yytz,
Just saying something is absurd without explaining why is conclusory and pointless.
The only mildly valid (relevant) distinction I have ever heard is animal cruelty (as if hunting for sport was fun and games for the animals). While that distinction holds up in some cases, it doesn’t hold up in the cases I mentioned above. Which is why far left “moral philosophers” like Peter Singer have said that bestiality is morally sound in those cases.
Peter Singer is merely being consistent and willing to admit that bestiality does not always harm the animals involved.
I agree that comparing the two sounds absurd but that is only because people are comparing them on a macro level (the same way they used to compared heterosexual relationships to homosexuality). If one drills down to the legal basis for the Supreme Court’s holdings in Lawrence and Windsor, the distinction shrinks away.
I don’t think these rulings will lead to bestiality becoming legal (because, boruch Hashem, there are very few practitioners), but if we take take the position that moral disapproval cannot serve as the basis for laws, then outlawing all forms of bestiality is hypocritical.