UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES?

Don't you find the argument a little bit shallow when someone trys to rationalize that a certain behavior as acceptable by saying it's not the government's business what goes on in the privacy of one's own home?

I don't find that to be a compelling argument. If it's legal activity, then no, the government has no business in your business. If it's illegal activity, then they do.

As we debate the marriage issue, man/woman marriage vs. gay marriage, this argument sometimes comes up. In 2003, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case that individuals have "the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention."

Once we start redefining marriage that opens up a whole new set of possibilities. Whose definition do we use? Where do we draw the line? Whose line do we use? In Utah, the law making polygamy illegal is being challenged. This should come as no surprise.

It should also come as no surprise that they are using the same legal argument from the Lawrence v. Texas case - that individuals have "the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention."

Rape as well as sexual abuse of children, your own or someone else's, can be done in the privacy of your home. That certainly doesn't make it okay. How about bestiality? Is that okay in the privacy of your home? Who decides?

If that is the crux of your argument, that it is no one else's business what is done in your home, is rape and sexual abuse of children permissable? I would think not, but who decides? In defining (or redefining marriage) who decides what is acceptable, and what is not? Should dad be allowed to marry daughter? How about brother marrying sister?

Is everything that is presently deemed to be illegal okay to do as long as it is done in the privacy of your home?