Shock! Bolt takes Singer out of context!

Well, I think I've managed to find the source of Peter Singer's apparently 'outrageous' statements.
http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=9987

As we can see reading that article, Bolt's reading of Singer's comments omit certain important things, the least of which being Singer's contention that 'Any activity is ethical as long as it is consensual.' Bolt's sarcastic comment that sex with an animal would surely have to be consensual, then, makes no sense in light of the fact that 'consensual' was a condition already established by Singer before the question of 'inter-species' sex came up.

Where are we then? Bolt sarcastically comments that if humans have sex with animals it has to be conseual. Singer already said that. So, what's Bolt's point?

(By the way, the article with the Singer interview also dissents from his views, but despite being a 'biblical ethics' publication does so in a relatively reasonable manner. Contrast this with Mr. Bolt's hyperbole).

[Also, just for fun, check out http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html and over time, see how many devices of 'conversational terrorism' Mr. Bolt uses]