Replies

Do you accept and agree that prolonged kissing in public under the loving circumstances that I described is in fact different.
As such does it or does it not justify censorship of such displays (by homosexuals) in public?

Of course it is different. It is also abnormal. But does difference and abnormality constitute a morally justifiable reason to apply government restraining force at gunpoint? That is the question.

And I think the answer is somewhat dependent on the question of definitions of public and private. I think all too often the two are confused. Is a department store public? I would argue not. It is the property of the business owner, and he (not state) is therefore entitled to establish the terms and conditions for access to his property.

If he wishes to restrict either homosexual, or heterosexual (or all) displays of affection on his property, he is morally entitled to do so. Likewise if he wishes to allow them, he may do that also. Those unstaisfied with the terms of access, are free to choose not to enter. But ultimately, it is his property, and he (and not state, or the majority of neighbors) is entitled to establish the terms of access.

Now when you're talking about truly public property (which I as a libertarian oppose as a matter of principle) the public (being the theoretical owner) are entitled to establish the terms and conditions of use. But "the public" (as recognized and manifest in the state) is also bound by the responsibility to recognize all as equal before the law. Hence if the public wishes to prohibit public displays of affection, it must do so indiscriminately.

I do not wish to think of you as evasive hence I hope you will declare where you stand on this issue.

I'm generally not an evasive guy, and will do my best to answer any question put to me in good faith, provided it is asked in good faith. I apologize for my earlier hostility. I did not recognize the intent of your question, and I was a bit exhasperated.

Exasperation noted. Explanation appreciated. My point was that by virtue of the aberration of homosexuality, those so inclined should understand that the expression of that tendency, should be kept private. And while I agree with you that government restraining force at gunpoint for homosexual non-copulatory displays would be excessive, I would contend that the same measures to inhibit such behavior, as say one might exert, to require a bulimic to abstain from public vomiting should be considered. You of course realize however that currently such a position would be decried as Nazism. We live in the age of Equity and Diversity, which are liberally dispensed at the alter of political correctness. Universities create “Offices of antiheterosexism” , and no I did not make that up.

See URL: http://www.queensu.ca/dsao/hro/2Anti_Hetero_Main.htm

We live in a time where a male student, identified as “transgendered” by the office listed above, can successfully cry “bigotry” and force the same university to allow him to change in the women’s locker area because, as he claims, he is “a man trapped in a woman’s body”. And no I did not make that up either.

What, you say, is the relevance of these two intriguing anecdotes? The point is that tolerance, while normally healthy, can occasionally give rise to abominations. So, from Queen’s University’s office of Equity urging tolerance, to the annual gay parades where totally naked men walk down Main Street every June in Toronto (and you guessed it I didn't make that up either), may be a smaller step than some libertarians ever dreamed. In any event, thank you for your responses. You have your hands full so I will bother you no more.