Lesley continued her lies and perversions:

> > the same way you have eating meat. Why is that,
> >Why do you find it wrong to eat an animal's flesh but permissible
> > to sexually abuse it?
>
> Because it might not cause harm or distress as meat eating does.

"Might not"?! Meat that's being eaten doesn't feel a thing. I'm not so sure animals get off, so to speak, on being sexually assaulted by humans or even by being conditioned to be receptive to sexual assault.

> > > Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question.
> >
> > You keep confirming the fact that you're pro-bestiality.
>
> No.

Yes.

I. You offer only qualified objections to it:
*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal. [emphasis in original]
lesley ("liesley") - http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7

II. You've condoned it as a matter of privacy:
"What people do in the privacy of their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not harming or causing distress to another - that's their business."

III. You've further stated that you'd even oppose laws against it:
"Whether I think there should be a law against it is another question."

Whose side are you on, Lesley? The animal ****ers' side.