In response to the comments from my Santorum post down below:
Tricia has tackled the political question quite well and Cathy gets to the heart of the legal question. Using both of their ideas, I think consensual homosexual sex is less harmful than adultery, bigamy and incest. But it can still be argued as dangerous on some grounds.
Those who argue against the legality of drugs and even cigarettes say it’s a public health question, and the same could be said for homosexuality because of STDs. This is one of the dangers of allowing the government to “take care of us.” Second-hand smoke and pediatric aids all have origins in someone else’s freedom.
Living in a country that wants to “protect” us, we are inching toward a healthcare system that rations treatment. I can foresee a government healthcare system that punishes homosexuals for their personally “dangerous” lifestyle, dangerous because the lifestyle has a promiscuous reputation.
Almost any freedom, when you get down to it, can be argued as dangerous. Some aren’t tackled because of political constituencies, but others are easy targets. The moment we get up in the morning and get out of bed, we are risking danger of some kind. Do we want politicians to decide which freedoms are sanctioned? They will do so by how many constituents they have.
What country do we want to live in? The country that regulates who we want to be, or one that allows some people to make personal mistakes?