QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 29th April 2010, 9:25am)
My God. And they haven't even got onto his edits on the bestiality article yet (some of the stranger edits my emphasis).
QUOTE
Zoophilia is defined as sexual attraction to non-human animals. Human/animal sexual interaction is referred to as bestiality, sodomy or simply animal sex. In the context of pornography, the term "farmsex" is also sometimes used.
Zoophilia is widely considered unnatural and human/animal sex has been condemned as animal abuse. Some advocates such as Peter Singer argue that this is not inherently the case. Sodomy is illegal in many jurisdictions, while in others, such as in Germany, mistreatment of animals in general is outlawed but bestiality is not specifically mentioned.
The extent to which human/animal sexual interaction occurs is controversial. Zoophilia advocates also claim that the human/animal relationship goes far beyond sexuality, and that they are capable of forming a loving relationship with an animal that can frequently last several years and that they do not consider functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.
Bestiality has been a frequent subject in art, literature, and fantasy. In Greek mythology, Zeus appeared to Leda in the form of a swan (resulting in the birth of Helen and Polydeuces), and the Minotaur was the offspring of Queen Pasiphae and a white bull. The God Pan has also been frequently associated with animal sex.
Personally, I can't see an issue with those. He's not saying people are actually capable of forming stable (sic) relationships with animals; he's quite carefully worded it to say that they
claim it. Since the psychopathology of "why on earth would anyone want to?" is such a fundamental point in all these sexual-deviancy topics, I don't see "this is how they justify it to themselves" equating to condoning it.