[bvw]

No, it's relevant. Why?

Because if a person is going to advocate immorality for others, he's pretty damn hypocritical if he holds himself above it himself, eh?

Like a evil man who portrays a deadly-risk task as a cakewalk and motivates a co-worker he secretly dislikes to do a the job , saying "Hey, trust me, it's safe, it's easy" The co-worker is killed. The evil man washes his hands and moves on.

[Torie]

Well sometimes, some folks do things which they still believe should be illegal. I once did pot believing that, for prudential reasons. It is odd, but the drug didn't fry my brain, and I had a grand time. Young bodies can handle things that old bodies should stay away from. In any event, equating private morality with what is prudential and just to enact in the public square, as co-extensive concepts, rather than fashioning public policy based not only on morality, but also prudence, what works, what is consistent with prudential individual liberty, as well as what is consistent with the Constitution (about which there is considerable confusion obviously) is simply a non-starter, as is your instrusive inquiry into a poster's sex habits, which is offensive.