It's a bad idea to be sure, but I take exception to the fact that people treat it as if it were a worse idea than driving a car or lighting off fireworks (or indulging someone else's desire to do so) in the same state of inebriation
Nobody said it was worse, or compared drunken consent directly to drunk driving, except you.
Nope, And I'm not saying sex with drunk people isn't rape either, just that having sex while drunk is a bad idea that is not as bad an idea as driving a car or lighting off fireworks while drunk. Sober people shouldn't let drunk people do any of those things.
He is responding to the question of inebriation and its implications for consent, though. Those of us who agree with the law that a inebriated person cannot give consent, generally consider sex between a sober person and a drunk person rape.
When both people are drunk, those waters are muddy, but given the already fucked-up context of the conversation (whether children and animals can give consent) it seems that he is talking about one drunk person and one sober (or less-drunk) person. Which is rape.
But it lacks the key aspects that make rape terrible, those of traumatically being forced to do something against one's will. Why should it be declared to be rape without that key defining factor?
The idea is when someone is drunk, their will is compromised. Thus, anything you do to them that they may not have agreed to without compromising their will, is assumed to be AGAINST THEIR WILL. Just in case.
Not every person will regret it, become traumatized, and consider it rape. That doesn't mean you take the chance and just hope you didn't damage someone. Sex is fun, yeah, but not worth the risk that the drunk person wakes up the next morning feeling raped.