Bestiality should be illegal

Greetings members of Debate Dot Org (DDO). My name is Logical Master and I represent the PRO position in this case. As such, it is my job to demonstrate that bestiality should be illegal. As you'll notice, the Instigator has provided us with a list of terms and conditions for this debate. His request is that I prove that bestiality should be illegal without simply citing laws/moral standards already in place. In other words, he doesn't want me to say anything to the effect of "Bestiality should be illegal because it's already against the law!" I gladly accept this condition. I also accept the list of definitions he has taken the time to offer us. CONTENTION 1: Bestiality should be illegal because humans tend to have an undue influence over animals. Members of DDO, we live in a society where humans have dominion over animals. We take them in as pets, put them in zoos, use them to help further scientific research. In general, animals don't rebel against us. The domesticated ones, especially when trained, tend to be subservient to our demands. If I tell my dog to "sit down", "be quiet" and "go to your cage", he readily complies, even if these demands make him unhappy. Many animals will do a great deal of things they don't want to do, especially when it's made clear to them that they are subservient to humans. Ergo, humans tend to have an undue influence over animals.(1) Our society has gone to great lengths to review relationships premised upon undue influences with a great deal of scrutiny. (2) For example, one of the reasons our society has created statutory rape laws is because " the crime of statutory rape is meant to prevent older people, who may wield undue influence over younger people, from taking advantage, especially sexually, of younger people." (3). Although younger people are certainly capable of saying "yes" or "no" to sexual intercourse with an older person, an undue influence over a younger person can easily serve to manipulate the younger person towards saying yes.(4). The existence of this influence is why our society presumes that a child is unable to consent, regardless of whether there is any indication that the child "gave permission for something to happen."(5) One could post a mildly amusing video of a child "humping" an adult's leg and that wouldn't be sufficient to overcome the presumption that a child cannot consent. In the instant case, what the instigator is effectively proposing is a regime where humans can use their undue influence over animals to engage in frequent sexual intercourse with them. Much like the reasoning used to reject child/adult intercourse, we should extend said reasoning to rejecting human/animal intercourse and thus identify human/animal sexual intercourse as statutory rape. Based on his prior debates, I'm sure the instigator has access to a couple of mildly amusing videos portraying dogs dry-humping humans and whatnot. However, none of these videos (or any video for that matter) is sufficient to overcome that presumption of non-consent based upon the undue influence humans have over animals in the first place. Is the presumption of non-consent a legal fiction? Certainly, but it's one well-needed to serve the greater good. Furthermore, it's no secret that the intellectual capacity of an animal is very much inferior to that of a human. For example, canine IQ tests indicate that the average dog has the mental abilities of a 2 year old human.(6) Dogs are far moreso susceptible to a human's undue influence than the average human child, further pushing the need to presume that an animal cannot consent. CONTENTION 2:Bestiality is dangerous to human society The best known example of an illness that originally began in animals is none other than HIV/AIDs, one of the deadliest diseases known to man.(7) Sexual activity with animals puts society at a wide range of significant health risks.(8). Although its true that one can acquire diseases from intercourse with other humans, human bodies simply aren't built to accomodate other species, thus activities/fluids which may prove nigh-harmless to animals may prove to be life threatening to humans. The wiki page I provided list some examples of this. Since there's no assurance that one who has sex with animals simply sticks to having sex with animals, frequent involvement in these high-risk activities spreads such risks to society as a whole. Moreover, this places a burden on society in that it has to utilize numerous resources come up with a cure/treatment for an illness that was originally only found in animals. HIV/AIDs is the known example of this burden. No matter what the instigator says throughout the remainder of this debate, bestiality but for a few malcontents simply doesn't justify the potential burdens it places on society CONCLUSION:What the instigator is proposing is a society where animals are effectively sex slaves and where we as a society have to put up with having and treating the illnesses found in a vast number of other species. For the reasons provided, such a society should be rejected without hesitation and bestiality should remain illegal. Sources: (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://www.csj.org... (3) http://nationalparalegal.edu... (4) http://www.cnn.com... (noting Jerry Sandusky's criminal conduct in luring young children into sexual activities) (5) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (6) http://www.livescience.com... (7) http://www.theaidsinstitute.org... (8) http://en.wikipedia.org...