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

I am also pleased that my opponent would like to continue debating this topic. The style of my argument is irrelevant, whether in an essay format or listed out, as long as I provide a claim and sufficient evidence to support it. My opponent states: "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." The claim I have presented is not found solely in the title itself, but encompasses the body of the opening argument. My claim: Slaughtering animals for food is more unethical than the practice of beastiality. Supporting evidence: Animals confined to slaughterhouses undergo pain and/or suffering which outweighs the pain and/or suffering animals may experience while in a sexual act, whether between human or non-human. My opponent states: "I have not studied the sexual behavior of animals and do not have any intent to." By not studying the sexual behavior of animals leaves one unable to form an educated opinion on the topic of beastiality. Therefore, if my opponent has no "intent" to examine animal sexual behavior, he merely forms his argument based on his own personal opinion in regards to the topic. I felt I did not have to provide a citation in regards to animal behavior, since we can "observe directly" animal sexual behavior in the natural world. In the example of a "dog mounting a human's leg," given by Research Psychologist, Jesse Bering. One can "observe directly" that dogs can also be sexually aroused and/or find stimulation in inter-species sex. It is quite obvious that a "dog mounting a human's leg" will not likely result in sexual intercourse, but the underlying premise still exists. I will ask the readers how many have experienced a dog mounting their leg or a friend's leg; or how many have experienced a dog mounting an inanimate object? It is also true that many animals practice masturbation, oral sex, and homosexuality. Which can lead one to conclude that animals don't necessarily commit sexual acts solely to reproduce, but also to some extent, to experience pleasure. In the article, "Do Animals Enjoy Sex?," by Robin Nixon. She provides a statement from Mark Bekoff, a University of Colorado biologist and author of "The Emotional Lives of Animals" (New World Library). "Not only do animals enjoy the deed, they also likely have orgasms, he said. They are difficult to measure directly but by watching facial expressions, body movements and muscle relaxation, many scientists have concluded that animals reach a pleasurable climax, he said." In "The Politics of Rape: Debunking the Feminist Myth." By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D. She explains how animal on animal sexual contact is not in all instances mutual, and also that rape is found in many non-human species. She states, "First, rape is universal; it's universal across time, across cultures and societies, and even across many species." And goes on to support this claim by providing statements from further reputable authors. She states, "This fact is clearly validated by data in biologist Randy Thornhill and anthropologist Craig T. Palmer's book A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. Specifically, Thornhill and Palmer's documentation supports the contention that no rape-free human society has ever existed and that many non-human animal species do engage in raping behaviors." My opponent states: "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 have not discussed "non-sentient" animals. We are only referring to sentient beings, which includes all species capable of "response to or conscious of sense." www.merriam-webster.com. Which includes any animal, whether human or non-human, capable of experiencing pain and/or suffering. If my opponent is suggesting my reference to animal on animal sexual contact, in that it has no relevance, I will beg to differ. What is acceptable in the natural world of animals can't be overridden. Therefore, because in the natural world of animals sexual contact is not always a mutual affair, one can conclude that animals don't have the right to determine where, when, and with whom they have sexual intercourse with. It can also conclude that animals may experience pleasure and that a "dog mounting a human's leg" might actually enjoy it. My opponent states: "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." This statement is contrary in itself. One must place, to some degree, value on the lives of animals, if one can care about the suffering and/or pain experienced by animals at slaughterhouses. If one did not value animals lives one would not care about the degree in which they were to suffer. It is true that the human specie is different from all other species. But your "Defense of Eating Animals" does not justify the killing and eating of animals. Yes, we are different from animals. We have the ability to reason, make logical decisions, etc. But this is insufficient evidence to prove that animals shouldn't have rights to live and be happy. My opponent claims: Because we are different from other species we deserve the right to life but other species don't deserve the right to life. The claim you support is flawed in many ways. And as Peter Singer suggests is Speciesism, which is the discrimination or prejudice based on species. It is for the simple fact that ALL ANIMALS have the drive to survive; and avoid pain and/or suffering at all costs, that their lives should be taken into consideration. The fact that we are all different does not justify the taking of life. My opponent states: "Though I do not object to quickly and painlessly killing animals for food, attacking and torturing them in this way [beastiality] is in no way acceptable." My opponent has not proven that slaughtering animals is "quick" or "painless." Nor has my opponent addressed the pain and/or suffering animals are inflicted with during the duration of their confinement. Also he has not proven that beastiality is "attacking" or "torturing" the animals. Both these statements are baseless assertions. Humans obviously can give their consent. Therefore, it is illegal to make sexual advances on any person that does not consent to the action. While it is true that a young child does not have the rational ability to consent to sex, it is also true that the same set of rules humans live by is not the same set of rules animals are necessarily bound to. In regards to animal consent, animals in the natural world do not have to give consent to sex. I don't know the last time I asked my dog how his date went. We can't assume that animals have the ability to pick and choose their partners, let alone decide what specie they prefer. One would have to prove that animals undergo pain and/or suffering which is significantly higher than any pain and/or suffering experienced by animals in the natural world in order for beastiality to be considered inhumane. As I stated previously, beastiality is an abnormal human behavior. But does abnormal human behavior justify beastiality as unethical in nature. Homosexuality was once considered a "perversion" by many, but has become increasingly accepted in society as an "abnormal" genetic trait. Homosexuals, today, do not face punishment for their sexual preferences. Can one consider that this analogy be extended to other sexual preferences, like beastiality.