Bestiality should not be illegal in all cases
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One day
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Bestiality - Sexual intercourse between a human and a non-human animal
R1. Pro's case; Con's Case
R2. Pro Rebuttal; Con Rebuttal
R3. Pro Rebuttal & Summary ; Con Rebuttal & Summary
A law without a purpose would be futile, if beyond an appeal to consistency, the only other appeal is to possible harm to the animal, then a law against bestiality would be futile and should hence not exist. Denmark’s Animal Ethics Council opposed the introduction of an anti-bestiality law in Denmark in 2015 as “existing laws which allow bestiality except in cases where the animal can be proved to have suffered were enough” . Similarly, in the United States, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 already establishes that “A person commits an offence if an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer” , hence explicitly criminalising bestiality would be futile as harm to the animal is already illegal. Therefore, bestiality should not be illegal as there are already laws in place that prevent harm to the animals.
“The "jury is still out" on many of your assumed facts, such as the existence of homosexual relationships in other animals”
“The animal could still be operating out of "instinct", which is not voluntary.”
“Bestiality is not natural to humans. It's not., Sorry. I challenge you to argue that it is.
That's the primary reason for making it and keeping it illegal.” - Con, Round 2
b) Inter-species sex has been found to be natural in many species such as monkeys and deer , in fact, over 90 species have been identified by a 2008 literature review that did engage or attempted to engage in inter-species sex . My opponent claims that it is “not natural to humans”, without backing this assertion up with any evidence. As many other mammal species that are closely related to humans engage in inter-species sex, there seems to be no reason to assume that humans are the exception. In fact, there are depictions of bestiality from the palaeolithic period  suggesting that bestiality is not a new phenomenon, followed by many further depictions during the Neolithic era . Con has provided no evidence that bestiality is unnatural and in light of the common inter-species sex in other species and the long history of bestiality in humans, there seems to be no basis for assuming that it is.
c) Even if a) were overcome, and there was some legitimate reason why an act being unnatural implies that it should be illegal and b) were overcome to show that bestiality is indeed unnatural, this would not be a feasible or desirable criterion of illegality. Between 3.5% (females) and 8% (males) have reported having engaged in bestiality at least once, “Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent.”  it would not be feasible to lock up between 3.5% and 8% of the population. Additionally, my opponent seems to believe that homosexual intercourse in humans is unnatural (inferred from his claims that “the jury is still out” in R2), which would doom a further 4.5% of Americans to criminal penalties . Hence, due to the sheer number of ‘unnatural’ activities of humans in contemporary societies, it is neither a feasible nor an adequate standard of determining illegality.