Replies

I understand that you seem to take the "Libertarian" position, that anyone can do anything to anyone, as long as it doesn't endanger or harm YOU , or, maybe harm a n0n-consenting adult, or child . Would that be accurate ?

Acurate to a point. I consider myself more a Constitutionalist, than a member of the LP (which has some good ideas, but also has some god-awful goofy ones.) If you must call me a "Libertarian", call me a small-l libertarian.

But there is no maybe about the harm against a non-consenting adult or child. If you are doing something against a non-consenting adult or child (minors can't consent, as far as I'm concerned.), then that harms society. Rape, murder, theft, etc etc. The usurpation of the inaliable rights of one person initiated by another individual (or group of individuals) is always wrong.

However, I fail to see how a person smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, or having kinky sex in the privacy of their own home is really the business of any apparatus of Government. Now if said person gets stoned and drives a car, thats the only thing that should be illegal is driving while under the influence, not the actual act of getting stoned.

However, many of those homosexual practices do damage to people and spread diseases .

If gay people are having gay sex, and getting AIDS from it..they knew the risks..they should have to take personal responsibility for what they did to themselves. I mean, what are you going to do: pass more and more laws to protect gay people from themselves?

Sadly, everyone has the right to self-destruction. If I go and buy a bottle of Draino and drink it down and kill myself, thats my own stupid fault, and there shouldn't be a Government agency that goes around trying to prohibit Draino, or make people get a license for it, so that they can protect idiots who want to make a Draino Martini for themselves.

Now, as far as I can see, the blood supply is very well protected against AIDS at this point in time...maybe I'm wrong, but that's the general impression I'm under, so other than that, I fail to see how allowing gay people to have sex in the privacy of their own homes is really signalling the death of the Republic. And I don't think that it's just gay people who are into spanking each other, or dripping candle wax on each other, or zapping eachs others privates with some electricity...

So, as far as that church is concerned, I'll stay away from it, and any known (to me) members, thank you .

I strongly encourage you to do this, as is your right and responsibility.

I really think there could possibly be some public health issues involved

Okay..I'll bite. Like what? I could maybe see the gay sex angle involved, but people flogging each other in the bedroom, and dripping candle wax on each other in the bedroom? I mean, honestly.

Lets face facts, the moment we begin to ban certain private behaviors "for the good of Society" we start to flirt dangerously with Socialism. And before someone starts building a strawman, there is a HUGE difference between building a nuclear bomb in your basement, and kinky sex in your bedroom.

I mean, whats next? Will we have "Religious Police" going door to door, checking up on people? That idea is really popular over in Saudi Arabia. Or maybe next, we'll have a Government program that encourages service people with access to private homes to rat people out to the Government? (Oh wait...if TIPS passes, we'll have that anyhow...)

Truely, Socialists, and their desire to protect Society from itself is the monster destroying the Republic. The "politically correct movement" is the ultimate development of this brand of Socialism, but it's sad to see when Right-wingers fall prey to Socialist thought as well...