A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:29 PM:

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.

Totally applicable.

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.

?

Preventing someone from enjoying an orgasm (regardless of the sex of the
partner) is not the same thing as placing them at risk of death because they
have been forcibly disarmed. You can always make up for a missed orgasm, but
once you're dead, you're dead.


If you (as I am sure you dream) were the leader of a country and you
declared that homosexuals have the status of slave, could you then see that
parallel?

Slavery is unlawful. It's a status offense. Those held in involuntary
servitude are not free to leave.


If black people were not allowed to get married, that would be
discrimination.

Indeed. And unlawful discrimination at that. Being black is a status. One
does not get to choose to not be black.

Why is it different for gay people?

It's not different for gay people. It's not illegal to be gay.

It may, however, be illegal to engage in same sex behaviors.

Having sex with someone is a voluntary act without which one will not die
nor be physically harmed. It's a behavior, not a status. Slavery is a
status. It's the status of involuntary servitude. Being black is a status.
It's a racial characteristic that one cannot change.

Sexual behavior is entirely under the control of the individual. Every
person has a desire to engage in sexual behavior. The physiological changes
that take place during sexual excitement are the same for both men and
women, regardless of the stimulus. It's a behavior. You can control it. You
are not harmed by not being permitted to engage in a particular sexual
behavior.

The society in which one lives generally dictates rules of conduct and
morality for its members, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the
type of society and its governmental structure.

In any society, certain behaviors are unacceptable, and for the overall
well-being of the society, as judged by the society, those behaviors can be
constrained to some degree or can be prohibited. The reasons for such
constraints and their justification in the moral and ethical sense depend
largely on the society as a whole and what it recognizes as important rights
worthy of protection.

Thus, while in one society consanguinity (incest) may be acceptable, in
another it may not be. Likewise, in Canada, the age of consent for sex is 14
years old (as I understand it) while in the US, it's generally at least 18.
Thus, in Canadian society, it is acceptable for a 50 year old man to have
sex with a 14 year old girl. In most places in the US, that¹s not legal. It
depends on the society.

Thus, if "gay people" wish to engage in behaviors that are proscribed in one
place or society, they need only go to some place or society that does not
proscribe their behaviors.



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.

How does gay marriage increase the spread of AIDS?

I said nothing whatever about gay marriage.

My gawd you can be an
idiot. Yes, let's reduce the spread of AIDS by ensuring that gay people
continue to be marginalized and their relationships considered second class.

How does "marginalization" or "second classing" of gay sexual behavior
either reduce or increase the AIDS problem?

I merely said that in the view of those who make the law, homosexual acts
were considered to be (and not without some justification) a primary vector
for the transmission of AIDS. Even the gay community came to this
realization, and to their credit, they were pioneers in the practice of safe
sex practices, to the point where now, heterosexual transmission has risen
above homosexual transmission.

The point is that in a society of law, decisions are made about what conduct
is acceptable and what conduct is not. That is the purpose of government and
law, and nothing done by way of prohibiting homosexual sex acts is, legally
speaking, a violation of the Equal Protection provisions of the
Constitution.

Whether those laws currently reflect the will of the society is an entirely
different matter. If the society has changed its views on homosexual sex
acts, then society is free to repeal the anti-sodomy laws. And wonder of
wonders, that's been happening all over the US in the last 10 years or more.
In many places homosexual sex is no longer unlawful.


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.

Or, you are one of these freaks who thinks people "choose" to be gay. Yeah,
that's an attractive option, being gay in America. I'm sure every homosexual
in America woke up one day and said "Yeah, that's a good idea, I think I'll
choose my sexuality based on my best chance of being discriminated against
as a matter of routine, and possible getting my skull bashed by some
neurotic redneck who blames gay people for turning the girl he liked into a
lesbian." LOL. Yes, I'm sure being gay is a choice big big sneer.

You may try the ad hominem route by implying that I'm a homophobe, but
you'll just be making a fool of yourself.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other what a person's sexual
orientation is. In fact, my very first girlfriend in high school was
bisexual, and I had a good relationship with her...and her female lover. I
grew up spending most of my summer vacations being around stage actors, and
many of them were gay...at a time when being gay was not only illegal, but
could be personally dangerous. I had many gay acquaintances and I learned
quite early on not to be judgmental about other people...something you need
some work on.

You are making the common mistake of confusing an intellectual debate with
personal beliefs or attributes. You're not the first Netwit to make that
mistake, nor will you be the last.

The actual issue is whether the fact that one is gay, and that one may be
attracted sexually to a person of the same sex excuses pleasure seeking
CONDUCT that is proscribed by law. Remember, one may be physically attracted
to someone of the same sex, or to a child of 12, but that doesn't mean you
must, or must be allowed to ACT on that attraction. Celibacy is always an
option.



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.

ROFL. Well, I don't hear you promoting lesbian marriage!!!

I'm neither promoting nor denigrating it. It's not currently under
discussion.


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.

Only two gay people are consenting adults, thus making your analogy to a
pedophile insultingly ridiculous and irrelevant.

You miss the point.


I hope I don't need to point out to you that there are some heterosexual
couples that engage in anal sex, and some homosexual couples that do not.
You do realize that, right?

Of course. It's central to my argument because if anal sex is proscribed by
law, then it MUST be proscribed for EVERYONE, regardless of sexual
orientation. Surprise! That's just the way it works. That's WHY the civil
rights of homosexuals are not violated by bans on sodomy.


So, your comparison between race and sexual orientation is inapplicable.

No, it isn't in the least.

Yes, it is. You're just too ignorant or too narrow-minded to accept it.


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.

There is no relevant comparison between pedophilia, rape, and homosexuality.
This is totally illogical.

No, not at all. The comparison is not between the acts, the issue is whether
the state has ANY power to proscribe ANY sexual act by ANY person.


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.

On the other hand, if you argue that two consenting adults, whether of the
same sex or opposite sex, should have the right to get married, this has
nothing to do with authorizing child sex and rape, and renders the entire
hypothesis the ridiculous piece of crap that it is.

Not really. You're just incapable of working through the logic involved
because it doesn't fit with your worldview.


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?

The state can't to a thing to limit consensual sexual behaviour. I don't
think law enforcement has the resources to go busting into the nation's
bedrooms and doing sniff tests to see who has been porking whom.

Okay, so you admit no proper constraint on consensual sexual behavior. Fine.
Let's examine your stance a bit.

First example: Persons A and B decide to have sex. Person A has a
potentially deadly STD and both deliberately fails to inform B and refuses
to use protection, thus infecting B with a disease that eventually
debilitates and kills B.

Does the state have a legitimate interest in proscribing unprotected sexual
activity by a person knowingly carrying a dangerous STD?

Second example: Persons A and B like to engage in sadomasochistic and "water
sports" as well as coprography. They choose to do so while B's underage
children observe. The children are not involved in the acts, but merely
watch.

Does the state have a legitimate interest in protecting these children from
exposure to such acts?

Third example: Persons A and B get off on having sex in public places in the
view of passers-by.

Does the state have a legitimate interest in prohibiting public displays of
sexual behavior?

Third example: Persons A and B engage in consensual sexual activity that
includes partial asphyxiation. A strangles B during a sex act, but during
orgasm fails to release the stranglehold and B dies.

Does the state have a legitimate interest in prosecuting A for homicide, in
spite of the fact that B consented to the strangulation?

Fourth example: Persons A and B engage in consensual bondage and torture. A
binds B and causes serious physical injury to B that requires
hospitalization, at public expense, to heal and rehabilitate B.

Does the state have a legitimate interest in proscribing consensual sexual
behavior that poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to
one of the partners?
--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

This is
because registration is ALWAYS the precursor to confiscations
and seizures by authorities, no matter how much they may promise
it's not going to happen. Australia, Canada and GB prove that,
and we've had several instances in the US as well, specifically
New Jersey and California.

Nope.

Wrong. Guns, specifically banned "assault weapons" were
confiscated both in California and in New Jersey.

That fails to prove your "ALWAYS" assertion.

Give it time.

--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

Actually, it was a December 30, 2004 report by WorldNetDaily, and I'm
perfectly within my rights to quote from it.

No, you're not. Reproducing an entire article is a violation of copyright law.

But I did not reproduce the entire article, I reproduced a couple of grafs,
which is permitted under the Fair Use exception to the copyright laws,
particularly in that its use was for editorial commentary and criticism.

Given the fact that I'm both a professional journalist and an editor, I'd
submit that I know a good deal more about copyright law than you do.
--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself 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.

It is now. It wasn't in the beginning.

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

I wasn't blaming anybody for anything, I was merely stating some facts.


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.

True, but the legal basis is the same. Society is empowered to decide what
behaviors are acceptable and what behaviors are not. In Canada, it's legal
for an adult to have sex with a 14 year old. In the US, it's illegal almost
everywhere...unless the adult is married to the child, which is still legal
in some states.

The point is that a society is not compelled to sanction every possible
behavior by an individual.

If you don't like a society that proscribes homosexual conduct, you are, of
course, free to seek out a society which embraces such conduct. Sweden comes
to mind...


(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.

So, if persons A and B engage in consensual sex, and A has a deadly STD and
knowingly and deliberately does not tell B about it and infects B, who dies,
the state should not proscribe even consensual unprotected sex by persons
who are known to have deadly STD's?

Things are rarely as simplistic as you would like them to be.

--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

How, exactly, does the Bible "deem" how God manifests himself as
himself?

How about if it _says_ so. Try reading the Bible - it does describe
these things. And nowhere does it say "this is what God looks like".

And does it have to say "this is what God looks like" in order for God to
decide to look like something else? What makes you think that God is
constrained by the words in a book?


Thus, if he "manifests" himself as a man,
or a burning bush, he is manifesting himself as himself.

Once again, you prefer playing with words instead of addressing
the issue directly. If he manifests himself as a man, we cannot
tell it is God. That is exactly my point.

Which is pretty much no point at all.

We need a manifestation
that we can clearly identify as God and the Bible offers nothing
to help that.

What you "need" and what God decides to provide are often two different
things. Do you think you have the authority to compel God to restrict God's
manifestations to appearances that you approve of? How hubric.


--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Should A have the right to "conduct his (or her) most private life according
to his or her own rules?"

Deliberately infecting a person with any disease is illegal around here.

Indeed.

No sex required.

But sex is a vector.

This does not address the issue of sexual freedom.
But then you like changing the topic instead of addressing the issues.

The issue is whether the state has a legitimate interest in proscribing
unprotected sexual activity by someone who is known to be infected with an
STD. Why don't you address that question?


However, to answer your implicit question, in the US, the US and state
Supreme Courts are the arbiters of the law, and thus arbiters of "rights."

They cannot arbitrate over that which does not exist.

Of course they can. They can decide that a particular "right," like, say,
the "right" to an abortion is found within the ambit of the Constitution.

So I ask again -
where are those rights defined?

Er, nice try, but that's what I'm asking YOU.

Height within a species is a sign of a morphological difference - bogus.

Factually speaking it is.

morphology: 2. The form and structure of an organism or any of its parts.

Height is a part of the form and structure, and differences in height are a
morphological difference.

Don't blame me if you used the wrong word.

Perhaps you should look at how scientists use the term and not lexicographers.

If they use it differently than the textbook definition, they are misusing
the term, and thus their scientific credential are in question. I think it's
more likely that you are misusing the term, and that the scientists use the
proper terms.

We are discussing it in a scientific context. If height was a significant
morphological difference, there would be no morphological similarity between
any members of a species and would make the study worthless.

Perhaps you are using the wrong word.

--
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

Oh how I love Usenet when Scott Weiser says:
==============
....what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to
be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right
to
deny them, ever. AT Mar 7, 12:46 pm
==================

But, almost 8 hours later Scott Weiser states:
==============================
The point is that in a society of law, decisions are made about what
conduct
is acceptable and what conduct is not. That is the purpose of
government and
law

Scott Weiser AT Mar 7, 8:13 pm
===========================

So, now Scott Weiser needs to decide if governments can make decisions
about the ownership of guns (as per his 8:13 comment) OR if NO ONE (not
even the aforementioned government) has the right to deny him his gun
ownership.

Which is it to be, Scott?

frtzw906

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/7/05 11:13 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:29 PM:

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.

Totally applicable.

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.

?

Preventing someone from enjoying an orgasm (regardless of the sex of the
partner) is not the same thing as placing them at risk of death because they
have been forcibly disarmed. You can always make up for a missed orgasm, but
once you're dead, you're dead.

What the hell are you talking about now?!?!?


If you (as I am sure you dream) were the leader of a country and you
declared that homosexuals have the status of slave, could you then see that
parallel?

Slavery is unlawful.

It is now.


If black people were not allowed to get married, that would be
discrimination.

Indeed. And unlawful discrimination at that. Being black is a status. One
does not get to choose to not be black.

Why is it different for gay people?

It's not different for gay people. It's not illegal to be gay.

Just illegal for gay people to get married. Which is discriminatory, just as
it would be if black people were not allowed to get married.

It may, however, be illegal to engage in same sex behaviors.

Having sex with someone is a voluntary act without which one will not die
nor be physically harmed. It's a behavior, not a status. Slavery is a
status. It's the status of involuntary servitude. Being black is a status.
It's a racial characteristic that one cannot change.

Sexual behavior is entirely under the control of the individual. Every
person has a desire to engage in sexual behavior. The physiological changes
that take place during sexual excitement are the same for both men and
women, regardless of the stimulus. It's a behavior. You can control it. You
are not harmed by not being permitted to engage in a particular sexual
behavior.

The society in which one lives generally dictates rules of conduct and
morality for its members, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the
type of society and its governmental structure.

In any society, certain behaviors are unacceptable, and for the overall
well-being of the society, as judged by the society, those behaviors can be
constrained to some degree or can be prohibited. The reasons for such
constraints and their justification in the moral and ethical sense depend
largely on the society as a whole and what it recognizes as important rights
worthy of protection.

Thus, while in one society consanguinity (incest) may be acceptable, in
another it may not be. Likewise, in Canada, the age of consent for sex is 14
years old (as I understand it) while in the US, it's generally at least 18.
Thus, in Canadian society, it is acceptable for a 50 year old man to have
sex with a 14 year old girl. In most places in the US, that¹s not legal. It
depends on the society.

Thus, if "gay people" wish to engage in behaviors that are proscribed in one
place or society, they need only go to some place or society that does not
proscribe their behaviors.

I daresay that most lesbians engage in sexual behaviours that pose a much
lesser risk than routine heterosexual sexual behaviours. Thus, according to
your logic, perhaps only lesbians should be allowed to get married?

No, wait, that just sounds stupid and ridiculous.

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.

How does gay marriage increase the spread of AIDS?

I said nothing whatever about gay marriage.

My gawd you can be an
idiot. Yes, let's reduce the spread of AIDS by ensuring that gay people
continue to be marginalized and their relationships considered second class.

How does "marginalization" or "second classing" of gay sexual behavior
either reduce or increase the AIDS problem?

I merely said that in the view of those who make the law, homosexual acts
were considered to be (and not without some justification) a primary vector
for the transmission of AIDS. Even the gay community came to this
realization, and to their credit, they were pioneers in the practice of safe
sex practices, to the point where now, heterosexual transmission has risen
above homosexual transmission.

How does the rate of AIDS in the lesbian community compare with that of the
heterosexual community? Perhaps heterosexual sex and homosexual sex should
be outlawed, and only lesbians should be having sex.

No wait, that sounds ridiculous and stupid.

The point is that in a society of law, decisions are made about what conduct
is acceptable and what conduct is not. That is the purpose of government and
law, and nothing done by way of prohibiting homosexual sex acts is, legally
speaking, a violation of the Equal Protection provisions of the
Constitution.

Then the Equal Protection provisions of the Constitution suck eggs, and the
people who have the power to improve those provisions should stop being a
bunch of discriminatory pukes and get to work on fixing it.

Whether those laws currently reflect the will of the society is an entirely
different matter. If the society has changed its views on homosexual sex
acts, then society is free to repeal the anti-sodomy laws. And wonder of
wonders, that's been happening all over the US in the last 10 years or more.
In many places homosexual sex is no longer unlawful.

Whoopdeedoo!

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.

Or, you are one of these freaks who thinks people "choose" to be gay. Yeah,
that's an attractive option, being gay in America. I'm sure every homosexual
in America woke up one day and said "Yeah, that's a good idea, I think I'll
choose my sexuality based on my best chance of being discriminated against
as a matter of routine, and possible getting my skull bashed by some
neurotic redneck who blames gay people for turning the girl he liked into a
lesbian." LOL. Yes, I'm sure being gay is a choice big big sneer.

You may try the ad hominem route by implying that I'm a homophobe, but
you'll just be making a fool of yourself.

I have no idea if you are a homophobe.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other what a person's sexual
orientation is. In fact, my very first girlfriend in high school was
bisexual, and I had a good relationship with her...and her female lover. I
grew up spending most of my summer vacations being around stage actors, and
many of them were gay...at a time when being gay was not only illegal, but
could be personally dangerous. I had many gay acquaintances and I learned
quite early on not to be judgmental about other people...something you need
some work on.

That sounds so...judgmental?

You are making the common mistake of confusing an intellectual debate with
personal beliefs or attributes. You're not the first Netwit to make that
mistake, nor will you be the last.

Actually, I think you have deluded yourself into thinking that you are
capable of intellectual debate. But it is cute that you think that's what
you have been doing.

The actual issue is whether the fact that one is gay, and that one may be
attracted sexually to a person of the same sex excuses pleasure seeking
CONDUCT that is proscribed by law. Remember, one may be physically attracted
to someone of the same sex, or to a child of 12, but that doesn't mean you
must, or must be allowed to ACT on that attraction. Celibacy is always an
option.

What the...?

The law, in this case, is an ass. It's not the fault of gay people that the
law is an ass. It's the fault of people who have the power to change the law
that the law is ass.

Talk about intellectual weakness...comparing adult homosexual consenting
relationships with pedophilia? What is the point of that?

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.

ROFL. Well, I don't hear you promoting lesbian marriage!!!

I'm neither promoting nor denigrating it. It's not currently under
discussion.

It is now.


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.

Only two gay people are consenting adults, thus making your analogy to a
pedophile insultingly ridiculous and irrelevant.

You miss the point.

Not at all.


I hope I don't need to point out to you that there are some heterosexual
couples that engage in anal sex, and some homosexual couples that do not.
You do realize that, right?

Of course. It's central to my argument because if anal sex is proscribed by
law, then it MUST be proscribed for EVERYONE, regardless of sexual
orientation. Surprise! That's just the way it works. That's WHY the civil
rights of homosexuals are not violated by bans on sodomy.

What kind of a screwed up country tries to put a ban on what consenting
adults want to do in their own bedrooms?

So, your comparison between race and sexual orientation is inapplicable.

No, it isn't in the least.

Yes, it is. You're just too ignorant or too narrow-minded to accept it.

No, it isn't, and no, I'm not. One of the problems is I don't think we are
even talking about the same issue.

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.

There is no relevant comparison between pedophilia, rape, and homosexuality.
This is totally illogical.

No, not at all. The comparison is not between the acts, the issue is whether
the state has ANY power to proscribe ANY sexual act by ANY person.

But there is a huge difference between relations between consenting adults
and acts of rape or pedophilia. To include them together in this way is
totally illogical, and frankly, indecent.

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.

On the other hand, if you argue that two consenting adults, whether of the
same sex or opposite sex, should have the right to get married, this has
nothing to do with authorizing child sex and rape, and renders the entire
hypothesis the ridiculous piece of crap that it is.

Not really. You're just incapable of working through the logic involved
because it doesn't fit with your worldview.

Um. That's right. My "worldview" is that what consenting adults do in their
own bedrooms has no connection whatsoever with rape or pedophilia, and that
only a very disturbed person could form such a connection and think it
logical.

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?

The state can't do a thing to limit consensual sexual behaviour. I don't
think law enforcement has the resources to go busting into the nation's
bedrooms and doing sniff tests to see who has been porking whom.

Okay, so you admit no proper constraint on consensual sexual behavior. Fine.
Let's examine your stance a bit.

First example: Persons A and B decide to have sex. Person A has a
potentially deadly STD and both deliberately fails to inform B and refuses
to use protection, thus infecting B with a disease that eventually
debilitates and kills B.

Does the state have a legitimate interest in proscribing unprotected sexual
activity by a person knowingly carrying a dangerous STD?

The fact that sex is involved is irrelevant. Deliberately exposing someone
to a deadly disease - whether done by injecting them with a needle while
they are asleep or by having unprotected sex with them - should be criminal,
in my opinion.

Second example: Persons A and B like to engage in sadomasochistic and "water
sports" as well as coprography. They choose to do so while B's underage
children observe. The children are not involved in the acts, but merely
watch.

Does the state have a legitimate interest in protecting these children from
exposure to such acts?

Sure, in the same way that it is inappropriate for children to have access
to the porn channel.

What does any of this have to do with discriminating against homosexuals?

Third example: Persons A and B get off on having sex in public places in the
view of passers-by.

Does the state have a legitimate interest in prohibiting public displays of
sexual behavior?

Sure.

What does any of this have to do with discriminating against homosexuals?

Third example: Persons A and B engage in consensual sexual activity that
includes partial asphyxiation. A strangles B during a sex act, but during
orgasm fails to release the stranglehold and B dies.

Does the state have a legitimate interest in prosecuting A for homicide, in
spite of the fact that B consented to the strangulation?

You got me, sounds like a debate for a Law and Order episode during ratings
week.

What does any of this have to do with discriminating against homosexuals?

Fourth example: Persons A and B engage in consensual bondage and torture. A
binds B and causes serious physical injury to B that requires
hospitalization, at public expense, to heal and rehabilitate B.

Does the state have a legitimate interest in proscribing consensual sexual
behavior that poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to
one of the partners?

You got me, sounds like a debate for a Law and Order episode during ratings
week.

What does any of this have to do with discriminating against homosexuals?

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
================
I've been carrying a concealed handgun almost every day of my
life for more than 20 years, and I haven't shot anybody yet.
======================

And when you do, what will your lame defense be? "Whoops! I made a
mistake."

Nope. I take full responsibility for my actions. I don¹t blame others. If I
work it right, I won't have to deal with that eventuality ever.

--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
================
...what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to be armed, or not to
be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to deny them, ever.

=================

You're contradicting yourself. Not too many days ago you asserted that
there is no "right" for gays to marry gays. You were quite clear in
stating that it was up to the state to make such decisions.

Actually, I don't think I ever said anything at all about gay marriage. I
was speaking specifically of sexual conduct.


So, how exactly is this behavior -- the carrying of guns -- a "higher"
right that NO ONE (I'm assuming, not even the state) has the right to
deny?

Because our society has made it an uninfringible right, that's how.

Either the state has the right to govern behaviors or it doesn't.
Which is it Scott?

It's both. But that doesn't mean that because our society recognizes a right
to keep and bear arms that it is also compelled to recognize a right to all
conduct, sexual or otherwise.

--
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