View Single Post
  #1438   Report Post  
Tinkerntom
 
Posts: n/a
Default


KMAN wrote:
in article ,

Tinkerntom
at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:57 PM:


Michael Daly wrote:
On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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.

The AIDS epidemic is overwhelmingly among heterosexuals. Any

reasonable
source for AIDS statistics will point that out. Blaming

homosexuals
for AIDS is nothing but the bias of the ignorant.

Anti-sodomy laws are based
in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity

between
adults and children.

The big difference is consent - adults can consent to behavior,
children are assumed to not be able to. Any law that assumes
that adults are not able to consent removes responsibility from
adults and puts it in the hands of the law. Hardly a description
of a free country.

(such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes

to
control.

Pedophilia or rape do not involve consent. Behavior that does

should
not
be controled by the state.

Mike


Just in passing, do you drive on the right side, or the left side

of
the street in Canada? TnT


We don't have cars yet, Tinkerntom. Geezus. Our countries are

attached. Why
is Canada such a big mystery?


The state controls all kinds of behavior, some of which is not
intrinsiclally good or bad, some which is definitely questionable. It
does not have to be a matter of legal consent, but for social order,
and the protection of life and property. Whether which side of the road
the State determines a driver should drive on, or whether certain
behavior is aceptable or not. TnT