[mvpel]

I understand your point being that I am afraid of alittle sexual freedom. Its not fear, in fact what you are encouraging is fear, fear to call a spade a spade. I mean look at you, this sophist reasoning has you rationalizing like a liberal-for the legitimacy of having an orgasm in an animal! Before this ruling I would have found your comments rather funny, because of this precident its now become all too serious.

You offend me, and fundamental logic, by suggesting that just because something is not prohibited by law that it is morally acceptable or favored or legitimate.

Do you want the law to reach into every aspect of life, enumerating what is and is not acceptable and legitimate in every possible situation?

That is where my concern lies. That you fail to see this point, and resort to insulting me with your comments, is really irksome to me.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

You offend me

awww. You sure aren't argueing stylisticly like a liberal. Man where did I get that from.

Now after taking the debate past your hurt feelings; suggesting that just because something is not prohibited by law that it is morally acceptable or favored or legitimate

Precisely my point. Precisely wrong. This isn't saying we haven't enumerated this situation-we have. This is saying said law is UnConstitution based on this new Right unearthed. If you are saying that SCOTUS ruling, which I demonstrated leads down this slippery slope of overturning beastiality "bedroom laws"(and your only objection was that having beastiality legal doesn't lead to social anarchy) and it PREVENTS States from passing laws against this Private behavior, denying governments the right to express community standards, and even decry these acts as morally unacceptable in a public court of law- it is you who are offending fundamental logic by drawing any kind of arbitrary distinction.