[Iron Munro]

Where is the "between consenting adults" crowd on this one?

They are busy sbmitting approving comments on HuffPo:

"[I] say just as long as they are doing proper family planning (that is, various forms of birth-cont­rol) to make sure they do not produce an offspring, which would be high-risk for a myriad of genetic disorders, I see no crime.

Gross? Yes. But, sometimes-­-especiall­y in a free republic--­you have to put aside universal morality and just let people live their lives. We are no longer a Puritan society."

-- holierdandao

"Public shame will be sufficient to end this. It is not a viable coupling. Apparently it's an issue between consenting adults. I'm not sure on what principles the charges would be, considerin­g that law would have to arbitraril­y override individual liberty of consenting adults. They do it already with prostitute­s and their patrons, but consenting adults should not be charged with crimes for what they agree to do."

-- HUFFPOST SUPER USER Balzac

[a fool in paradise]

"[I] say just as long as they are doing proper family planning (that is, various forms of birth-cont­rol) to make sure they do not produce an offspring, which would be high-risk for a myriad of genetic disorders, I see no crime.

And to be equally absurd...

"[I] say just as long as they are doing proper family STD planning (that is, various forms of birth-cont­rol fresh condom usage, monogamous relationship, STD testing ) to make sure they do not produce an offspring, which would be high-risk for a myriad of genetic disorders spread deadly diseases , I see no crime."

Oh wait, that is "wrong" to restrict homosexuals from random bathroom hookups.

[a fool in paradise]

And I've said it before, the sex positive agenda serves to end ALL moral judgements over ALL sexual pairings, regardless of sex, age, martial status, relation, number, or species of partner(s).