[Torie]

Fair enough. I think private adult consenual activity should be legal, and if there is any right to privacy in the Constitution, it would cover this area first and foremost. Whether I approve or not is irrelevant, and should be irrelevant. I simply cannot and will not agree to anything which inhibits adults from seeking emotional atachments with other consenting adults, platonic or otherwise. Our journey on this planet is lonely enough as it is.

[Qwinn]

"I simply cannot and will not agree to anything which inhibits adults from seeking emotional atachments with other consenting adults, platonic or otherwise."

What about hard-core S&M, the kind that gets people crippled or killed? Polygamy? Sex with children? Sex with animals? Yes, I know, you said "adults", but guess what? NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, is already pushing for recognition as a "legitimate" organization. There is no stopping the slide down this slope. The arguments you are making will lead to the breakdown of every other ethical barrier. NAMBLA will say that the age shouldn't matter, that it is in fact "age discrimination". Those favoring sex with animals will say that it is "species discrimination".

The strongest support for keeping the status quo is to elevate the marriage between a single man and a single woman as the best possible situation, inarguably better than any other arrangement. Start breaking that down, and everything else will collapse. It is inevitable.

Qwinn

[BlackElk]

Hugh Hefner would be so proud!

Back to reality, what the right of privacy in the Constitution protects first and foremost is one's ight to be secure in one's person, papers and effects from unwarranted governmental search and seizure. Not one word as to abortion or lavender cannoodling, not one.