Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

I don’t know how to interpret the idea of ‘partially’ subjective. Something is either objective or it’s not. If you have a method that I can follow to reproduce your conclusions on which harm is greater or less than what risk; then that is an objective measurement. If you don’t it’s subjective no matter how many people happen to agree with your conclusions. I am referring to the fact that there is no unit for "harm." There are not units referred to as "Hurts." (Play on Hertz. I'm so funny.) You are comparing similar events, you haven’t measured them you are just saying 2X > X. Can you compare whether one death is less harmful than you being poor? Yes, but it will be a bit fuzzy. That's the nature of ethics. Determine what, exactly, is right, is often difficult and fuzzy, because perfect knowledge is impossible. If perfect knowledge was possible, it would be quite simple: Measure to what degree individual people affected prefer different outcomes, and choose the one which people prefer the most. If you weren’t going to accept the premises in section B you should have started a new debate. This is the last round and there is no room for me to support them. Not cool! I can’t stop anyone from voting but I am really quite surprised at the number of people who said this variant leaves them no arguments. In my experience claiming the animal is harmed or doesn’t consent is the first line of assault. I can only conclude that that part of my argument is so perfect no one dares challenge it :p No, it isn't perfect at all. But you're arguing whether or not something is inherently that way, meaning that so long as you can come up with one example of an animal mating with a human that wasn't harmed in the process, you can declare a win. That's exactly why, if your intent was to make it so you could cite one example, just one example, no matter how theoretical, and win, then Section B must be ignored. Except I also made a premise for the moral standard to be used in the scope of the argument. I’ve had 10,000 word debates about morality on other sites. If it was reasonable to expect that we could argue about moral standards and then argue about how that standard is applied to bestiality I wouldn’t have that premise. (I had to cut 2,800 characters from the response I wrote to this) So? That moral standard doesn't help your case. The moral standard is only that, regarding bestiality only, we should judge decisions based on consent and harm. If I drive high and drunk it’s a lot more risky than driving alert and sober, but what you are talking about is outlawing driving because it’s hard to prove someone drove drunk or high after the fact. You are not talking about a risk, but proving that an unwarranted risk was taken. On the contrary. I'm talking about outlawing drunk driving because it's risky, or outlawing discharging a weapon inside city limits because it's risky. You seem to think that there's little to no risk associated with the act of bestiality, but your very words betray you: "No I didn't, if you have sex with your dog; that's your full sex happiness + the dogs happiness instead of just your lesser masturbation happiness," you say, and then when asked, "In otherwords, you automatically assume that the dog is in favor of the idea," you say, "My whole gosh darn argument is about that." The thought that an animal might not want sex doesn't really seem to cross your mind. It seems like this is a novel approach from you. Everything you said before had to do with catching animal rapist, not risk inherent in the practice. The two are one and the same, in my opinion, because both are, indeed, about risk. I'm not only talking about risk inherent in the practice, I'm talking about risk from deeming it acceptable and allowing it. There will be diseases spread, there will be health complications, there will be animal abuse.So what makes bestiality as risky as Ebola? Can you even demonstrate it’s riskier than homosexual sex given the HIV issue?I didn't say that it was as risky as Ebola, merely that it was risky--as far as being riskier than homosexual sex, at least both people at risk in that (one should hope) actually know what the risks are. Animals don't. You have not demonstrated that the most ethical thing is to ban something ‘prone to abuse’. You don’t seem to feel the need to accept the moral standard I set for the debate so I am certainly not going to accept utilitarianism just because you started using it. I am interpreting ‘prone to abuse’ as meaning hard to catch animal rapist because you haven’t established anything else at this point. You set no moral standard for the debate apart from a moral standard relating to bestiality. You say, specifically, "the relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage." Nothing there about which laws are moral, because as you note, while the two ought to be linked in some way, they are not equivalent. Similarly, that's how I can support blanket bans on things like murder, or assault, despite the possibility that there are very exceptional circumstances in which they are justified and, indeed, morally required. I'm using utilitarianism to turn your argument back on itself. You say that what is ethical should be legal. Fine. But with everything except the act of zoophilia, you left yourself open to any moral theory I could chose. I chose utilitarianism. Therefore, the ethical thing to do is to pass laws which maximize total utility. Therefore, since what is ethical should be law, we are bound by law to pass laws which maximize total utility. Applying B.2 to B.1 is therefore impossible, as it would be a paradox. Some people will do anything for liberty and rights. Will you hurt them to ensure the dominance of your moral standard? Obviously, if by "dominance" you mean "is making the laws." You have not established it’s only acceptable in rare circumstances, but only that it’s harder (than where the victims could speak) to prove in a court of law that a specific instance was unacceptable after the fact. You know it occurs to me that is probably why rapist often kill their human victims. The law is causing people to killed ontop of being raped. Would act-utilitarians then be required to advocate the repeal of rape laws? No. Far more people would then be raped, and there are other factors besides imprisonment that goes into someone's decision to kill a rape victim. I guess I did misunderstand you. I did not see any arguments for an inherent risk of rape or harm before this round. You can eliminate the risk of rape to 0% by learning about animal communication beforehand and testing your understanding of that communication with the individual animal beforehand with non-sexual interaction. Firstly, no you can't. You can't eliminate any risk to 0%, the very idea is absurd. Secondly, I sincerely doubt that most zoophiles have that degree of knowledge; people study for years to get that knowledge. In other words for an individual the risk can be mitigated to insignificance. Animal rape (and human rape for that matter) does not occur as random percentage of sexual encounters but because one party actively chooses to ignore the consent and comfort of the other. Nope. Someone can rape someone else without fully understanding that the person isn't not consenting.