[budwiesest]

If musket loading resulted in mayhem and death more often than not, then it would be legitimate to ban them.

If this is the yardstick being used then you may witness a lot of pissed off auto-makers. Not to mention tobacco cos. etc.

Your "more often than not" is a problem I admit, as I doubt most intelligent people would want to engage in taking such risks,(when this is the known result) but I'm not certain where the state's interests begin and where the individual's end when living in a supposedly free society.

Is it at 51% of deaths, 40% of deaths, 20% of deaths etc. from engaging in a particular 'liberty'? I mean, a particularly nasty tornado could render certain parts of Kansas "banned" forever.

[Cultural Jihad]

Look, one cigarette never killed anyone. The same cannot be said for one act of homosexual sodomy. Guns are morally-neutral in that they have a legitimate purpose in hunting and in self-defense, too.

[First Amendment]

I'm not certain where the state's interests begin and where the individual's end when living in a supposedly free society.

It's one thing if homosexuals want to do what they want to do privately. But what they want (and anyone who doesn't admit this has their eyes closed very very tightly) is to promote and publicize and convince skulls full of mush of the attractions they offer. That is where their freedom ends and encroaches on others' freedom. If they kept their sodomy private no one would give a damn. They don't want it private.