[Clint N. Suhks]

… 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 can’t argue one perversion is better than an other, it’s a bit hypocritical to put one person’s pursuit of “happiness” in better standing than someone else’s.

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 I’ll leave you alone.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

" your argument should stand the test of consistency" Yes. So should everybodies. That's why when someone serves up a premise from which I can derive the negation of their conclusion, they've got a problem. But just because I use their premise in a reductio on their position doesn't mean I'm endorsing it.