Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tunehead54

You are correct - his thinking is putrid - from abortion to this:

Zoophilia
In a 2001 review of Midas Dekker’s 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.[26] 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.[27] 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.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer


30 posted on 06/07/2010 5:47:13 AM PDT by sodpoodle (Despair - Man's surrender. Laughter - God's redemption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: sodpoodle

How in the Good Lords name can an animal consent? Buy this idiot a drink in some Zoophilia themed bar?

Liberalism really is a mental disorder.


41 posted on 06/07/2010 6:00:16 AM PDT by Brytani (Allen West for Congress!!! Go Allen!!!! www.allenwestforcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson