Replies

Interesting perspective. According to your logic, any laws pertaining to private behavior = THE TALIBAN. However, getting away from abstraction, the issue at hand is CHANGING time tested laws found in freedom loving states and countries... not a proposal for Islamic fundamentalism (or any other kind of fundamentalism).

It's a fact: The freeest country on earth, had, has and will have laws pertaining to private sexual behavior....and guess what, WE'RE NOT THE TALIBAN! If you think we are, or are anywhere near devolving into that, you're living in a nightmarish dreamland.

Libertines like you are the ones who need to prove their case, as you are the ones advocating radical change, not myself or other conservatives.

Bringing up visions of Islamists (where as far as I know no Islamists, or advocates of theocracy are a part of this discussion) doesn't do a lot for the credibility of your arguments.

ALL sane and civilized lovers of liberty advocate some form of laws against certain private sexual behaviors.... even you...or do you advocate "freedom" for pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia and other perversions too, rather than just incest and homosexual behavior?

Where do ideas of even age of consent come from, other than certain moral/traditional/religious assumptions about childhood--which not all societies share?

You're the one advocating radical change, accusing me and other conservatives--who want to keep our sane laws sane--of being the boogeyman TALIBAN. Unless you think America is and has been a theocratic oppressor, your arguments don't stand up.

Unless you think America is and has been a theocratic oppressor, your arguments don't stand up.

Well, considering that only Tx and Mo have anti-sodomy laws still on the books; and Tx is having it's laws challenged; I don't think I'm really advocating changing the laws of society. I'm am for personal liberty, and consistency is a good start.

Whether you are setting laws to coincide with Islamic virtues, or Christian virtues; the fact remains that one is inflicting religon upon those who may not share your world view. Not everyone agrees with Blue Laws (as an example), some companies do (Chick-a-filet for example) does and I can respect that. They make a darn good sandwich too.

But, what I do resent is the world view that "I do not like ...... therefore you may not .....". Such as, I do not like porn, therefore you may not rent, buy, or watch anything I deem to be pornographic. I do not like dancing, therefore you may not have dances in your school. I do not like meat, therefore you may not have a BBQ on public grounds ... etc. This arguement appears to be on the same premise.

Bottom line, if you do not want to do something, you should not be forced to participate. However, I draw the line at someone dictating what I (or other concenting adults) may choose to do, or not to do. It's my decision, not yours.