Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

You seem to accept that animals will shove their penis at you but don’t think that’s evidence of a sexual advance on a human. There is only one more step before that becomes sex, the human cooperates. They take off their clothes and they assume the position, and they wait for rover to strike gold. You thank me for not showing that (and I don’t think I could anyway, it’s not on youtube I would have to upload a file) but at the same time you reject the closest you can get to sex without actually being sex. “In the first video. . dogs like to stimulate their sexual organs. ” I’m going to burn a bunch of characters answering this because it’s the most relevant thread. Once again I feel obligated to point out that stimulating one’s sexual organs and having sexual intercourse are not mutually exclusive, and indeed when you try to stimulate your sexual organs using the body of someone else they tend to call that sex. If a dog is willing to hump you they are consenting to hump you. If you cooperate that humping turns into penetration and orgasm for the dog. If you don’t want to define that as sex fine with me. Zoophiles aren’t having sex with animals they are ‘stimulating their sexual organs’ in extremely close proximity to animals I guess. What exactly are you postulating would happen if the human cooperated? The animal would just lose all interest? They’re just joking around and wouldn’t keep going is that what you are saying? Or do you imagine that at the moment of penetration poor Fido mentally gasps in terror realizing that his owner isn’t a couch, but by then it’s too late his instincts have taken over his brain and he can’t fight them right? What’s more that horrible human has gotten him addicted to the exact same torture week after week because every time they present themselves he’s right back at it. “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. ” It didn’t, but you stretch the benefit of the doubt beyond the breaking point when you ask a reasonable reader to assume that this is because the donkey didn’t consent to that as opposed to the man not consenting. It does not matter if the animal has a specific idea of exactly how things will go. They consent to what they are doing, and the only way they learn is by experience. If they don’t like what happens they won’t do the same thing next time. Their consent is no less real for experiments. It is completely irrational to say an animal is essentially trying to masturbate on a human but would be opposed to the human helping them via intercourse or other means, especially when the latter is the only thing that would actually bring them to orgasm. I’ll remind you though, rational or not there is no need to assume. If they were truly doing as you say they could stop themselves anytime they changed their minds and thus withdraw consent. Your objection seems to imply that if you saw a video where an animal did penetrate a human then you would know the animal consented to intercourse. Is that true or would you just claim they were trained? I can link to a verified case of an animal penetrating a human. “My opponent has cl. .” Pot calling the kettle black? You are asking me and the readers to assume that the simplest explanation for those animal’s behavior can never be what they want, despite the fact that they will carry the process to completion without complaint. What of the socks? Do you deny that ever happens? “and in order for this to change, consent needs to be shown in court” Why? The definition of no other abuse is related to consent. “Your opinion is irrelevant to what the government thinks. ” What the government thinks is irrelevant to the truth. “You provide no evidence on how an animal is being harmed by becoming a pet. ” Ah! So something isn’t harmful to animals if one can’t provide evidence on how an animal is being harmed. What about a guy beating his animal senseless every other day? Is that part of being a pet? “Bestiality has not been proven to be beneficial to humans. ” That entire paragraph was a red herring. The benefit in question is towards animals not humans, and the issue was how you know something is a benefit if you can’t use advanced language with animals. “According to. . increase the risk of penile cancer to 42%. ” I’m definitely going to look into this, but results will be in the comments because that’s a risk someone has the right to take if it’s real. (big if) “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]” The point is you are now attempting to use a moving the goal posts fallacy. You did not say beneficial, you said, and I quote, “As for use of animal products, food is necessary for survival” You didn’t use a period, your statement was unambiguous. Your entire paragraph related to things necessary for human’s survival. If something is necessary you cannot do without it, not even one person can do without it; thus I only needed one vegetarian to disprove your statement and I gave you 200 (despots included). I’ll throw another counter-example: People who keep pets take them to vets and sometimes subject them to surgery without consent. If everything requires consent from animals unless it is ‘beneficial’ to human survival then are pets beneficial to human survival and why? “Global wool production is about 1.3 tonnes per year, and offer thousands of jobs to humans in the industry. ” You realize how many jobs are created by the search for pleasure? If that’s your idea of benefit the porn industry is a benefit and is exempted from your absurd prerequisite for ignoring animal consent. “laws are made legal if they are beneficial to humans. ” I don’t care if a government makes law based on astrology law should be based on morality. “Since bestiality harms animals” You have not met the burden of proof on that. Your link did not support the claims you made. Your claim was ‘most’ not ‘all’ as the context requires. “it's governments like. .. ” Who are they to decide? “but as long as they use other the other animal parts” Ah I see, so what about if humans were going to violate consent anyway? Say with animals destined to be sluaghtered? “Again, owning a domestic animal is deemed legal because of the benefits” Well I don’t care how many times you say it since you said necessary the first time. So, how does keeping pets benefit human survival? “Pro has not shown that owning a pet itself is harmful,” Con has not shown that bestiality itself is harmful. “Really? Why don't you give me a source to prove it” Prove that I am asking you a question? Sure, I cite this debate second round. You said animals can communicate to each other while humans cannot communicate to animals. I didn’t. I’ll ask it again: So tell me how do they do this in a way that we can never understand nor interface with? “I don't think that's undisputed scientific evidence. ” Unless you’re claiming those videos are hoaxes it is undisputed evidence. “In those two videos, were the animals stimulating their organs” They have a word for stimulating one's sexual organs inside another organism's sexual organs: Sexual intercourse. (sound familar? ) “usually harmful to both humans and animals? ” Unsupported “what's the percentage. ." What’s that supposed to mean? If you refuse to use force 100%. “It's like saying…” Which is also true. “and the organisms mentality of the consequences. ” This (except maybe phrased correctly) not consent is why sex with minors is a problem, for they can consent. Summary: (1) My opponent has backed off their claim of necessity and has adopted the following moral/legal principle If doing something to an animal benefits human survival, the consent of the animal can be ignored. If something is harmful to the animal and does not benefit human survival it should be illegal. He has claimed that bestiality is harmful to the animal and does not benefit human survival. His response to the counter example of keeping pets in general is as follows: It’s not harmful unless I can prove it is. He implies burden of proof is on the person claiming something is harmful, I agree. He has not given an argument for why keeping pets is beneficial to human survival. I predict to do so he must appeal to positive emotions associated with it. If so I claim the same + pleasure for bestiality. (2) My opponent has repeatedly acted as if he has already proven bestiality is harmful to animals. He has not. He had a single link which did not claim what he said it did. Yes I did search bestiality on the RSPCA site there was only one result “Animal Abuse” which provided a word document which I have searched half a dozen times for that claim. Without linking to the actual claim I cannot follow the claim back to the original data to evaluate its propriety. I will reject any claim that is not founded in concrete evidence gathered under accepted rules for avoiding sampling bias. Neither should any readers. I will require this before the last round, if he should conveniently find it only in the final round I ask readers to interpret this as dishonesty. (3) His objection to the quality of evidence for my consent argument continues to be little more than grasping at the least likely interpretation of observed behavior. He is thus asking me and readers to forgo reason and common sense and assume that the animals who are sexually advancing on humans mean to do anything but what they appear to be trying to do. He ignores that knowing the animal's intent is not critical to perceiving their consent. e. x. If a dog gets in your car under his own power, he could be there because you asked him or because he wants to stick his head out the window. He consents in either case and you do not need to differentiate.