Fair enough, but where do you draw the line? If a certain racial or age group is found to commit statistically more crimes should they be monitored, even if an individual member of that group has done nothing yet? Where do you draw the line between preventative measures and becoming like the society in Minority Report?
As you can probably tell I am far more terrified of the FedGov than I am of a few nancy boys.
I believe we stop the elderly from driving cars when they are seen to have lost the ability to do so safely. I think we have age limits for airline pilots too.
It's all a question of probabilities.
Where do you draw the line between preventative measures and becoming like the society in Minority Report?
If someone has a mental illness with known characteristics, there is a high probability that they will act similarly to others with this same mental illness.
You speak of "Minority Report" which featured "pre-crime." I speak of what was normal for most of this nation's existence. Queers molest children, commit more than their fair share of the murders, and spread disease.
As you can probably tell I am far more terrified of the FedGov than I am of a few nancy boys.
Give them time. Much of the upper management of the Nazi party was homosexual. They preferred them because they could be counted on to go way farther than a normal person in inflicting cruelty or adherence to cruel orders.
Likewise, you aren't Arthur Ashe, or Isaac Asimov, or Ryan White, all of who died from AIDS infected blood which got into the system because homosexuals donated it into the system.
But yes, the Federal government is a frightening threat, but in the past, queers were locked up by State Governments. I don't think sexual deviancy is really a Federal issue, and the Federal government used to do a better job confining it's reach to issues of Federalism.