Taboo

to Break taboo or not? (better might be...to break convention or not) That is the question. The very existance of taboo undermined it to be broken (perhaps...the very existence of taboo begs for it to be undermined). To label something as taboo or not - the other question. It means that only one group of society can do what the other are   is not allowed. Only several few people are allowed to break it (convention) - they are in the very top of society structure (they are the elites of the societal structure). But what if the new taboo can destroys their inner freedom (independence?)?

In our country the government tries to get rid of smoking nation ban smoking on a national level and has issued several anti-tabaco laws. Now there is an idea (initiative) to (outlaw homosexual relationships.)make homosexual relationships illegal.

I think it is a moral issue of civil society: a person consciously decides to do or not to do, to be or not to be. Also he one also understands all the aftermath: (spent a lot of money on cigarettes, not to smoke in public places and not to cry about your partner in the all streets...don't quite understand what you are trying to say here). But what governement undermined if make a punisment for such affair? Destroy the lives of peolple who made their choices in free atmosphere (within the freedom of their own will)? And what has this governementdone instead all prohibitions for all people of prohibiting a freedom of choice? to make a right choice?

the last paragraph was hard to understand, but i was short on time so the corrections are not comprehensive.