Bestiality was trying to test the extent of your theory of no Govt intervention, while your haggard example is irrelevant to this discussion of Gay parenting despite your ridiculous attempt to tie it with this topic.
Since you say bestiality is irrelevant as it is against the law, so your position is that you are against Govt involvement in private affairs that are not against the law. So to stretch your theory, you would be opposed to Gay parenting if the Govt outlaws it. So if conservatives push a gay parenting ban through a referendum, from your arguments you should be against it.
Just to chime in, I think you express well the point that seems to escape Central Scrutiniser.
Bestiality had no relevance on this issue, no more so than a building code, therefore it is moot.
The Haggard example is relevant, Ted Haggard is gay, Ted Haggard spent his life preaching against gays and attempting to lead a "normal" life by marrying and having kids.
Haggard has done more harm to his spouse and his kids (in my opinion) than the typical gay couple that adopts or has kids.
So, prove to me that bestiality has a place in this argument, I'm waiting, I want some hard data.
And please, tell me how conservatives can push a gay parenting ban? How? Are you as a less is better conservative asking for more government intervention? Do you want a constitutional amendment?
You might just be able to get away with that in Iran or Saudia Arabia, but not here.