"...there is no rational reason to deplore sexual relations between human beings and non-human animals. The condemnation of inter-species sexuality... is just another example of a speciesist distinction."
and this...
Singer, and many others in the animal rights movement, maintain that the impetus behind such distinctions is based on an irrational attachment to the importance of human beings above all other species, which is deplorable in much the same way that arguing in favor of special moral distinctions for whites vs. non-whites or men vs. women is deplorable.
I can certainly see the inter-species marriage act movement coming down the pike.
You quoted a freak saying:
"...there is no rational reason to deplore sexual relations between human beings and non-human animals. The condemnation of inter-species sexuality... is just another example of a speciesist distinction."
That statement is anti-animal rights. Animals have the right to be treated humanely. I don't care if an animal (or a child for that matter) likes to be "stroked." They are too young to consent and physical and psychological damage can and does occur.
"Singer, and many others in the animal rights movement, maintain that the impetus behind such distinctions is based on an irrational attachment to the importance of human beings above all other species, which is deplorable in much the same way that arguing in favor of special moral distinctions for whites vs. non-whites or men vs. women is deplorable."
Speaking as a former animal rights activist, every single one I ever met wants to shoot people like this. O'Reilly is full of it and made the wrong generalization in an effort to demonize those he disagrees with. I like him sometimes but he can be a bit hysterical, like the extremists he condemns.