Lawrence v. Texas needs to be overturned and states can then reinstate sodomy laws. The Federal Government has no business setting policy for HIV or any other disease (in fact we need to dismantle the Dept of HHS), so leave it to the states to deal with. If a state, or a local community, wants to make homosexual acts criminal it is well within their rights to do so.
Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation merely clouds the issue and refers to a feeling that is irrelevant to reasoned behavior.)
Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.
Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.
If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal regulations as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.
On the other hand, if homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure.
Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual.) By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders, e.g., Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria syndrom, which prevent their victims from procreating, not the currently observed proportion of the population.
No society, free or otherwise, continuously allows behavior that is excessively detrimental to its citizens or threatens the continued existence of that society. Homosexual practitioners are responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the vast majority of this countrys AIDS infections as well as a huge STD rate. Beyond these negative impacts is the disruption to society of thousands of years of marital tradition and the stability of the basic building block of society, the family.
The Supreme Court grievous erred in Lawrence v. Texas. The principle outlined in this decision essentially is that government has no authority to regulate private, consensual sexual behavior. From a libertarian viewpoint, this seems like a good thing. However, it completely ignores that incest can fit the same criteria as could prostitution. Furthermore, it ignores the Tenth Amendment. Finally, and most importantly, it imporudently allows a behavior to threaten our society.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson