Legalize Bestiality

I will begin by pointing out that my opponent has dropped the "Animal Abuse" argument. By doing so, he has conceded that in some cases, bestiality is a form of animal abuse.Consent:"When a husband and wife are snuggling together in bed and his foreplay just gradually turns into sex without a single word being spoken is it rape or is their body language enough to establish consent? Suppose they are spooning and both move in for penetration at the exact same time, so neither can be said to have been the one to have "initiated" it and there's no basis to say one is dominant during the sex. Which one is the rapist? Are they both guilty of raping each other?"Let us look at the definition of rape.Rape- The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.So in my opponent's example, neither of the parties was guilty of rape, because neither was forcing sex on the other. So in this case, they did consent in several ways: Through their marriage and through body language."Consider this scenario, a dog gets an erection, jumps onto a person and starts humping them and eventually gets around to penetration. The person passively sits there and takes it of their own free will, letting the dog initiate each and every part of the sexual experience, neither pushing any move on the dog or even hinting at it. How can the dog be said to be being raped or abused in this case when the dog is initiating it and the human is participating by just letting the dog have its way?"In this scenario, my opponent is correct. This is not animal abuse. However, this is one possible example. There are plenty of examples I could give where a human forced them self on an animal. This is animal abuse. The resolution is that bestiality should be legal, not that animal initiated bestiality should be legal. Because the resolution is not limited in this way, my opponent is arguing that all bestiality should be legal. In many, if not most cases, bestiality is not animal initiated. The resolution would legalize these scenarios as well, thus giving way to animal abuse.Although my argument is not true in every single case, it does not need to be true in every single case. I quote from the unchallenged BoP statement in R1:"All I must do to fulfill my BoP is present a good reason to have laws against it."I do not need to prove that bestiality is animal abuse in every case. All I must do is prove that it is animal abuse in at least one case. I have fulfilled my BoP. Animal Language- Dolphins"While there is considerable debate in the scientific community about the ability of apes to understand sign language, Con completely glossed over my point about Dolphins."I glossed over the point about dolphins because there was no evidence for my opponent's claim. Until such evidence was presented, I did not need to respond. So, dolphins. First of all, who would want to have sexual relations with dolphins?Regardless, I do not need to prove that every single animal is not possible to give knowing consent. Once again, the resolution is not whether dolphin bestiality should be legal, but whether the practice as a whole is legal.I think it is fair to say that dolphins would not be in the majority of animals involved in this practice. There is no evidence that most animals that would likely be involved (dogs and cats) are capable of communicating this consent to most humans.ConclusionI believe that my opponent has misunderstood his BoP. His job is not to find exceptions, such as an animal forcing them self on a human or one animal that can communicate very well, but rather to prove that there are not good reasons to have laws against bestiality. He must show what is gained by legalizing bestiality, compared to the very possible animal abuse that would occur from such an action.So although there are a couple of exceptions to my original contentions, the argument as a whole still stands when looked at with my and my opponent's BoP in mind. It is fair to say that at this point in the debate, we have a strong case against bestiality in most cases, and a fairly weak case against it.