As for the furry issue, I'd have to say I agree with the stance that's its disgusting and everyone involved needs psychological help. In my time on the internet, I've seen a lot of furries equate their fetish with being gay, which... Yeah, just no.
Why differentiate between flavors of sexual deviations from the heterosexual "norm"? Either you are committed to tolerance and accept all sexual preferences of others (barring rape, pedophilia etc.) or you're a hypocrite that just moves the goal posts on tolerance to match societal acceptance.
Logically I understand there is nothing cosmically wrong with being gay (or wanting to have sex with animals or dead bodies or whatever). I don't oppose their existence or rights.
In their defense, most people who consider themselves "furries" don't want to actually have sex with animals. Rather, anthropomorphic animals (like the one in the picture above) get them hot.
Personally, I blame Disney.
My main point was that it shouldn't matter. Whether it's sex with animals or sex with cartoon animals or whatever else. Being intolerant of anything you don't personally understand is logical to a certain point. You hate what you don't understand, it's ignorant and I don't agree with the standpoint but it makes some kind of sense. From my perspective furries not wanting to have sex with animals but rather being turned on by cartoon animals is sort of the same difference. Both motivations seem odd to me, but if I'm willing to accept one I'd have to being willing to accept the other, otherwise risk being a hypocrite.