility of restraints, even if they aren't visible. There is always the possibility of sex, even if it isn’t visible. Most training is done under circumstances of slavery. If a human slave were offered food for good behavior, that is coercion, even if it is less painful. No, offering food is not coercion. If slave ships stopped by Africa to lure the locals over with apple pie, never used shackles, never used whips, never shot (or otherwise hindered) runaways there is still possibility for immorality but you could not accurately call it slavery. The ape prostitute was undoubtedly coerced and probably made many attempts to escape the prison Speaking hypothetically (i.e. not based on any real evidence in this case) if you knew that the ape was coerced and made escape attempts why couldn’t a court use that to convict? How could the law differentiate your claim from the wild accusations of a bigot and accurate claims except by objective evidence? but as long as she follows through during sex (even if video and expert witnesses were present, which is unlikely) no laws would be broken. In other words if the only evidence that existed was evidence of sex not rape then no law against rape would be broken. Nothing can fix that except getting better evidence. Basically, under this model these horrific animals prostitution rings would be allowed. No they would not. They would be hard to crack. Just under the model of the U.S. constitution organized crime is not allowed, it is simply harder to crack because of all these rules about search warrants, subpoenas, speedy trials, fifth amendments, etc… These rules are there not to make it harder to catch bad people but to make it harder to punish good people. Furthermore: These animals are slaves who are raped, but as long as no one videotapes the animal struggling or breaks the animals' legs, the customers are free to have sex according to Pro's model I realize allowing an industry around bestiality would introduce a special concern which is why in our PM I admitted some regulation of this industry would be warranted. Mandated video recordings of all interactions from start to finish. Inspections of living conditions and training techniques. Under such regulation animals would be safer from rape in the industry than they are right now just by being unsupervised pets. The reason being that for the prostitution company complying with those regulations would be infinitely easier than trying to hide from the law. It’s the same reason that the alcohol business turned real violent real fast during prohibition and promptly switched back afterwards, and it’s probably also the case for many currently illegal drugs. Controlled animal prostitution would certainly lower overall animal rape in absolute terms (not just proved cases). There are essentially two types of people who are likely to rape animals. 1. Sex starved people (zoo or not) who want a quickie wherever they can get it and are so desperate they will try random animals. In a safe prostitution environment the animals would be well used to having sex with humans, there would be established protocol for communication which the human would learn when he came in. This is the only safe way to skip building a relationship with the animal. If for some reason one animal won’t take him/her there are probably others that could be tried. This avoids the desperate person finding some random animal who has never had sex with a human, who has no relationship or trust with the human, from being the only option for release in an unsupervised setting. 2. Real sickos who like hurting animals, people, whatever to get their kicks. There is nothing to be done about the smart ones, but the stupid ones might very well show up at a prostitution company and give themselves away by attempting to rape one of the animals. Doesn’t sound good to have the animals as bait but it’s a helluv a lot better to be rescued 30 seconds into the attack than to die alone allowing the sadist to move on to another victim. The prostitution company would have very strong motivation to keep these people in jail because they could traumatize their animals (and render them useless to the company) so we wouldn’t have to worry about corruption. After years of rape, this poor kidnapped human began to stop struggling (though this was still rape and still horrific) I admit after years of rape (or any other abuse) human or non-human animals will stop objecting because they know all too well that their consent doesn’t matter to their abuser. However there are going to be significant mental scars from such a prolonged trauma that would be evidenced by behavior. If some sadistic bastard managed to train their animal to pretend they are happy when in fact they are terrified I’m afraid they’re just not going to be caught. Even if sex was illegal they could easily avoid leaving any permanent evidence.