If it makes them happy, what business is it of ours?
On the face of it, I would agree. However, animals cannot give consent and I'm dead set against bestiality.
Thinking of that thread about the new rape definitions requiring clear verbal consent...
I've always figured it an animal didn't wanna have sex with a human most animals are more than capable of expressing their displeasure in violent fashion. And unlike human animals, other animals aren't as squeamish and immature about sex as we are. They go at it in public, expel waste in public, walk around naked all the time, etc.
shart_attack koshergrl
CREEP ALERT
He's a Peter Singer acolyte. I flagged him as such some time ago.
"While that may be true, animal liberation is not the only subject of Singer's work. He also believes that parents should be given the choice to have their disabled babies killed after they are born. His argument is not about the right to terminate pregnancy based on the presence of a disabled foetus, although he does believe this as well, but the active killing of babies born with particular disabilities."
The case against Peter Singer ndash Blog ndash ABC Ramp Up Australian Broadcasting Corporation
"
In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers'
Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer
Otto Soyka would condone such activities.
[29] The position was countered by fellow philosopher
Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children. Regan writes that Singer's position is a consequence of his adapting a
utilitarian, or
consequentialist, approach to animal rights, rather than a strictly
rights-based one, and argues that the rights-based position distances itself from non-consensual sex.
[30] The
Humane Society of the United States takes the position that all sexual molestation of animals by humans is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.
[31]
Commenting on Singer's article "Heavy Petting,"
[32] in which he argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed,
Ingrid Newkirk, president of the animal rights group
PETA, argued that, "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you
French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong." A few years later, Newkirk clarified in a letter to the
Canada Free Press that she was strongly opposed to any exploitation of, and all sexual activity with, animals.
[33]
Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,
[34] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, "we are great apes".
Peter Singer - Metapedia
The cool thing is that Singer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton. Doesn't that just make you feel warm and fuzzy.
