Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

Pro's case is essentially based on the concept of "consent. " Let's look at his claims.1. Number one is cearly false. Legality and morality are not linked at all. What is legal is not necessarily moral, and not all immoral things are illegal. Adultery is not illegal. Also, slavery was once legal in our country, but that did not make it moral.2. I'm not sure about this point, as people clearly recognize moral claims without necessarily having given any thought to any sort of moral theory.3. Pro has asserted that the relevant theory in this case is mutual consent of interacting parties and reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage. If one or both of these claims fail, then Pro's case fails. Since Pro is making the claim, he has the burden of proof to show that animals can, indeed, consent, and that pain or biological damage is avoided. I do not believe he has done this. So let's look at the "strategies" that Pro is offering.1. This claim clearly contradicts number one above. If legality is inherently linked with morality, then if it is illegal that would mean that it is, indeed, immoral. Since the government is interested in what is detrimental or beneficial to society, if bestiality/zoophilia is detrimental to society, then society is well within its rights to make it (or keep it) illegal.2. This point also seems to contradict his first point. He says that if I wish to talk about how dangerous it is, he will not entertain those statements. But one essential part of his case (remember, he used the word and) is whether or not it poses pain or biological damage. So if it is dangerous, then that would seem to refute the proposition he has laid out.3. Pro seems to want to avoid a philosophical debate, but an obvious problem with this is that a debate over consent is a philosophical argument. Science can tell us whether or not animals may be able to consent to sexual intercourse, but debating that consent is the relevant feature of a moral sexual ethic is debating a philosophical claim. As Pro seems to be using beastiality/zoophilia interchangably, I will simply use "beastiality" from here on out to mean both. I don't think zoophilia is a sexual orientation. People engage in all sorts of debased sexual acts, but we don't consider each one a sexual orientation. I am open to being incorrect on this, but either way I don't think it has any bearing on the debate (as I would argue that homosexual acts are also immoral). I will accept Pro's definition of consent. The question is, do animals meet the consent criteria? Someone like Peter Singer will argue that they can. [1] I, however, am much more dubious. I also disagree with Pro's contention that no human can give informed consent. For example, we still hold drunk drivers accountable for their accidents because we still view them as consenting to drive. Someone can choose to have sex or not, knowing that there is a chance that sex will produce a child. People often are perfectly aware of the consequences of their actions because the consequences are often limited. However, even when someone engages in an act that has an unintended consequence, we still hold them responsible for committing the act because one is expected to weigh all the possible consequences before acting. It is true that people don't seek consent from animals before eating them, but that is because animals are only instrumentally valuable, valuable only insofar as humans valuable them. They are not intrinsically valuable, that is, valuable as an ends unto themselves, like humans are. But since Pro's case is based on consent, he must prove that animals can consent. Pro's contention that it is not a requirement for one party to have all the information if they are unable to receive the information is shocking and, frankly, dangerous. Pro's case of the surgeon is correct, but that is because the surgeon intends to help the patient and cannot wait for consent or the patient will die. However, if a woman is passed out drunk at a party and a guy asks for her consent, he still cannot have sexual relations with her, even though she is unable to receive the information. We call that rape, and rightly so. So in short, Pro has not met his burden of proof. He has not proven that animals can consent. In fact, he seems to have based his case on the fact that they can't consent. Therefore, his case is self-refuting. If consent is important, and animals cannot consent, then it is tantamount to rape to have sex with animals. Let's take a look at his summation:1. I'm not sure this is completely true. Animals can communicate some basic desires to humans, such as "I'm hungry, feed me. " I think I can safely assume I have her consent to lay food in front of her. But the reason we consider adults having sex with minors as statutory rape is because they don't really understand what it is they're getting into, even though they can utter the word "yes. " So even though an animal may seem to express sexual desire, it would be wrong to take advantage of an animal (as well as the other philosophical reasons that sex with animals is immoral, but Pro seemed not to want to get into that discussion).2. Pro seems to knock out number two, and I don't see it as important. But the problem with Pro's claim is that the reason we forbid sex with animals is because we are rational beings (unlike animals). We can fully understand the gravity of our actions and accept the consequences. If an animal kills another animal, they have killed, but they have not committed murder. If a human kills another human unjustly, they have committed murder. This is not to say that animals have no value, rather it actually protects animals when we realize this. That way people can't take sexual advantage of them. That way people can't mistreat them or force them to fight. By recognizing that humans have certain obligations toward animals that they don't have to each other, it protects those animals from a species who is quite capable of doing unspeakably bizarre and harmful things that other animals could never even dream of. The example of the wasp doesn't really add anything to his argument. I don't know that wasps are incapable of refusing to sting you. Bees are usually a lot more docile, and wasps seem willing to sting anyone they want for any reason. But when an animal attacks, it is usually out of instinct (you are probably encroaching on its lair or it views you as a threat). Again, I don't know that it would be impossible for an animal to pursue an action to which it does not consent. Pro has provided no evidence for these claims. I think that Pro is trying to play semantic word games. I don't know that any animal would ever perform an action it would not consent to. Animals are incapable of holding other animals up at gunpoint. I think that Pro's argument that animals can consent are dealt with by the argument that they don't really know what they are consenting to, just like young girls don't, and we throw adults in jail who have sex with them. Adult humans are capable of realizing the full gravity of a situation. Animals are't. And to answer his question, I think horses can consent to being ridden. If they didn't want tbe ridden, they would buck you off (as we see at rodeos). But then again, there are things adults can do with children that we don't throw them in jail for (e. g. helping them with homework or taking them to the zoo). What's important is whether or not animals can consent to sex, and whether or not humans should be taking sexual advantage of them. In short, Pro's case has not stood up. He has not shown that animals are not harmed through sexual acts with humans, and he has not supported his contenton that animals can consent. With that, I turn things back over to Pro. [1] Peter Singer, "Heavy Petting. "