@JosephParsons -  “Having said all that, it was a facetious comment.”
I didn’t realize that then. Makes a little more sense now, although I would like to reply to your entire response.

“There are now groups advancing or trying to advance gay marriage, polygamy, even pedophilia.”
I don’t see the problem with advancing gay marriage or polygamy. Gay marriage does not harm anyone at all. Neither does consensual polygamy, although legal/tax issues would get complicated and need further research. Pedophilia involves a minor under the age of consent and causes mental and emotional harm, so it will probably never be legalized and for good reason.

“There are people in this world who will not be happy until all restraints are removed from civilization.”
I think that’s a huge exaggeration. I doubt anyone would want all restraints removed – law enforcement that protects us, property rights that keep others from stealing or destroying our property, etc. But if certain restraints have no rational basis except on a specific morality (religious, cultural, etc.), why not remove them? Is it bad that we removed restraints on interracial marriages, the freedom of slaves, and a woman’s right to vote – restrains that society considered to be “moral”?

@JosephParsons -  “My original point to this is that the masturbation of animals is bestiality, and should not be allowed.”
Bestiality is defined as “sexual relations between a human and an animal.” I guess we could argue as to whether this is a sexual act. If so, why don’t the authorities prosecute farmers and dog breeders for using these methods to obtain sperm for artificial insemination – as many others on here already asked? Or this method of “qtipping” cats so they won’t yowl while in heat? I thought bestiality only referred to sexual intercouse with an animal – both anal or vaginal penetration. If so, this situation does not qualify as a sexual act, but we can disagree about the specifics.

“That’s a moral judgment I stand by.”
I understand that this your opinion and you are free to have your own beliefs.

“Throughout history immorality has been damaging to and against the best interest of society.”
We could argue this claim but that would require compiling a list of everything that has been historically “immoral” and then debating the negative/positive effects of each one. As you said, it would be book-length. But I do think this is an exaggeration.

“Why don’t I offer you one example for your consideration, homosexuality’s and pedophilia’s contribution to the declining birth rate of the Roman aristocracy, prompting Caesar Augustus to mandate the birth of 3 children for eligibility to the Senate?”
I prefer you don’t lump homosexuality and pedophilia together as both immoral and “damaging,” considering morality is relative to the individual/culture/religion and homosexuality itself has been proven not to cause psychological or emotional harm to anyone. I did agree that pedophilia is harmful. And how is a declining birth rate always a “damaging” effect? Certainly not with today’s booming population and the Roman empire’s once-sprawling population.

As for your claim, I think it would be foolish to claim that homosexuality, pedophilia, or both directly caused the effects of Caesar’s decision. If they directly caused the mandate’s sociopolitical lack of freedom, then they would be responsible. But Caesar himself caused those effects because he declared that mandate, which he based on his interpretation of those effects. He is responsible for his own mandate and its effects. Your claim is like saying that baseball bats are immoral because they can inflict damage and criminals use them to bludgeon people. Just because some nuts can use baseball bats for destructive purposes does not mean the bats themselves are immoral, and the same goes for homosexuality in your example.

“I would also suggest to you that all law is moral, even a stop sign (it is wrong to endanger the lives of others with your speeding car simply because you’re in a hurry).”
Yes, some laws are moral – such as the previous law that banned sodomy. I would challenge you to find a beneficial law that has no other determinant except religious or cultural morality. As in, it doesn’t have any other evidence that what it prohibits is harmful. The example you gave and most laws in general are based on empirical determinants. Yes, most people consider it wrong to endanger others by driving too fast, but more importantly a stop sign is logical because without it, the risk to others is higher. An observable, verifiable reason and not relative like morality.

“Religious and cultural perspectives are not separate from issues of legality, as you seem to imply. They inform our collective social conscience and assist us in creating a stronger civilization.”
Religious perspectives are separate from law – as they should be. Religious morality is based on the “rules” set by an unverified supernatural being, and many of these morals are destructive themselves. The Islam tradition of stoning women for reasons that do not cause harm to others, for example. Cultural morals should not influence law either. In many nations, skinning/butchering animals alive for meat is legal and moral despite the fact that it harms and destroys the animal being skinned alive. In the United States, we have animal cruelty laws not just because society considers hurting animals to be immoral but because the act of animal cruelty itself is literally harmful. I can even point out that animal cruelty directly endangers humans because individuals who torture or kill animals are often more likely to harm other people. Here’s one reference.

“Your remarks on laws preventing interracial marriage and slavery are irrelevant, since I never argued that there were moral justifications for either.”
You made the claim that some people want to abolish all restrictions. I said that no rational person would want that, although many restrictions don’t have any rational basis aside from a religious or cultural morality. That’s why I pointed out restrictions on interracial marriage, slavery, and misogyny. I used them as examples of why no rational person would be happy if, as you said, ‘all restraints are removed from civilization.’