Peter Singer, has already said there’s nothing wrong with having sex with animals, as long as the animal doesn’t suffer any visible harm.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
He knows that for a fact as the last time he asked his horse if he minded having sex with him, the horse said “NAY”.
The sheep said “Bah” but since he had his waders, he said ‘Why not’ and went ahead anyway.
Don’t they take the animal’s ‘MENTAL HEALTH’ into consideration?
Sure we have some shrinks out there that will claim the animal suffers trauma the same as a rape victim and should be compensated. Of course, then the owner of the animal would demand compensation, thereby laying MORE money in the hands of the lawyers and shrinks....
Follow the bouncing ball.
I predict that one consequence of opening “marriage” to all and sundry will be a proliferation of work for lawyers. For all the handwringing about the wrongs of traditional marriage, every other assemblage produces more breakups, more violence, and more scarmabled property and custody snafus.
One has to wonder about our lawmakers. I know this stuff. I know about Peter Singer. I know that, all over the country, aficionados of every type of deviant sex are lining up to demand normalization of their preferred activity. And I’m just an average suburban housewife who reads.
What doesn’t Rand Paul know this? Or if he does, why is he pretending otherwise?