…make sure we haven’t already slipped there:
Liberals have a different problem. Most of them want to say that sex with your dog is wrong, but sex with a human of your own gender isn’t. The trouble is, Singer explicitly connects the two practices (both are non-procreative), and people who advocate sex with animals—”zoophiles,” as they prefer to be called—borrow the language of gay liberation. “I’m the first out-of-the-closet ‘zoo’ to be attacked because of my sexual orientation,” Philip Buble, a zoophile, told the Bangor Daily News four months ago. Buble says the “relationship” between man and beast “can develop to be a sexual one.” Testifying before a Maine legislative committee a week ago, Buble accused proponents of a ban on animal sexual abuse of trying “to force morality on a minority. It will be a disservice to zoo couples and would keep zoo couples from coming out of the closet and drive us deeper underground.” Commenting on Dearest Pet, the book that inspired Singer’s essay, other zoophiles articulate an “alternative sexual lifestyle” defined by “loving relationships with their animal lovers.”
Hat tip: Jay Watts
Ew.
Actually, after reading your post I did a quick search and found Dearest Pets on Google books. It’s quick to mention in the introduction that no other animal on Earth attempts to breed outside of its own species. Sounds like what this Philip Buble guy is trying to justify is not attraction, but rape. I bet he’d just say his dog was asking for it, walking around pantsless and all.
I bet he’d just say his dog was asking for it, walking around pantsless and all.
Oh sure. Blame the victim you speciest! A dog should be able to walk naked into a biker bar and not be molested.