[donmeaker]

I think you are a bit ingenuous. There is a big difference between homicide, which does not involve consent of the victim, and homosexuality. Don't you agree? Just as there is a difference between rape and desire to marry.

Try again.

[Lucky Dog]

(I believe the term you were intending to use was “disingenuous.” The word “ingenuous” means frank or honest which was actually true for the intent of my comments. However, I took your meaning in your post to be the “disingenuous.” Conseqeuntly, I strongly dispute your implication.)

I used “homicide” as an example specifically to make the point that just because an individual desires to willingly participate in an activity, society still has the power and, in deed, the obligation, to prohibit that activity if it is harmful to others. I maintain, as do epidemiologists and many others for many additional reasons, the practice of homosexual behavior is harmful to others, whether the participants engage in it willingly, or not. (Refer to the earlier posts in this thread.)

If you don’t like homicide because it involves unwilling participants, try substituting bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, incest (for adults), drug dealing, unrestrained public nudity, public drunkenness, prostitution, etc. These activities, all (and a number of unmentioned others, equally illegal in most places), involve only “willing participants.” Does your previous assertion still stand substituting these activities for “homosexual behavior?”