Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

Well I went about 7000 characters over budget this time (I type it in Word first). Very little can be condensed especially for the video description. I thus removed many responses, I ask my opponent to realize that I did not wish to ignore any of her points (I'm male btw) what's here is simply what I rank most relevant. I will post the rest in the thread about bestiality I made. I also put the description of the video in that forum despite it being demanded in strong terms by my opponent. I ask that my link to the forum post I will make be considered like any other source and not an attempt to sneak by the character limit (which it most certainly is). E1f. Therefore, my opponent needs to prove that animals can communicate consent to humans and humans can understand it. I don't require 100%, but I do require proof that animals can consent to sex and humans can generally understand it. If not, my opponent advocates sex without consent, which is rape, even according to my opponent's definition. The argument is contained in round 1. I will sum it up with a series of case examples since Con seems agreeable to that format. I did not do this originally since it is by nature less complete than the abstract and probably a bit more disturbing to people who are disgusted by bestiality (or just sex). 1. If an animal pounces on you with an erect penis and shoves it at you such that all you have to do is line up a hole. That is implicit consent from an animal, their mind is in control of their body so we can know their mind by what their body does. 2. If an animal has well known and established vocalizations and body language to communicate fear, anxiety, pain, anger, warning, or any other emotion or reaction reflecting a non-consenting state of mind, yet fails to do so during an interaction that is implicit consent. For a dog growling either means he/she is mad or he/she is pretending to be mad (as in a game). They don't pretend to be mad during sex so that's unequivocal. 3. Just as an animal can communicate consent implicitly by action (1.) they can communicate non-consent by action meaning their inaction communicates consent. Walking away is the almost ubiquitous quadruped method for females to avoid an unwanted mating. Males mounting ‘doggy style’ (which is obviously used by far more than dogs) have no way to practically stop a female from moving and will literally fall off in a few strides. I am not pulling this out of my hat, I have seen it repeated again and again in articles and documentaries and frankly it seems obvious. http://www.justanswer.com... “Sometimes the problem is a female moving her hindquarters at a crucial moment or walking forward while the male is mounted. You can try leashing your female so she doesn't do this. I have done this with first time mating females with good success.” For those readers who seriously think that some kind of brain control takes over when an animal gets aroused read consider what the link above describes. Note especially the casual nature of the answer, Jane Lefler is not surprised that a female will bite a male who is ‘getting fresh’ with her when she doesn’t want it. None of you should be. Don’t let it escape you either that she advocated tying up the bitch so she can’t perform the “no” action, muzzling her so she couldn’t bite, and finally sticking a metal tube up her vagina to impregnate her regardless. Consider what you might think if this was done for the benefit of a human male. Think about all this talk of informed consent. My opponent again refused to state any specific example, but listed off four general criteria for consent (my opponent gave me permission to repost this). Alright, I give up. You want specifics fine? I am in possession of several videos of male and female animals engaging in sexual relations with human beings. I am willing to describe what’s going on in them. http://www.debate.org... 146 and 147. I will refer to this as video A. Additionally, these standards are awful. Supposing that a dog barked during intercourse, a human might argue that this was a happy bark He/she would not need to, the burden would be on the state to show it was a sad bark presuming they even had a recording or eye witness to the bark. The communications I reference are not subjective projections as noted above. Furthermore, the animal cannot say "stop." According to my opponent, if the animal signals that it is interested in sex, (s)he cannot change her/his mind. If (s)he ever indicates consent at any point, than according to my opponent the animal will always want intercourse. The same criteria I gave which allows us them to communicate consent to us are equally applicable to communicating non-consent. An animal most certainly can change their minds but they are going to have to communicate it. Criteria #4 is specifically the absence of communicating non-consent when it is known to be possible. Obviously if the animal then communicated non-consent consent is retracted and the human has a duty to extricate themselves as soon as possible. There is no way to determine if the animal has been trained to have sex. Well there is no way to prove otherwise for video A or any other documentation of consensual bestial acts (to you), no scientist or other so called objective observers have volunteered to document the whole process starting with an animal that has never had sex with humans. However I have a problem with the idea very of training, it’s kind of a concept invented just to glaze over the differences between coercing, trading with, and teaching animals. The same word used to describe [shocking an animal till it does something its afraid of] is also used to describe [offering them a hug in return for making a funny sound] or [showing them how to use an automatic treat dispenser]. What I’m going to say now is just my word of course, but 95% any other zoo would tell you the same thing and we are the only ones who could possibly know anyway. Most animals need to learn how to have sex, even with their own species. Having sex with humans has a learning curve, for dogs (providing you aren’t getting too fancy) it’s usually a very short learning curve to get basic intercourse down. Refining the interaction can take a lot longer. Most animals do not need to be artificially motivated at all, that is the sex is probably its own reward them and that’s how it should be and how zoosexuals like it. However some will use ‘bribes’ or treats to motivate animals who are reluctant especially about trying something new. They draw the line at negative reinforcement of any kind, and so do I, and so should all of you. It can still be described as training as there are repeated cycles of reward and punishment even if the reward is merely pleasurable sensation and the punishment is only being disappointed (or seeing your human disappointed) but it’s not wrong because consent is still respected and there is no harm. According to my opponent, these ape prostitutes wanted to have sex with humans: http://www.examiner.com...... Actually if you read through her leg was tied up and she was in a cage. I specifically said in the PM that restraints should be illegal at the same time as sex because they prevent an animal from leaving which is a primary form of avoiding unwanted interaction and they know they can’t leave if they’re tied up. Even worse, my opponent forces the law to prove that there wasn't consent instead of having the defendant prove that there was consent This principle is known as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and was not invented by me. Because animals cannot testify in court, under Pro's model the law can definitely not know the difference between rape and sex. No, if it ever gets its hands on real evidence those criteria can be used to determine consent. I would remind you that this is already the case for sex itself. The only acts of bestiality that are being caught are either by direct evidence (eye witness, recording, confession) or some kind of physical damage to the animal. The only time my criteria would stand in the way of bringing an animal rapist to justice is if there is no evidence that they raped an animal. In which case of course I advocate letting them go since to the law they are no different than someone who is not an animal rapist. Even if you don't buy that Pro lost, Pro admits that the law would not be able to distinguish between rape and sex. If sex is legal in this case, so is rape. I have not come anywhere close to admitting that, all I have admitted is the obvious truth that the law cannot distinguish where no evidence is available. The animal can’t talk, that’s true; that’s one possible source of evidence neither the prosecution nor defense can use. It’s not the only possible source and the possible sources of evidence have nothing to do with the ability of the law to make a determination based on the facts as they have been supported in court. You could pass a law making alien landings on earth illegal without permits and the fact that no alien landings can be detected would not mean the court can’t declare an alien landing illegal if one was ever proved. Making rape legal is problematic. Luckily I am not advocating that. So the real question becomes: should masters be allowed to have sex with their mute, mentally handicapped slaves who cannot testify in court when the law is entirely incapable of determining whether the master raped or had consensual sex? They aren’t mentally handicapped, and I won’t entertain for a moment that keeping pets is slavery and that is permissible but having sex with them is so much worse. People need to make up their mind, either animals have a healthy place by our side or they don’t. It is the height of hypocrisy to pick one minorities desires and say “hey you, you need consent from the animal; not us we don’t but you do.”