Replies

Logically, if you are going to protect one group of sexual practitioners on the basis of "rights," you must extend that protection to all others.

This statement isn't true. Incest and pedophilia don't involve consenting adults, and there is a real difference between activities involving consenting adults and activities involving those are have not given consent or who are incapable of giving consent. Likewise, polygamy and polyandry involve the creation of family units that these practitioners are asking society to recognize, and asking for society's recognition is different from asking society to leave one alone to engage in certain practices. Finally, prostitution involves using sex as a form of commerce and is different from using sex simply as a personal pleasure. While most of us support laws against prostitution, most of us also believe that the government already uses the power to regulate commerce to interfere in too many aspects of our society. "Logically" for those of us who see those differences as important, those differences support making distinctions and having different policies in each of those situations.

The whole situation once again points to the problem of overreach in political goals. Most of us don't want the police breaking down doors and arresting people for being homosexual or engaging in homosexual behavior. We don't want the law turning its back on assault when the victim is homosexual and the perpetrator simply doesn't like homosexuals. On the other hand, we don't want the government trying to tell us that homosexuality is normal, natural, and healthy and don't want homosexual activists harassing churches or any other organization that doesn't pander to those activists. What we want is a society where people respect themselves enough to respect others and generally behave with a modicum of modesty. Sadly, that kind of respect and tolerance seems to be a thing of the past.

Bill

Logically, if you are going to protect one group of sexual practitioners on the basis of "rights," you must extend that protection to all others.

This statement isn't true. Incest and pedophilia don't involve consenting adults…

You are incorrect. Apparently, you have assumed that incest must involve children not of legal majority. On the contrary, incest does not necessarily involve minor children. It is just as much incest when the children are legally adults. BTW, as a point of interest, I never mentioned pedophilia.

…Likewise, polygamy and polyandry involve the creation of family units that these practitioners are asking society to recognize, and asking for society's recognition is different from asking society to leave one alone to engage in certain practices.

Again, you have made some assumptions that I did not nor were warranted. Polygamy and polyandry do not need to involve society’s recognition. However, the production of offspring from such unions is, of necessity, a concern for society for a number of reasons. Among these reasons are the issues of inheritance in the absence of a will, child abuse, potential common law alimony, etc.

Finally, prostitution involves using sex as a form of commerce and is different from using sex simply as a personal pleasure.

This is the type argument (libertarian) used to support drug use as long as there is no “pusher” involved. Similarly, it is used to support assisted suicide, conspiracy to commit bank fraud, gambling and a number of other activities that are currently legally prohibited.

Most of us don't want the police breaking down doors and arresting people for being homosexual or engaging in homosexual behavior.

Allow me to pose a few questions: As we currently have laws to prevent the spread of dangerous communicable disease (quarantine laws), would you say that authorities have no business intruding upon individual freedoms and privacy to enforce these laws? How about another question: Would you say that even if authorities have reasonable suspicion (evidence or witness testimony) that a violent crime is being planned behind “closed doors,” that they have no right to intrude on individual privacy to prevent such? As a last question, if you think that it is appropriate in either, or both, situations above, for society to limit individual freedoms or privacy to enforce laws, what is the logical difference if it chooses to do so to enforce a law against sodomy?

We don't want the law turning its back on assault when the victim is homosexual and the perpetrator simply doesn't like homosexuals.

Agreed. Law enforcement should not turn its back on any assault or other crime regardless of the motivations for the crime. Similarly, there should be no special or increased punishments for a crime simply because of the motivation of the perpetrator.

On the other hand, we don't want the government trying to tell us that homosexuality is normal, natural, and healthy and don't want homosexual activists harassing churches or any other organization that doesn't pander to those activists.

Homosexuals are entitled to the same liberty of free speech as anyone else, no more and no less. Harassment, as defined under the law, is not “free speech” and should not be tolerated, let alone, condoned by, or for, anyone, homosexual, or otherwise.

What we want is a society where people respect themselves enough to respect others and generally behave with a modicum of modesty.

Unfortunately, that very modicum of modesty you are decrying the loss of, is exactly what a significant portion of the homosexual practitioners seem to lack. As you noted: …that kind of respect and tolerance seem to be a thing of the past.