Texas to Provide Online 'Bordercams' 730
Dr_Barnowl writes "The BBC reports that Texas intends to erect a network of online webcams at its border to Mexico. The intention is apparently to use viewers as a kind of distributed processing network, with a free phone number to report border-jumpers." From the article: "'A stronger border is what Americans want and it's what our security demands and that is what Texas is going to deliver,' Mr Perry said. The cameras will cost $5m (£2.7m) to install and will be trained on sections of the 1,000-mile (1,600km) border known to be favoured by illegal immigrants " Hey, it's working for Britain, right?
There is a key difference (Score:5, Insightful)
I have absolutely no problem at all with 100% public surveillance, as long as all of the video feeds are available to any person at any time, and not just Big Brother.
Slight Difference (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a subtle, but important, difference. Britain's cams look in while Texas's cams look out. If Texas tried to spy on its citizens the same way that Britain does (not that I'm saying that Brits necessarily mind the camera), the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns.
"What Americans want" (Score:2, Insightful)
Says who? I suspect an honest poll of real-life ordinary Americans would reveal that they want affordable social security, the end of the war in Iraq, sensible energy policies and a range of other things first...
doing the jobs the government doesnt want to do (Score:2, Insightful)
way to feed people's obsessive compulsive disorder government!
Seriously, i can only see people fanatically obsessed willing to stare at a screen of nothing but desert for hours on end to report the evil job stealing border jumpers... that is while theyre not tapping the walls trying to find the martians out to roast them with laser beams.
Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Newer Colossus (Score:2, Insightful)
Note to Self (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure it's hopefully not intended as something for rapid response, but if they are going to use just regular people its something that can be manipulated, and why even bother.
Re:also, for further reference... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why "Public" is the opposite of "Private".
If you want privacy for your actions, do them in private. It's not rocket science.
(The clue is in the words: "Privacy" is to "Private" as
response times? (Score:3, Insightful)
Spying on each other (Score:5, Insightful)
But I don't buy the distinction between "us" and the people crossing, and I don't believe this will stop at the border. Pretty soon we'll have the public looking for traffic violations, doing screen caps and scribbling down license numbers, infrared cams in parks looking for kids having fun at night, etc.
We can put cams outside of bars, and let people look for people coming out, staggering a bit, and getting into their cars. You don't support drunk driving do you? And it's all on a public street.
If we all spy on each other, we can live in a crime free paradise! Look how well that whole stasi thing worked out.
Re:Slight Difference (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect we are both on the same side, but you lose credibility when you are factually incorrect, and thus getting it right strengthens your argument.
Re:There is a key difference (Score:3, Insightful)
...and when the authorities police us with no oversight, you face a lack of accountability. [wikipedia.org] There has to be middle ground somewhere.
Feature requests (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how that fact never makes it into the US media.
Re:a wall (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, we could build the wall. And then a future Mexican president can stand by the wall and demand that the US bring down that wall. The circle will be complete, although the irony will probably be unappreciated.
Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia (Score:3, Insightful)
There are official border crossings, with visa checks and more, at every border in the world. People are expected to use them. There are reasons for this, besides just xenophobia. Money is one. Legal accountablity is another. So is soverenty, and protection of the legal citizens of the country. (One of the basic purposes of having countries in the first place.)
The USA has a problem on it's border to Mexico, that people are ignoring the legal meathods of crossing. It is in both the USA and Mexico's intrests to solve this problem, in the long run.
Re:There is a key difference (Score:5, Insightful)
So you think that police state does not exist as long as big brother turns the citizenry into its watchdogs?
Guess again.
The Gestapo didn't have extensive networks of undercover spies to check up on German citizens. In fact, the only undercover spies they empoyed were used for the surveilance of underground socialist groups. The way they kept tabs on the public was through voluntary denunciations submitted to local Gestapo offices by ordinary citizens. That's how they chose who to arrest, how they monitored what was going on in German society, how they kept people in a perpetual state of fear, and how the Nazis were able to maintain control over German society.
This act may not be directed against American citizens, but it's another step towards posturing our culture to be more accepting of fascist policies. Not only is it promoting xenophobia, but it also encourages/trains American citizens to spy on others. Today it's our international neighbors, tomorrow maybe it's our domestic hispanic/arab/non-caucasian population, and then who knows where that paranoia and suspicion will spread to?
If anyone needs to be monitored more carefully by the American public, it's our government officials who have sold out the American people to their corporate masters. This is just one more distraction to keep Americans from addressing the real crisis that our nation is facing.
Re:Spying on each other (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I know people who have called up the police on others who have attempted to drive while drunk. Why? To save a lief (or two or twenty). I have also witnessed people calling in traffic offenses, and in New Jersey, they even established a seperate 800 number for people to complain to (866-4-SAFE-NJ I belief is the number).
Ever hear of "citizen's arrest" ?? Yes, that's people taking responsibility and not relying on the government to do everything. It's part of being a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN and caring about what happens in your community / state / country.
What do you think a witness is? Someone spying on someone else doing something! How do you think prosecutors actually convict murderers? There isn't always a police officer around when someone's getting shot. Usually it's a witness who was "spying" and turning someone in. What about when police officers get caught on video tape beating someone they just pulled out of a car? That was "spying", right? With a video camera nonetheless! To catch a crime, in the act, by a responsible citizen!
God you liberals make me sick.
Re:The Newer Colossus (Score:4, Insightful)
How about "PS: No People whose first act in this country is violating its laws and sovereignty" instead.
What about all those people in the world who aren't lucky enough to live in a country along your southern border (like me). Are they doomed to never be allowed into your country legally because Mexicans are illegally flooding into your country, illegally filling whatever "immigrant" quota exists (unofficially, of course)? Or do we have to enter your country illegally as well now? If you believe that every person who wants to should be allowed to enter and live in the US, I suggest you find some place to put 3 billion people at least (the pop of the world - Western Europe - Canada - Australia - New Zealand - Japan - South Korea - Very Rich of China & India - Hong Kong - Singapore - Taiwan >> 3 billion). Or is entering your country at will a privilege only available to Mexicans?
Re:Slight Difference (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd love to see a "solution" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Spying on each other (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, and yet. They are meant to be our laws, if I saw someone being mugged, I hope I would have the courage to step in and help. I think ultimately laws only succeed where they have the approval and support of the community. In the UK the concept of 'Neighbourhood Watch' where people look out for criminal or suspicious behaviour in their street has made a big difference to some people's lives and made communities safer. Shrugging shoulders and saying its the polices job is a pretty shoddy denial of responsibility
So what is actually wrong with the proposal of letting any citizen 'twitch the net curtain'? Is it that the border/immigration laws themselves are unpalatable? If so they should be changed. If not, what's wrong with this as a mechanism of enforcement. It works for the back yard, why not for the Texas border?
Does it infringe on rights, lead to unfair treatment or a minority or stoke prejudice? Not that I can see. If people think that they can help an over-stretched PD somewhat by sitting at their computers, is this a problem? Is it worse than running folding@home?
I'm not sure.
Re:The Newer Colossus (Score:3, Insightful)
The real point is you can be a self center jack ass jerk no matter your race, religion, creed, political affiliation, penis / boob size, hair color, nationality, etc...
If people would concentrate on what we have in common, and what we can all do that is good for each other the world would be a much better place.
That being said, cameras on our borders is a fine idea, because we do need to protect what we have.
I wonder if those opposed to border patrols believe anti-spyware should be illegal too? Why not open your computer up to unseen visitors. I am sure they just want to make a better life for themselves by sending out a few emails... While you're at it why not leave your door unlocked, since its ok to sneak into places, might as well let people sneek into your home, raid your fridge, sleep in your bed. Goldie-locks, must be your favorite fairy tale.
We can be charitable, but people have to play by the rules. The rules are there to make sure things do not get out of hand. I am sure most illegal immigrants are hard working, good people, who want something better for themselves and families. But it is their home country that should provide the opportunity for that -or- if they choose to try a new country and come here they should follow the rules, and be properly accounted for otherwise they are taking away from you and I.
Everybody deserves a chance, but it needs to be a level playing field, the illegal immigrants are not only taking away from natural born citizens, but the legal immigrants who followed the proper channels to get here, and are contributing and making our country better.
Basically they are being selfish, and irresponsible, much like the little blonde girl we know so well from childhood.
-MS2k
No, not working in Britain & it won't work her (Score:5, Insightful)
No, its not working in Britain either. Besides the fact that the cameras in Britain are for another purpose, lets talk about these cameras and immigration.
Britian is an Island. It is SURROUNDED by a physical barrier (the sea). Yet they still have illegal immigration. Why? Because the authorities are not serious about enforcing immigration laws or rounding up and deporting visitors who overstay their visas.
Any barrier or suveillance can be defeated if the guards don't give a damn. So there is a phone number. Big deal. You can take it for granted that reports will go into the circular file and be ignored. Having cameras or electronic surveillance does nothing unless coupled with a guard force that will then response to an incident. Having a sea barrier or wall does nothing unless you have a force of people willing to respond to breaches. A camera will not stop theft or crime or border-jumping, if it is generally known that nobody will respond. Electronic sensors or a virtual barrier will not stop anybody if they know that its all for show. Even physical barriers will not stop somebody if it is ungarded and they only need a ladder. If these careras are placed in "hot spots", then why isn't there a guard team there already if its a know "hot spot".
Only GUARDED physical barriers backed by the political will to do what is necessary will work. Otherwise it is just window dressing. The political will is lacking however, because immigrants equal cheap labor and political constituancies and everybody (or rather everybody with power) wants cheap labor to drive down wages or more people for their own constituancy so they can grab more power.
So now you can just watch as they steal the camera. I give it a few weeks before the cameras start showing up for sale on e-bay or El Paso pawn shops.
Re:also, for further reference... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:also, for further reference... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Canadian beer USAmerican Beer. (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Beer should be warm
2. Beer should have a taste
3. Beer should ideally have sawdust and maybe some mouse droppings in it.
4. Tea should be hot with milk & sugar.
5. Coffee should be coffee. Not a skinny latte mexicana american lightweight with 2 scoops and a stripe.
6. Feel free to slag off British cuisuine though. You're probably justfied.
Re:also, for further reference... (Score:3, Insightful)
So you want to live in a world where one only has privacy when one is in their own home? Should we put up surveilance cameras to cover every inch of public space? Should people not be allowed to have some privacy when they go camping in the woods or mountains or go to the beach? Is it okay for others to peak in on you when you're in a public restroom? Is it okay for the feds to listen in on your cellphone conversations as long as you're in a public place?
Being in public doesn't mean you have no right to privacy. Being in public just means you are in a shared space with others, where one can expect to interact with others, where everyone has a right to be. It doesn't have anything to do with surrending your right to privacy. Your private life isn't just private when you're in your own home. Your employer doesn't have the right to spy on your private life just because you're at the mall or at a public park. Same goes for the government.
Unwanted surveilence is a form of harassment, and just because you are in a public place doesn't mean you have to be subjected to it. If you enter onto someone's private property, and they have surveilence equipment, then you agreed to the surveilence by entering onto their property. But one should be able to go out in public and not expect to be under constant surveilance.
It's utterly moronic to think that the concept of privacy only exists within one's own home. Is it ok for the government to mount a camera in front of every person's frontdoor and monitor who you socialize with? Is it ok for them to monitor what books you check out at the public library or what stores/public establishments you visit? If you see someone wearing a backpack in public, do they have to show you the contents of their backpack if you ask just because they're in public?
Here's a clue: just because two different words/phrases share a word or root-word doesn't mean they're talking about the same concept. Like, if someone dies from taking a pain-killer it doesn't mean that the pharmacutical company can't get sued. The opposite of public space is private space, but privacy is an entirely other concept.
Re:Spying on each other (Score:2, Insightful)
This is so disingenuous it hurts!
There's a world of difference between the incidental presence of a witness at a crime scene and some sloth of a redneck busy-body watching Border Cam, getting a hard-on at the thought of making some poor Mexican's life much more difficult.
Do you know how incredibly petty and ignorant most people are? Those fools on afternoon talk shows are representative of real types of people. When we have surveillance of this kind going on a citizen-against-citizen basis, we're fucked. McCarthyism will look quite tame in comparison. Sure, we may have facade of greater law and order, but the loss of true freedom will be staggering.
Of course, the whole premise of this particular debate -- that of immigration w/o papers being "illegal" -- is pretty disingenuous, as well.
Re:Cameras on private ranches. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Feature requests (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of stories [google.co.uk] about that border.
Go read the links Google finds for that search. What you'll discover (after you ignore the deliberate propaganda sites) is:
Finally, even if the rumors were true, I have to ask "So what?" Even if Mexico's southern border were a Berlin wall-style no-man's land with minefields, automatic machine guns and guard towers every 100 yards with order to shoot to kill, would that justify the US using inhumane tactics in guarding its own border?
I actually don't think the webcams are such a bad idea, they're almost certainly more effective than fences and they should greatly reduce the number of guards required. They may also have a small effect in limiting the abuse of illegals by guards and others (though more likely the abuse will just move to where the cameras don't cover). In the final analysis, though, I think any attempt to keep people out is ultimately doomed to failure, and of questionable morality besides. We're better off finding ways to allow people to come in legally.
Re:There is a key difference (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with the Gestapo was that it used its tip lines to enforce vague and unjust laws. If we had a law that said that it was illegal to be Jewish, illegal to think seditious thoughts, or illegal to be a "bad citizen," that would make us like the Gestapo. And if we used a tip line to help enforce those laws, then it would make us more like the Gestapo to the extent that it promoted the enforcement of those (unjust or vague) laws.
I think the entire tip line analogy is inapt, because, as you admit, the cameras are turned outward rather than inward; they point to foreign countries and not citizens. I don't understand why you are so quick to dismiss this distinction. It seems to me that your logic argues just as heavily against the CIA monitoring foreign countries. Frankly you come off as more than a little hysterical and not very logical at all.
Re:also, for further reference... (Score:4, Insightful)
The economy won't self-destruct (Score:3, Insightful)
So who's doing all those jobs in Hawaii, which has a very low percentage of illegals? How about North Dakota? Wisconsin? High-illegal states like Texas and California would feel a sudden lack of cheap labor for a time, but would rapidly adapt. Some jobs would start paying more, some would go overseas (using illegals is the equivalent of 'outsourcing' except we bring the cheap labor to the job instead of vice versa), some would vanish because they wouldn't be worth doing at higher wage levels. Lettuce would NOT be selling for $8 a head (it's currently $1 where I live). For an increase of $7 a head, they'd have to be packing each head in a UPS box and shipping it by air to my door.
Re:Xenophobe? (Score:3, Insightful)
And how much miney goes into SSN that will never be collected by these illegal aliens?
Oh, and not all illegal aliens are low wage migrant workers.
Any motivated* illegal alien will start there own business, pay taxes(you don't need an SSN to pay taxes), and buy stuff.
My point is: Don';t look at one data point and determin something is bad. Look at as many as you can, then think for yourself.
*Most people that cross a river, desert, risk getting shot are pretty motivated people.
Re:The Newer Colossus (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Millions of people from all over the planet want to come to the US. The economy cannot absorb them all at once. There has to be a system to determine who gets a visa or green card - economists know that you ration a good either by price, or by queue. We choose not to ration by price - if you want a visa, you wait in line. Although the wait is long and the process is not simple (there are alot of people that want to come here, natch) everyone has shot at getting a visa.
Now the question: why should latinos be given preferential treatment in that process just because they only have to swim the Rio Grande or Rio Bravo instead of the Atlantic or Pacific?
Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia (Score:4, Insightful)
Finally, even if the rumors were true, I have to ask "So what?" Even if Mexico's southern border were a Berlin wall-style no-man's land with minefields, automatic machine guns and guard towers every 100 yards with order to shoot to kill, would that justify the US using inhumane tactics in guarding its own border?
Nothing would justify us using inhumane tactics in guarding our border. With that said, no fence means people are more likely to try and cross in fairly dangerous desert areas and die trying. A fence raises the barrier to successful entry and makes people less likely to try (and thereby less likely to risk their lives).
The remaining people are either really bad, or really bad off, and in either case, handling a smaller number of people would be easier. Of course, since our current president, his counterpart in Mexico, and the senate don't seem to want to do anything to actually control entry to the US, it's a moot point.
I actually don't think the webcams are such a bad idea, they're almost certainly more effective than fences and they should greatly reduce the number of guards required. They may also have a small effect in limiting the abuse of illegals by guards and others (though more likely the abuse will just move to where the cameras don't cover). In the final analysis, though, I think any attempt to keep people out is ultimately doomed to failure, and of questionable morality besides. We're better off finding ways to allow people to come in legally.
The webcams *are* a bad idea for several reasons. First, because they'll cause more deaths than a fence (parallel: potential drownings at a public pool protected by cameras vs. a fence), and second, because the Texas DPS (state police) will be monitoring the cameras, and they are currently explicitly not allowed to perform any type of immigration enforcement.
In addition, they are actively discouraged from reporting potential immigration-related problems to immigration officials...basically, Perry wants to spend some money so we can watch people walk on in, but not actually do anything about it.
We *are* better off finding ways to let people come in legally, and we do need some effort put into greatly improving the legal immigration process, but we have to deal with the existing problem *first*.
My favorite analogy for what's happening immigration-wise is an amusement park. You and your kids (legal immigrants) buy tickets to DisneyFlagsGardens and get to the front gate at 6AM so you can go on the new supercoaster first. The gates open, and you make a beeline for the ride, only to see a couple hundred people emerging from between some greenery at the edge of the park near the ride and queuing up in line already.
You tell one of the staff at the park, and they tell you that there's nothing they can do about it, and that you should just wait normally, all the while more and more are squeezing in line ahead of you.
It's just not fair. If we want to allow open immigration and diversity, then I guess we need to start programs to fly people from other poorer countries across the atlantic and pacific oceans so that they can have the same opportunity. Proximity should not make it okay for illegal immigrants to enter our country unchecked. There should be a line, and everyone should fall in at the back.
Re:Xenophobe? (Score:3, Insightful)
it cost the US more the $10 billion in government services for households headed by illegal aliens. Good to know that my tax dollars are hard at work.
Your tax dollars... and theirs too.
Illegal immigrants pay taxes, too, and they often pay more in taxes relative to their income than legal immigrants and citizens, because they don't dare file a tax return to get their refund back. Of course, that only applies in the cases where the employer actually submits W-2s or similar to the IRS, but in the other cases, the employer has a hard time finding a way to claim the employment expenses, so the money paid to the illegal workers ends up looking like taxable profit. In fact, employers of illegals often use the fact that they'll have to pay income taxes on their unclaimable wage expenses as part of the justification for paying such low wages.
Illegals also use mech less in the way of social services than legal immigrants and citizens of comparable economic class, because they're afraid of getting caught and deported.
I don't actually know whether the net effect on government revenues is positive, but I suspect it is, especially when you consider the indirect benefits that come from low wage workers' positive effect on the economy as a whole.
Re:There is a key difference (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because we also have thousands of miles of border that needs to be secured 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and in 8 hour shifts.
No, because we do not want to build the simplest of measures to slow people down from coming into our country: the fence.
No, because we have 3 million people coming across the Mexican border per year.
Personally, I'm against such a closed-border policy as we already have. I think that in itself is wrong and fosters/reflects a really unhealthy cultural attitude within our society.
We are a soverign nation. We have the right to protect our borders, just like every other country in the world. We have a right to decide which immigrants come here and which immigrants do not, just like every other country in the world. The "unhealthy" attitude here is yours since it goes against every other country in the world.
And we are a democracy. Our people decide our government policies. Our people decide who enters government and represents us. These illegal immigrants or foreigners are now asserting that they have rights. Some are actually voting. Electoral votes based on the census is already skewing towards California, giving that state more power. The census is based on number of people, not number of citizens. These foreigners are therefore altering the structure of our government. And each one that votes, illegally or not, makes your vote and your voice count less.
It's the fact that this act seems to encourage individuals to sit at their computers watching for people crossing the border illegally and be government informants. I mean, how is anyone going to tell that some illegal immigrant is a "terrorist"? They can't.
These people do not have to determine why someone is crossing the border illegally. These people do not have to determine who is crossing the border illegally. They just need to tell that anyone is crossing the border illegally, since that act itself is illegal!
And what are the chances that this is actually going to catch any terrorists? Probably close to nil.
And what are the chances that these people crossing the border are law-breakers in one form or another? Probably close to 100%.
Do you know how many people we have patroling the Canadian border?
No idea. And I don't care. The problem we are having is not as apparent on the Canadian side. Further, the government of Canada actually helps us patrol the border. That is in stark difference to the Mexican side where the government there actually encourages illegal immigration into the US.
Do you honestly think that terrorists will try to hop the Mexican border rather than simply forge a fake passport or come in from Canada?
I think terrorists will actually get a visa and come straight to the US because of our lax rules written by people like you.
Known terrorists on US watch lists will have to find another way in. And frankly, the easiest way in is through places where the smuggling networks are already set up and the government encourages the activity: Mexico.
And what kind of people do you think are actually going to waste their time with this border-watch nonsense?
The same people who sit on neighborhood watches, watching for crime from their own houses.
Sure it's just enforcing our borders, but the social consequences of encouraging people to rat out a really quite benign segment of our society just because they were born in a different country and wanted to make a better life for themselves here is much more detrimental to our society than any terrorist attack.
I'm sorry, these people are not "benign". These foreigners steal jobs that would otherwise go to Americans. As such, they de
Re:also, for further reference... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Spying on each other (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why I oppose these cameras (and so should all fiscal conservatives), but I guess your world is a little too black and white for anything but your epithets.
God you conservatives make me sick.
You're confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Witness is when you happen to be somewhere that something happens unexpectedly (to you) and you see/hear/experience it. You may or may not be engaging in responsible citizen type behavior by reporting what you witnessed whether voluntarily or by request. The OP is not in any way talking about this - why are you?
Spying/surveilling is when you're actively, purposefully on the look out for what you believe to be bad things and report them whenever they happen. That's what the subject is here, not witnessing. I don't consider this kind of activity by non-authorized/non-professional people as being a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN. It's quite the opposite in fact. It's one ingredient in the recipe for a miserable, repressive society.
RANT
You know what a true RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN is? It's someone who understands and is behind the principles on which the U.S. was founded and doesn't sit by spouting xeonophobic, fascist nonsense attempting to justify corrupt, morally bankrupt politicians and businessmen taking the wizz all over the Constitution for personal gain, crumpling it up, shoving it up our collective asses on a nearly daily basis and then calling it ice cream. It's pretty much the opposite of that in fact - it's someone who takes a stand against such things when they're attempted or even hinted at indirectly as is happening here with this fucking bill.
END RANT
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just didn't get what the OP was talking about. Otherwise you're engaging in defense of uneeded xenophobia, totalitarianism and fascism, to which I'd say - god, cowardly douche bag morons make me sick.
Re: America fo "Americans" (Score:3, Insightful)
(BTW, it's "try to", not "try and".)As far as I can tell, it isn't Mexico (i.e., the government of Mexico) that is "invading us; it it individual citizens of Mexico.I do not "love" the U.N., nor do I support any U.N. "one-world government" (although I have nothing against representatives of governments getting together and trying to solve their differences peacefully).
I don't know where I gave you the impression that I loved the U.N.
I don't recall mentioning the U.N. at all.
And there's nothing wrong with being a hippie.I doubt very much that my head would fit in my rectum, although I have never tried, have no intention of trying, and am not the least bit interested in trying, to insert it into that particular opening in my body.
However, it is my body, so if I were so inclined to attempt such a maneuver, it would not be either your or any government's place to tell me that I couldn't try.I don't know of any reasonable person who advocates homosexuality for everyone.
Such a thing would lead to the extinction of our species.
If you are talking about homosexual marriages, well, the government shouldn't be involved whatsoever in restricting marriages of any kind between (or among) any number of consenting adult entities of any sex or species.
Any such interference violates the separation of church and state.HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Based on the rest of your post, introductions of pot to kettle are appropriate here.