ebrown_p wrote:Finn,
The main point you make is ridiculous. Freedom should be supreme in cases where no unwilling participant is harmed.
By law (and by common sense) there is no such such thing as a mutally consensual relationship between a pedophile and a child. (Don't try to argue that a child can consent.)
You may argue that there is a mutually consensual act of cannibalism, but this seems a bit ludicrous. I suppose if you wanted to eat someone (who wanted to be eaten) after they died of natural caused.
Actually one of the core rituals of Christianity uses vivld symbolic cannibalistic imagery where believers eat the flesh and drink the blood of the messiah. Come to think of it, my kids were taught about these beliefs in a respectful way in public school. But I digress...
This doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality where it is clearly a mutually consentual relationship that harms no one (any more than interracial marriage anyway).
I made a number of points, all of which you seem reluctant to address.
In any case, you have clearly missed my "main" point which is that in the 2nd bullet of your agenda (manifesto is perhaps more apt a description), you declare that the moral judgements of others have no place in public institutions, and yet your entire agenda, which you would wish to see incorporated in the affairs of public institutions, flows from your own personal moral judgements.
Either you are too dense to recognize this inherent contradiction in your agenda or you believe your personal moral judgements are unquestionable.