To: Clint N. Suhks
I'm pretty flexible -- I work with the premises people give me. In this case, someone wanted to argue that consensual homosexual sex should be regulated by the state and the premise offered was "Everyone has the inalienable right to pursue happiness." Maybe you think that's a false premise. But since the person I was responding to made a point of appealing to it explicitly, I thought it reasonable to show what follows ;-)
To: ConsistentLibertarian;Brad's Gramma; EdReform; Khepera; Kevin Curry
someone wanted to argue that consensual homosexual sex should be regulated by the state and the premise offered was "Everyone has the inalienable right to pursue happiness." Maybe you think that's a false premise. Yes because the pursuit of happiness is unspecific. If you cant argue one perversion is better than an other, its a bit hypocritical to put one persons pursuit of happiness in better standing than someone elses.
But since the person I was responding to made a point of appealing to it explicitly, I thought it reasonable to show what follows ;-)
Sorry, I thought your argument should stand the test of consistency and hold for others scrutiny. If you want your debate private and confined to arbitrary parameters Ill leave you alone.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson