Bestiality should be illegal

CONTENTION 1: Bestiality should be illegal because humans tend to have an undue influence over animals.1.1. The instigator begins his round by telling us that “If we use animals in so many ways and they don’t rebel, how do we know we aren’t hurting them or contradicting their happiness just as severely as we would with sex (presuming sex regularly does that at all)?” However, this question is completely irrelevant to the arguments I’ve put forward. My argument is not a question of determining whether animals are happy, but whether humans have an undue influence over animals much like adults have over children. The fact that humans have complete dominion over animals is proof of this. Since the instigator doesn’t contest human dominion over animals, we need not delve any further into line of discussion.1.2. Next, the instigator addresses my analysis of current statutory rape laws. He points out that I’ve somehow undermined my point by admitting that “society makes a false assumption in presuming younger people cannot consent despite being capable of saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’.” However, this doesn’t undermine my point in the slightest. Rather, the instigator simply doesn't the understand the very concept of legal presumptions in the first place.In the case of statutory rape, we presume that children cannot consent regardless of whether they actually say “yes” or “no.” Adults tend to have an undue influence over children and children can thus easily be manipulated into sexual activity, the most recent and infamous example of this being with Jerry Sandusky. There’s also the numerous cases of catholic priests, but I don’t imagine I need to get into that. Thus, no, my point isn’t undermined in admitting that non-consent from children is simply a presumption. From the standpoint of public policy, we wish to protect children from being abused by adults. The fact that we can (and should) presume that children cannot consent to sex with adults makes any argument the instigator has about an animal’s capacity to consent completely irrelevant.Thus, again turning to the instant case, we as a society should presume that animals cannot consent for the greater good. The good being that we prevent a regime where animals are simply sexual servants. Sexual servitude is simply another form of rape. When you, as an adult, engage in sexual activity with a child as a result of your undue influence over them, you’ve effectively engaged in nonconsensual sex, hence why we have statutory rape laws. By this same standard, we, as a society should simultaneously reject bestiality.Humans already sexually abuse animals at a disturbing rate.[1] Making bestiality legal will simply open the floodgates for animal abusers in our society. All the instigator accomplishes is creating a society where animal cruelty is much more difficult to contain and prosecute.CONTENTION 2: Bestiality is dangerous to human society2.1. The instigator begins his rebuttal to my second contention by pointing out that the HIV virus was brought about as a result of man eating chimpanzee meat. However, my argument is not a matter of whether HIV came about as a result of bestiality, but rather to emphasize on the large risks involved in humans acquiring diseases found in other species. The fact of the matter is that one of the deadliest diseases known to man came from another species and that bestiality is a very high risk activity sexual activity due to the multitude of illnesses one can acquire by engaging in it. What the instigator wants is a regime where more illnesses from other species come into being at a much greater frequency. Illnesses that individual species are more naturally equipped to deal with than humans. Nothing the instigator says justifies the burden he is placing on society.2.2. The instigator attempts to make a comparison between growing mold and bestiality. Not only is his comparison specious (given that it’s not possible to live in a society without mold, but possible to live in a society without bestiality), but mold has proven to have many practical uses that benefit society.[2] The benefits of mold make it worth keeping (albeit subjected to reasonable regulations). The same cannot be said for bestiality.He further makes the claim that engaging bestiality is NOT biologically dangerous. However, the instigator is considerably mistaken. For example, research indicates that men who engage in bestiality are 42% more likely to develop penal cancer.[3]The instigator is correct in that dangerous diseases are an enemy to society. What he fails to realize, however, is that animals have virtually no understanding of this enemy and are thus likely to engage in all sorts of behaviors (i.e. eating feces and drinking waste infested water, humping just about anything under the sun, etc) that we humans have sufficient intellectual capacity to grasp the dangers of. Use your common sense, members of DDO. I love my dog, Fitzwilliam Darcy, as much as most people love their pets, but Mr. Darcy, despite being well groomed and cared for, is a flea bitten mongrel who I wouldn't even allow 5 paces near the dinner table, much less to the kind of activity the instigator talks about. Yet the instigator, is telling us that this sort of activity, activity that involves the complete physical exchange of waste and body fluids is not dangerous? You don't need to have a medical degre to see that this is complete utter nonsense.He goes one to yet again make a comparison with homosexuality, but this is yet again a matter of using your common sense, members of DDO. Humans don't wade through filfth and eat feces. Animals do. Humans are perfectly capable of protecing themselves against the enemy the instigator talks. Animals are practicaly in love with the enemy the instigator talks about.[4] There's no comparison.2.3. Honestly, I'm not too sure what CON is getting at in this subsection. Is he attempting to claim that zoonoses aren't contagious?2.4. CON's argument basically boils to acknowleding the diseases one can acquire from animals, but insists that there is no extra burden from bestiality since one can acquire many of these diseases without engaging in bestiality. This argument is weak and defies common sense. We're talking about sexual activity with an animal. Directly and intentionally making close physical contact and exchanging fluids. This doesn't compare to petting your dog or rubbing his belly. Of course there is an extra burden.2.5. CON should first prove that one has a 'human right' to sex with animals in the first place. Then we can discuss whether anyone's rights are being violated.2.6. CON's argument is ad hoc. Although I argue that banning the practice of bestiality curbs the risk of new and dangerous diseases in society, laws aren't the only force keeping this from happening. The fact of the matter is that most people, such as myself, simply find bestiality repulsive. Nonetheless, should that change, then it goes without saying what happens when people spend too much time in physical proximity with filth ridden beasts.[4]Conclusion:As I've stressed, the health risks to having sex with animal are quite real. What CON is suggesting is that you disregard common sense.CON is correct to the extent that one could certainly make the case that animals are already food/experiment/house-labor slaves. What he disregards is the simple that the societal good food, medical products and shelter far outweighs the bad. Nevertheless, we as a society still believe in animal cruelty laws. As I've demonstrated, the act of effective rape simply crosses the line and we as a society should reject it as well as reject the prevalent threat of animal sex abuse.Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com...