Rick Adams wrote:
> If an act does NOT involve direct harm to the person or property of a
non-consenting
> individual (and children, by definition, can NOT consent to behavior that
> may be harmful to them), the State has no concern with that behavior.
Why is harm to another person/property the criterion? Why is that wrong?
Boy, you Bible-thumping, Western, Eurocentric, patriarchal, (etc.),
do-gooders
just can't stop yourselves from imposing YOUR morality/values on everyone
else.
The jails are full of good people who happen to have a different set of
values.
They happen to believe that it's okay to steal from others or hurt another
person.
And what do they get?
August 11, 2000 Kevin Magwood was shot in Columbus, OH while breaking into
someone's
home. Killed simply because he had a different value system.
November, 2000 Anthony Peralez was shot in Colorado Springs because of his
sexual preference. He wasn't killed, but is now in jail simply because he
doesn't fit in with the values of the "majority".
I could go on and on. You can try to oppress them if you want, but these
guys
will continue their struggle. If anyone would like to support their cause,
please send $9.95 to the address below and I'll send you a "You Can't
Legislate
Morality" bumper sticker.
TT
===========================================
Thomas A. Timmerman, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Psychology Department
Austin Peay State University
Clarksville, TN 37044
Phone: 931-221-1248 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================
