[sinkspur]

If you begin with the premise that consensual, sexual activity in a home cannot be regulated, then you open all kinds of doors.

I begin with the premise that consensual, adult, unmarried, sexual activity in a home cannot be enforced, if regulated.

Why regulate sodomy if you have no intention of enforcing laws against it?

[Jhoffa_]

Why regulate sodomy if you have no intention of enforcing laws against it?

By the same token, why regulate at all then?

But if we are going to regulate, why should homos get a pass and not the other deviants?

[MHGinTN]

Why regulate sodomy if you have no intention of enforcing laws against it? sinkspur You, of all the posters at FR, ought to know the best answer for that; if a behvaior is proscribed in law, any legal case that has the additional link to the proscribed behavior can be brought to bear on the case at hand ... such as 'consenting adults', one (or both) of whom has AIDs but doesn't tell his partners and is brought to court under suit, his illicit behavior is first breaking the law proscribing sodomy, or bigamy, or adultery, thus the law is more able to deter such bevahiors the society chooses to proscribe. Defend this effort to corrode yet another right the states have in proscribing behaviors, but the realities of legal prosecutions doesn't mean there have to be 'bedroom cops' in order for the proscriptions to be useful. Frankly, I'm getting tired of this omission in reasoning this out properly. I stand 110% behind Santorum's assertions and his perspective designed to defend the institutions of our society rather than carve out further corrosions of the society, for special interest groups.

[ellery]

Why regulate sodomy if you have no intention of enforcing laws against it?

Bears repeating.