Assuming your deduction of her position as accurate, this begs
the question of the relevance of having the legislation in
existence. If the legislation is to be in place but not enforced,
then it is tantamount to pure discrimination. This opens the door
to future abuses of the legal system in which laws are written to
tell certain people that "look, we know it is wrong to arrest you,
but we are telling you, we don't like what you are doing".
She has compared consensual homosexual intercourse to drug pushing.
I do not wish to elaborate on the differences, but being an
intelligent person, Prof Thio has seemingly put aside good logical
deduction in favour making biased statements that supports her
faith. Today it is about restricting the freedom of homosexuals.
Look at what's happening in the U.S. and start making your
predictions people. This is not going to stop here. I dread to see
the day when our secular lives are disrupted because some people
used the law to make us submit to their will.
Who in the world nominated her anyway? Doesn't she realise some
people drink tea, while others drink coffee?
