Replies

California pre-1967 or thereabouts, had sodomy (and other sexual perversion) statutes on the books that were enforced as well as they could reasonably be enforced, as was true in all 50 states. Although no one was harassed in their homes by "bedroom police," the citizens generally understood and accepted that sodomy was a vile act. There were no public masturbation events, abortion claimed a tiny fraction of the lives that are now disposed of and flushed down the abortion mill toilets, and AIDS, anal gonorrhea, hepatitis B, and other sodomy-related diseases were unheard of. The taxpayer was not being flogged to pay for wretched irresponsible sexual promiscuity.

The "sexual revolution" of the 1960s and 19970s changed all that and California became the model state for the sexual permissiveness that you defend. Now, among other things, California families are subjected to public mass masturbation events.

You say you don't support these things, but these things flow directly from the attitude that you have. Therefore, you support them in a very real and powerful sense.

Kevin, I have explained this to you many times before, but you refuse to acknowlege. There is a difference between acknowleging the right to do something and supporting or defending the behavior. A few years ago I said I may not like who you marry and I may think it's a bad idea, but you have the right to make the mistake.

You can believe in legalizing drugs without being a drug user or thinking it's a good thing, you can believe that people have the right to be promiscuous, or to be homosexual withour doing those things yourself.

This is what freedom means to me.

I can tell you many other ways that California has gone downhill, but let me ask you, should we have put adulterers, homosexuals, and promiscuous people in jail to have a cleaner society? That is what I think you are implying.

California pre-1967 or thereabouts, had sodomy (and other sexual perversion) statutes on the books that were enforced as well as they could reasonably be enforced, as was true in all 50 states. Although no one was harassed in their homes by "bedroom police," the citizens generally understood and accepted that sodomy was a vile act.

But like I said, why have a law if you're not going to enforce it. If a person knows that an act of sodomy will be occurring on Saturday night at 9 PM at his neighbor's house and wants to tell the police so they can stop it, don't the police have the obligation to surveil and arrest the suspects? You're wanting laws just for appearances. What's the point? I don't think it's right just to pick and choose who gets arrested and let all the others go scot-free. If the police suspect anyone of breaking the law and are receiving complaints, then they should attempt to make an arrest. Otherwise it's not worth the effort to keep the law on the books.

There were no public masturbation events,...

Pubic masterbation should be illegal, it's not in a private setting.

...abortion claimed a tiny fraction of the lives that are now disposed of and flushed down the abortion mill toilets,...

I don't see the direct connection between abortion and private gay activity.

...and AIDS, anal gonorrhea, hepatitis B, and other sodomy-related diseases were unheard of.

This is where you may have a point. If you believe that it's OK to give up freedoms and get the government to surveil the bedroom to keep these diseases under control, then that is your judgment call, just as I believe that it's OK to arrest hard drug users to keep crime sprees down. But I don't think the cost to freedom is worth keeping these diseases down. A lot of the people getting these diseases are getting them because of their decisions. A free society will have it's hurts, and and my opinion, having the government monitor people's bedrooms is a worse cure than the hurts private gay activity is doing to society.

The taxpayer was not being flogged to pay for wretched irresponsible sexual promiscuity.

So you're willing to let the government in the bedroom to save taxes. I don't think this cost to freedom and privacy is worth it.

The "sexual revolution" of the 1960s and 19970s changed all that and California became the model state for the sexual permissiveness that you defend. Now, among other things, California families are subjected to public mass masturbation events.

These should be illegal. I don't live in California, I guess if Californians want public mass masterbation events, then that's their choice. If they don't, then they should make it illegal and force the cops to make arrests. I know my little town here in Illinois would never allow this to take place on the courthouse square.

You say you don't support these things, but these things flow directly from the attitude that you have. Therefore, you support them in a very real and powerful sense.

I know my attitude toward freedom does cause hurt to society. My attitude that leisure drives should not be illegal is probably causing more car wrecks. My attitude that candles should not be illegal is probably causing more fires. My attitude that the government should not be monitoring private bedrooms is probably causing more disease to spread. But these are the many costs of freedom. I believe these costs don't outweigh the freedoms that cause them.