The Instigator
newbiehere
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
SlaterJ23
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Bestiality Should be Legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
newbiehere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,164 times Debate No: 34214
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

newbiehere

Pro

Before I begin, I would like to point out that I myself am not interested in having sex with animals, nor have I ever entertained the thought of having sex with animals. However, I fail to see any ethical or legal reason why having sex with animals should be illegal for those who are interested. My arguments pertain only to the U.S., as it would be rather silly to state these points for countries that already allow bestiality.

--------------

Mankind has had various relationships with animals throughout the ages: we have used them as friends, guards, clothes, and even food for centuries. There even exists a website that takes this man-animal relationship one step further--to marriage [1]. My suggestion is simply to allow people to consummate their marriages with their beloved animals, as well as have one-night stands and any other form of who-knows-what-because-it's-not-my-business with them.

1. Having sex with animals would be no less cruel than eating them.
People eat animals such as pigs, cows, lamb, chickens, and even horses on a daily basis throughout the U.S. We do such things for sustenance, and the argument could be made that it is necessary to do so in order to live. However, if we really truly wanted, we could do away with eating animals and all become vegan. (Have you seen PETA's commercials? They really want you to be a vegan.) The vegan diet consumes fewer resources, and many people would actually be healthier by avoiding animal fats and processed red meats. Protein deficiencies can be made up through means other than animal protein, such as soy. Why don't we do this, then? Why do we continue to kill animals in cruel ways* [2] and eat their delicious bacon? Simple: pleasure. Meat is delicious, and we don't want to give it up. (It's also worth pointing out that many people in the United States believe leather is sexy [3].) If it's okay to kill animals for their meat, is it really any worse to make love to them first? Or better yet, make love to them instead of killing them at all? The answer is no: it is not any worse.

2. It is no more dangerous than sleeping with a sex worker.
Sleeping with a prostitute can get you chlamydia, crabs, gonorrhea, Hepatitis A-C, HIV… the list goes on. Zoophilia has its list of diseases as well, but most are treatable with antibiotics. Get a docile animal that won't try to bite during sex, skip the argument about wearing protection (because you will, no questions asked; animals can't insist that they're disease-free and convince you not to protect yourself), and presto! Someone just saved himself a few hundred bucks.

3. It would cut down on prostitution and human trafficking.
I don't have the statistics on how many people would rather have sex with animals than with people, (partly because very few people would admit to finding a sheep's butt sexier than that of a woman and also because nobody cares to find out), but the number is than 1. Every person who sleeps with animals as opposed to sex workers cuts down on the sex industry's profits, which means fewer people will be kidnapped from foreign countries to do dirty deeds for clients. This may give birth to a new industry in which people buy "comfort animals," but hey, as I pointed out earlier, is it really any worse than slitting an animal's throat [2] and wearing its skin [3]?

4. If it does give birth to a new industry, the government can tax the **** out of it.
Let's be honest: the U.S. government isn't good at holding onto money. They spend it on military,… okay, mostly military. But they spend it on a lot of other things, too, and they borrow tons of money from other countries to do so [4]. One more service/good to tax to supply the government's spending spree couldn't be a bad thing. Sure, there are problems to take care of, like the fact that the government is spending so much in the first place, but in the meantime, if people are willing to cough up tax money to have sex with animals, why not take that money and spend it on awesome things like education, roads, and everything else the stars and stripes do for us?

5. Legalizing bestiality would make it safer for those who already practice it.
If a man is schtupping a sheep unbeknownst to his girlfriend and the girlfriend contracts whatever diseases the man got before transmitting the disease to other men, this could lead to an epidemic. Worse, because animal STDs are uncommon (for now), it is difficult for doctors to diagnose such diseases when they are transmitted [5]. By legalizing bestiality and teaching people how to properly make love to various animals, we can prevent these epidemics from ever happening in the first place.

To my opponent who is yet to be named: I wish you luck and look forward to having a fun debate with you.


*Admittedly, I am hesitant to define "cruel." If someone were to hang another man upside-down and slit his throat to bleed him to death for the sake of pleasure, though, I am confident that most of the U.S. population would consider this "cruel."


Sources:

[1] http://www.marryyourpet.com...

[2] http://www.wfad.org...

[3] http://www.askmen.com...

[4] http://www.brillig.com...

[5] http://www.cdc.gov... (an example of an animal-to-human STD)
SlaterJ23

Con

OK number 1: WTF dude. and 2: What the actual f***dude. So it's okay to have sex with animals but not eat them for food? Have the world become vegans?! What are you nuts?! Your arguments are ridiculous and so is this topic. There is no way in hell that if i walked downstairs tomorrow and saw my brother banging my dog that I'd be like eh that's okay. I don't know how to argue this other than say that it's just plain wrong and will never be legal ever, ever, ever, ever, ever.
Debate Round No. 1
newbiehere

Pro

Hello there, and thank you for responding to my opening argument. Reading your rebuttal, I found the one word to sum it up perfectly: "WTF." Why? Because, well, that's pretty much all you said. Let's go ahead and examine your rebuttal more carefully.

Your responses to my points 1 and 2 were incomplete at best. I think you could have explored more carefully what was bothering you so much about the idea of people minding their own business with livestock in their own bedrooms as well as why my arguments and this topic are ridiculous, and then turned your conclusions into an argument about bestiality being inherently immoral (which is kind of a weak argument, but hey, your response, not mine). My response isn't going to be a personal attack on you and how you so utterly fail at debating oh-my-gosh, though, because that's not in the spirit of this website. We all have our ways of debating, and I respect your right to present your case however you want.

I did imply that it might be better for animals if we made love to them instead of hanging them upside down and bleeding them to death in huge numbers, but that was to illustrate a point: is it really worse to kill animals in horrible ways than have (hopefully at least somewhat consensual) sex with them? My apologies for not making that clearer. Additionally, I do realize that this is somewhat of a subjective point; some people would rather see animals die horrible deaths than help a man drop his rocks off. Also, I am by no means encouraging people to become vegans. I ****ing love steak, and I will not give up my right to eat it, ever. We're on the same team.

As for bestiality being disturbing, again, we're on the same team here. You read the beginning of my post, right? I wouldn't ever consider having *gasp* sexual relations an animal myself, and I would also be shocked if I walked downstairs tomorrow and saw my brother banging my dog, especially because my dog's been dead for several years now. (Necrophelia is yet another topic I may debate one day, but let's not get into that one.) However, if some guy off the street wants to bang his cow in private, how is that my business at all? Would you walk in on a man banging his wife and tell him that missionary is the only position and every other position disturbs you, and should therefore be illegal? Unless you can point out a negative impact on your life other than "eww it's so grooossss," you really have no argument at all.

Finally, I'd like to point out that your final sentence, "I don't know how to argue this… and [bestiality] will never be legal ever, ever, etc.," is not only humble in that you are willing to admit your shortcomings (and I respect you for that), but also makes a huge presumption about the future with no citations or reasoning behind it. Sure, we can make educated guesses about certain things, but to just flat out say "ITS NEVAR GONNA HAPPAN" is plain ol' irresponsible. A better way to say it would be, "The majority of Americans disagree with your view, and this will likely not change for as long as you and I are alive; therefore, bestiality will never become legal." That would be a very good point, and I would completely agree with that. However, my argument is that "bestiality should be legalized," not that it will, so it's an irrelevant point.

Thank you again for your response. I look forward to reading your next rebuttal.
SlaterJ23

Con

Well from a religious standpoint God forbid having intercourse with animals so if you have any sort of religious spin on this debate it's over right there. There is a reason humans run society and not animals. We are separated from them. We have evolved to a higher class than animals. Now then, to your argument it seems your argument is basically "we kill them why not sleep wit them?" So you're saying since we do something that some consider cruel to animals why not do more cruelty to them? I'll tell you why animals cannot talk nor "consent" to having sex with a human. Sure I know what you are thinking, Well they cannot consent to you killing them! nope they cannot which is why we are above them on the food chain. We are all living beings in this world and humans are the only ones that have a somewhat "moral code". Killing animals for food allows us to live another day. Having sex with them? That gives us nothing except "pleasure" but that's to only the few extremely erm "different" people shall we say. Saying for lack of a better phrase "Let's have sex with animals" instead of killing them is like saying instead of killing inmates why don't we keep them in an empty cell till they die. Bestiality is basically animal rape because they cannot consent nor can they do anything about it other than attack whomever tries such an act. Would you take advantage of a mentally challenged person? That is basically what it is like to do that to an animal. While i agree slaughtering animals can be considered cruel it provides us with food while sex with animals provides nothing.
Debate Round No. 2
newbiehere

Pro

Thank you for taking the time to write another rebuttal. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you; playing the God card by no means ends the debate right there. I don't know what country you're from, nor do I care, but in America (i.e. the country this debate pertains to), we have a concept called "freedom of religion." You can't impose your religious beliefs on a group of people through law; everyone has a right to his or her own religion, and that's final. Saying, "You can't do such-and-such because my god disapproves of it" has no bearing on any debate anywhere (unless it's a debate specifically about god and religion), so please try not to bring it up again.

"There is a reason humans run society and not animals. We are separated from them. We have evolved to a higher class than animals."
Yes, we do run society. Society, by definition, is a gathering of people. It would be weird if animals ruled over us, just like it would be weird to see a dude being the leader of a pack of lions (and banging the females) or being the leader of a school of fish (though that would be pretty hilarious). People have also managed to modify a lot of the earth to our liking. We also have control over a lot of animals, and we could probably kill them all if we wanted. And sure, we're quite a bit smarter--that's why we found ways to kill them in huge numbers, and why we're finally considering getting more use out of them before they become delicious bacon. In short: I'm not sure what the point of these sentences was.

From here, though, I have even more trouble understanding your argument. You mention that we have a "moral code," but you fail to state how that moral code makes it okay for us to slaughter animals cruelly but not okay for us to have sex with them. You did point out God and the Bible telling us not to have sex with animals, but those are instructions from a higher being, not part of the "moral code" we developed as a species.

You also point out that killing animals "allows us to live another day," which I already addressed in my opening argument; we don't have to kill animals. We do it because it brings us pleasure. Humans are more than capable of living without eating meat. However, I love bacon, and I won't give that up, even knowing full well that I could easily become a vegan and live just as long, if not longer, by eating more healthful foods. Hundreds of millions of people agree with me, which is why we kill billions of animals and eat their delicious meat. The point I made earlier was that if we're killing animals for pleasure, having sex with them would be for the same purpose at a lesser degree of cruelty (equal degree at worst), which you summarized but somehow entirely missed the point of and failed to refute. In fact, I would argue that eating animals is unhealthier than having sex with them. Sex has a ton of benefits for your health [1].

"Saying for lack of a better phrase "Let's have sex with animals" instead of killing them is like saying instead of killing inmates why don't we keep them in an empty cell till they die"
I don't see the point of this statement either. We don't put people on death row because it brings us pleasure, nor do we do it to eat them and stay alive. We do it to punish them. Your statement is completely irrelevant, and in fact, we do keep them in an empty cell until they die in a lot of cases: not all states use the death penalty, and the morality of the death penalty is still being debated.

"Bestiality is basically animal rape…"
Why yes, it is. And eating bacon is basically animal murder. Tasty, tasty murder that we will never give up as a society. Again, an irrelevant point, if there was one here to begin with. (The "consent" part of my previous argument was a joke, but I'll be careful not to make too many more of those, as I can see how they can be confusing in a debate.)

"Would you take advantage of a mentally challenged person?"
I've called the analogy police and they're on their way. Just kidding--but seriously, I don't understand why you're comparing animals that we eat with taking advantage of a mentally challenged person. People with special needs are no different from you or me, but pigs and cows inherently are, as you yourself pointed out earlier. No, I wouldn't take advantage of a mentally challenged person, but I also wouldn't hang a mentally challenged person upside down, slit his throat, cut off part of his butt and eat it, either. Your point is irrelevant, if not offensive (and coming from me, that's pretty bad).

"While i agree slaughtering animals can be considered cruel it provides us with food while sex with animals provides nothing."
Why so materialistic? You don't have to kill an animal and take its physical remains for it to be beneficial to human beings. Some animals provide love and companionship when alive, too, like my dog that died several years ago, but I guess you would argue that love isn't tangible and is therefore "nothing." Even with your shallow view of animals, though, as I mentioned earlier, sex does provide a LOT of benefits. Physically, the actions are no different between doing it with another human being and doing it with an animal, so all benefits apply. Again, check out [1] or just Google "benefits of sex." Trust me, there are a lot of things sex with animals can provide.

To the voters/readers out there: Thank you for reading this debate. Even though he had more than enough chances, my opponent has addressed only my first of five points, and even then, has failed to rebut it adequately. I take this to mean that he only had an inadequately-stated problem with the cruelty element of my opening statement, and past that, he agrees with every other point I've made. In short, though we disagree on one issue (that I must repeat, he has not refuted), we agree on 80% of the other reasons, and therefore agree that it would therefore be beneficial to the U.S. to legalize bestiality.

To my opponent: Thank you for joining me in this debate.

One final comment: You can't spell "bestiality" without first spelling "best"!

Source:
[1] http://www.webmd.com...
SlaterJ23

Con

The only arguments you have are to take sentences out of my debate and comment on them. You have yet to prove your point on why it should be legalized. What benefits? How it could help society etc. etc. The topic of bestiality is subjective. In our society it is subjectively looked down upon. If the majority of society looks down upon it it should not be legalized. There are no benefits, morality, or positive impacts from legalizing bestiality.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SlaterJ23 3 years ago
SlaterJ23
This was a poor choice on my part for a first debate
Posted by 4saken 3 years ago
4saken
Justify its legalization is unnecessary. If you can't justify the its illegalization, then it should be legal. What you personally feel about it is irrelevant.
Posted by SlaterJ23 3 years ago
SlaterJ23
such a catch 22 argument. You cannot justify one way or another the legalization of such a act it's ridiculous. Subjective acts are subjective for a reason
Posted by mananlak 3 years ago
mananlak
This is awkward.
Posted by serp888 3 years ago
serp888
There are no negative consequences from doing so. I don't find it appealing in the slightest, but nonetheless there's nothing technically harmful or mallacious about it.
Posted by newbiehere 3 years ago
newbiehere
Hi again, Corridon.

I probably shouldn't contradict (and therefore antagonize) my potential voters or quote Wikipedia, but it looks like bestiality is illegal in 37 states as of 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org... It seems I had incorrectly assumed that there was an explicit nationwide ban; I probably should have done some research before launching this debate. But hey, I had fun, and that's what matters.

That's sort of the angle I was going for--I wouldn't do it myself, but if someone wants to shag a horse, who am I to stop him?

Thanks! I appreciate it. I look forward to hearing back from you and other voters. :D
Posted by Corridon 3 years ago
Corridon
Thanks for the quick reply, Newbiehere.

As is the same with same-sex marriage, no state in the United States recognizes bestiality as an illegal practice. The reason for it is because such a law would be impossible to enforce - it's as simple as that.

Of course, I believe such things are absolutely repulsive. However, it is in my opinion that such things are the domain of the individual, not the government.

I'll check back when it's time to vote. Good luck! =)
Posted by newbiehere 3 years ago
newbiehere
Hi Corridon,

It looks like bestiality is illegal in a lot of countries, but I didn't want to address each and every one because I'm lazy and didn't want to research which countries outlaw it in what way. I decided to aim the argument only at one country--namely, the United States. (If it's legal in the United States, by god, please wake me up from my nightmare.)

The point of this debate is only to have a fun discussion; I don't want anyone printing out this debate and taking it to Congress to get any new laws passed. Regardless of your view on bestiality, I encourage you to vote based on who presented his argument better.
Posted by Corridon 3 years ago
Corridon
In which countries are bestiality illegal?

Is this a satirical debate topic?
Posted by newbiehere 3 years ago
newbiehere
Emmo, I'm glad you appreciate the topic! I'm totally down for debating something ridiculous again. I'll challenge you when I come up with something.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
newbiehereSlaterJ23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did very well despite taking a very unpopular position and managed to argue it successfully. Used sources, gave good arguments, con though appeared to be lost the whole time and barely presented counter arguments of his own.
Vote Placed by TheSaint 3 years ago
TheSaint
newbiehereSlaterJ23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: No sources, but con used poor spelling/grammar, evoked no arguments except an argument towards religion (which should not effect public policy). It's rather a shame, this should have been an easy win.
Vote Placed by handywandy 3 years ago
handywandy
newbiehereSlaterJ23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with con but pro presented a much better argument. I still dont think it should be legal, but con did a horrible job arguing this
Vote Placed by TheDarkMuffin 3 years ago
TheDarkMuffin
newbiehereSlaterJ23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I've always thought that if the animal could somehow communicate consent, it'd totally be okay. This isn't a votebomb from forfeits. Con doesn't seem to use any commas, so worse grammar. Con didn't even try to make a convincing argument. Con is rude. I'm not even sure why Con accepted this without wanting to seriously debate it.
Vote Placed by 4saken 3 years ago
4saken
newbiehereSlaterJ23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is very rude in Round 1 and ignores all of Pro's arguments. In Round 2 he used the standpoint of morality, not legality. In Round 3 he said that something does not benefit the society should not be legalized, which is false. If something does not have ill effects it should not be illegalized, and not illegal means legal.