[tahiti]

Something to ponder.

There are many laws at all levels of government, local, state, and federal, prohibiting, limiting, or requiring safety equipment for human activity.

For example, no smoking in New York, seat belt laws in Illinois, motorcycle helmet laws in many states, prohibition of "bear(ing) arms," fast food companies and gun manufacturers being sued for producing harmful products, are justified by the "compelling state interest of public safety and controll of public money spent on health care."

Especially in the male homosexual community, where STD's and AIDS are rampant as well as a mutant staph infection is rampant as well, why are their not laws protecting the "public health" and the "compelling state interest" of controlling medical costs from such sexual behavior?

It kind of stands the notion of "public safety" and "compelling state interest" as the justification for denying, disparaging and abridging liberty on its head, n'est pas?

[BMiles2112]

You're exactly right. This is completely inconsistent. I think the realistic answer, (which I assume is the point you're making), is that it is the liberals who push for letting the gov't interfere with our lives for "common good", "public health", etc. This is done, not for the above reasons, but because "big gov't" is a goal. The other side is that when the "public health" argument stands in the way of the wonderful, tolerant, and diverse idea of homos running around sitting on every pole they can find like its musical chairs, they believe the latter is more important.

In short, promoting moral decadence is a better, faster way of destroying our society than promoting statism.