A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/1/05 10:01 PM:
A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote:
The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.
That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that
society as a whole makes, through the representative democratic
process.
So if the USA 'society' decides that all firearms must be registered, you'd
go
along with it?
I would object to it, because it's a very, very bad idea.
So is discrimination based on sexuality. No better than discrimination based
on race.
Interesting thesis, inapplicable analogy.
While discrimination based on sexuality may interfere with someone's
pleasure, it's hardly the same thing as denying someone the tools for
defending their very lives.
Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning homosexual
sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The AIDS
epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in the eyes
of those who make the laws.
As to racial discrimination, that falls into a different category. Race and
sex anti-discrimination laws are "status" based laws. People cannot choose
not to be black or choose not to be of one sex or the other. Thus, the law
says, it is wrong to discriminate against someone for something they cannot
help or control.
Anti-sodomy laws are not "status" laws. They regulate *behavior.* One may
not be able to help being homosexual (which is to say sexually attracted to
someone of the same sex), but one CAN control what one DOES about that
attraction. Thus, it is the behavior...the physical acts associated with
those sexual feelings...that the law proscribes. Anti-sodomy laws are based
in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity between
adults and children. A pedophile may argue that he is being "discriminated"
against because he is sexually attracted to children, but that does not
preclude the state from proscribing the act of having sex with children.
Being sexually attracted to children is not a crime, nor is being attracted
to someone of the same sex. It is what one DOES about that attraction that
is within the purview of the law.
So, your comparison between race and sexual orientation is inapplicable.
Now, if you grant that the state does have the power to proscribe SOME
sexual behavior (such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes to
control. On the other hand, if you argue that the state has no authority to
regulate ANY sexual conduct, then you authorize child sex and rape. Then
again, it's rational to make a distinction between forcible and consensual
sex, so let's do so. Let's say that while the state has the power to
proscribe non-consensual sexual behavior, we have yet to determine whether
the state has the power to proscribe consensual sexual behavior.
What, if any, limitations on consensual sexual behavior would you recognize
as legitimately within the sphere of state control?
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser