I explained the reason that bestiality was different in #110. You acted as if you couldn't process it and repeated your comparison a couple of days ago. I pointed you back to #110, and here you are again, repeating yourself without addressing the logical defeated that claim. I also logically defeated your incest comparison due to health issues with the offspring, and you had no reply to that.
You have rejected the Bible as your moral foundation for law. You did not explain how bestiality was torture and more painful for the animal than killing it and eating it. You simply regress to claiming it is more beneficial for society to kill and eat animals than to use them for sexual pleasure. Incest is not a problem when combined with birth control and abortion, which you already preach. I reassert that all three are equally decadent and evil. There is no significant moral difference between incest, bestiality, and homosexuality. The are equally loving as you call it, and equally to be condemned as God calls it.
Additionally, unlike like homosexuality, there are not millions of citizens who can only find love and intimacy only in sex with relatives and animals. Just people pushing past boundaries for whatever reason.
I assert all those millions of citizens can find love and intimacy without resorting to sex with their own gender, their immediate family relatives, or animals. They are "pushing past boundaries for whatever reason." Just like in Sodom and Gommorah, they will not stop until some external force stops them.
Also, unlike homosexuality, there's no evidence of a genetic predisposition to bestiality or incest.
There is no evidence of genetic homosexuality.
No one knows the combination of factors creating homosexuality.
Lust and rebellion
All studies to date seem to suffer from sampling problems. Frankly I struggle even to follow the reasoning of those attempting a meticulous analysis of the data that exists. One is at Colombia & Yale and another at Cambridge. One concludes that, "…it seems reasonable to conclude that male homosexuality, or, at least, some 'types' of male homosexuality, are under some degree of genetic control, although various problems with this data prevent more precise conclusions from being drawn.
Homosexuals themselves, and their compromised allies, search in vain for a way to lie about the obvious. Their behavior is deviant.
The other goes a step or two further toward environment and says that the data is inconstant with a simple genetic influence model", that "there's substantial support for the role of social influences ", and that"its consistent with a general model that allows for genetic expression of same-sex attraction under specific, highly circumscribed, social conditions."" Whatever the reality, it's not in the same league as bestiality and incest. There's nothing indicating that people are ever born into those.
The social taboos against incest and bestiality are stronger. Once they get their student clubs in the high schools, the kids will think it is as cool as being gay.
Also, if your think America is close to impeaching these judges, you're seriously out of touch.
It is the best constitutional remedy. It would strike fear and awe in the hearts of those who usurp our Constitution and make a mockery of our nation.
I said that it's more of a violation of liberty to outlaw eating meat. (Therefore, It doesn't matter if it's equally traumatic to animal rape.) The Constitution protects people, not animals.
"Incest is not a problem when combined with birth control and abortion"
Birth control fails. If two siblings want to get themselves fixed and have sex, (must be at least a one in a million incident), I don't care.
"There is no evidence of genetic homosexuality. Lust and rebellion [creates homosexuality]. "
The twin data in the above referenced studies (including separated at birth twins) tends to contradict you. But I guess the twins were in on the conspiracy as well… [snicker]. I suggest you visit this site . I'm sure you'll find comfort in it.