A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Yes? What's your point? They have exactly the same right to make love as any
heterosexual couple. That they don't have an EXTRA right to make love to a
same sex partner doesn't mean their rights to have sex are any less or any
different from heterosexuals.

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. At the moment,
society disagrees with you. As it happens, I agree with you. But
effectuating that change takes more than the sort of sophomoric
argumentation you provide.

Why should the
government dictate what can go on between two consenting adults in
private?

Why shouldn't it? It's not proscribed that power by the Constitution. In
fact, most such statutes are at the state level, and you can avoid liability
by simply moving to a state where homosexual sodomy is not unlawful.

Those who advocate such intrusions by the state point to a number of social
ills that result from deviant sexual activity as justification for the
proscription. Whether they are correct or not is a matter of debate, but
ultimately the Congress or the state legislature gets to make the decision.
If you don't like the decision, you can try to get different people elected
to change the law. Until then, the law prevails, even if you don't agree
with it. That's the way civilizations work.

And so long as the law is applied uniformly to all persons, no particular
individual's "rights" are infringed improperly. If, on the other hand,
sodomy was forbidden ONLY for those who are homosexual (thus requiring a
sexual orientation test before conviction can occur) then THAT would be a
violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But that's not the case.

The restriction of rights is something you just choose to ignore.

What "restriction of rights" are you referring to? There is no "right" to
engage in homosexual sodomy in several states. Laws proscribing such conduct
have been enacted and upheld for a very long time. Some particular activity
is not a "right" just because you think it ought to be.

Whether those laws still reflect the will of society is a different matter
entirely. I don't ignore the issue, I merely deconstruct your sloppy logic.
You are free to post better arguments if you're able, which I doubt.

What you are talking about is
preferences, not rights.

Only in the eyes of a bigoted, right-wing nutcase like yourself.

This is why you are not worth debating. You presume that because I
deconstruct your shoddy thinking that this means I hold a certain viewpoint
to be true. That's a mistake.

More importantly, your statement
suggests that minorities ought to remain disarmed merely because they do not
instantly achieve force parity with their oppressors.

Your ability to warp the meanings of words into whatever you want is well
documented.

In other words, I'm a skilled logician and debater and you're not. I'd have
to agree.

This dishonesty on your part is despicable.

What dishonesty would you be referring to?

--
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