[don asmussen]

HitmanNY commented:

"-- being for or against a person's sexual taste makes no sense. It really is what it is.
To the extent that acting on it violates a legitimate public policy (taste for minors, for example), a culture is entirely within its right to prohibit that behavior. --"

I replied:
-- Sure, criminal law can 'prohibit' criminal behavior (sexually abusing minors, for example); -- but neither the States or the Feds have the power to deprive people of their rights by prohibitive laws; - laws that are not, and never can be 'reasonable regulations'

Paulsen' reply to the same comment:

Is another person's sexual taste something we need to know? Is that something other students or other employees need to be made aware of? Or is it, and should it, be kept private? You have this "thing" about people being persecuted for their feelings.

No paulsen, we have this thing about people being 'persecuted' for non-criminal private behavior.

No. That isn't what's happening here. People are choosing to make their sexual tastes known to others, then are surprised and offended that others disapprove.

Sure, others can disapprove, even 'reasonably regulate' public aspects of such behavior; -- the line is drawn at criminalizing/prohibiting such private nonviolent behaviors..

Cry me a river.
Some coworker tells me that he likes to have oral sex with his dog, and I'm supposed to go buy him a drink at the local pub? Geez Louise. Take your oh-so-politically-correct understanding attitude somewhere else.

Geez paulsen, where do you work with coworkers like that? And what can you expect if you discuss doggy sex while working?

[HitmanLV]

Ultimately, most people do have a problem with people being 'persecuted' for non-criminal private behavior. You are correct.

My point is ultimately something robertpaulsen can't cope with. I'm not saying so much that he is right or wrong. The important thing is that he is in the minority when it comes to crafting public policy. Most people don't care much when it comes to gays, but are willing to draw lines when it comes to defining marriage, etc.

I think that's entirely fair. Some folks mistake that broad sentiment as a powerful mandate against everything gay. It's not. As I said, most people don't care much, but find it basically unappealing that a gay person be denied a job, an apartment, etc only because of their sexual taste.

Strongly anti gay folks just can't cope with that. My point ultimately is that overstating the anti gay mandate is a loser of an agenda. People on FR or elsewhere can roll their eyes, stomp their feet, and engage in overstatement and hysterics, but it's still true.

Personally, I don't see what's so conservative about being so interested in what gets a particular person sexually excited, and what gives some people satisfaction when a gay person is unduly treated unfairly.

That's just not conservative. It's something else, but its not conservative.