@farmerman,
I noticed fm, as I assume a number of viewers have also, the unsurprising fact that you have not bothered responding to my post #4,962,537 of April 22, 2012 @ 02:03 A2K time, which was a reply to your post.
So I thought I would be predictable again and come back to the matter in the hope that you will provide a definitive opinion of your position.
It is a cliche in legal circles, often expressed in an aloof tone, that the problem with a free country is preventing people doing what they want to do.
It was indeed expressed today by Lord Justice Leveson during today's hearing. A must see for all who support proper forensic peer-reviewing.
A little earlier counsel for the enquiry had opined that "self regulation is better than statutory regulation" to see if the witness agreed. Which he did.
What the Christian religion does is provide a case for self regulation in the matter of sexual behaviour. The fact that it is increasingly ineffective is not an argument for doing without it entirely. Nor actually is pointing to and emphasising the methods thought best to achieve the goal of self regulation.
The conundrum persists. If we do without it is there to be no regulation or is their to be statutory regulation? There are only three possibilities.
Which do you choose?