Replies

>Because sexual freedom, even being two "consenting >adults," cannot be unlimited. Unrestricted sex has adverse >societal consequences, aside and apart from what the Bible >says, like AIDS, like abortion, like divorce, like >unsupported children, like STDs, that can and should be >averted.

In a free society, we should be able to make choices. Even unwise ones. And accept responsibility for those choices, including AIDS, STD's, etc... Sexual freedom has not much to do with divorce. People are going to get divorced, even with your social policing of thier behaviors. Unsupported children has not much to do with sexual freedom, but alot to do with the lack of responsibility that is not taught at home. These are social issues, yes. But have nothing to with sexual freedom, but personal irresponibility. If you want to avoid AIDS and STD's, then YOU personally avoid nonmarital sex. But don't police someone else's actions "for thier own good". That is a government we DON'T want.

But don't police someone else's actions "for thier own good". That is a government we DON'T want.

Not for "their own good," fellow, for the general societal good. People don't have the "freedom" to transmit deadly STDs, they don't have the right to father children they won't support, they don't have the right to clog up the courts with their failed marriages. See, regardless of what I believe is moral, I'm asked to pay for the consequences of all those "free choices." And I don't want to. I'd rather say you don't have the right to "choose" to saddle me with the social costs of your "choices."