I don’t believe Judge Pryor ever “equated same-sex relations with bestiality.” Here’s a story from 2003 on Pryor’s brief in favor of continuing to let states prohibit sodomy. It quotes the brief: “Petitioners’ protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, a constitutional right that protects ‘the choice of one’s partner’ and ‘whether and how to connect sexually’ must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia (if the child should credibly claim to be ‘willing’).” That sentence doesn’t equate these activities. In fact, it implies that the other activities are worse, or seem to be worse, than same-sex relations. He’s saying: If you accept a constitutional right to engage in same-sex sexual activities on the ground that there’s a right to choose “whether and how to connect sexually,” you are logically committing yourself to accepting these other things too. If those other things didn’t seem like worse things to tolerate than same-sex relations, there would be no point to advancing the argument.