|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
No Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus Allowed! Religio... Some Definitions Old Democrat == means justify t... Paul Krugman - Toward One-Party Rule As a result, ... Privatized Hell In colonial Philadelphia, firefigh... Don't Feed the Dinosaurs: or, What the Fossil Rec... Leader's aren't Born, They are Harvested by Publi... Worshipping at the Shrine Tuesday night here in ... Incoming Message from the Tinfoil Hat oh wait... ... Bribe Them and They Will Come A disturbing trend... Who Me? Self Righteous? If The Bush Administratio... Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
7.01.2003
Get This Man A Sled George Will sees another slippery slope that he feels needs pointing out. (yawn) The question is not whether states are wise to criminalize this or that sex act outside of marriage. Rather, the question is: Once the court has said that some such acts are constitutional rights, by what principle are any of the myriad possible permutations of consensual adult sexual activities denied the same standing? But why do we need to deny people the right to engage in consensual adult sexual activities? By definition, if they are adults and they consent, why do we need to worry about it? There are laws that protect people from injury or abuse, as well as laws that protect you from being forced into non-consensual acts as well. I mean, if thirty women all agree that they want to have sex in a big pool full of pudding why would I try to stop them? George Will wants the right to stop people from engaging in acts that he finds distasteful. That is why we have rights George. Once consent -- "choice" -- supplants marriage as the important interest served by cloaking sexual activities as constitutional rights, by what principle is any consensual adult sexual conduct not a protected right? Bigamy? Polygamy? Prostitution? Incest? Even -- if we assume animals can consent, or that their consent does not matter -- bestiality? This time he says that giving consenting adults rights to bedroom privacy will lead to bestiality. What George likes to ignore is the simple fact that everything resides on a slope of some sort. The first step to bestiality is allowing people to engage in sex, period. Step two is allowing consensual sex between two humans. Step three would be allowing sex between a human and an animal. What he doesn't seem to notice is that there is a pretty large leap between each step, or he thinks that allowing consenting sex between two adults of the same gender is the same as a man and a dog. I fall into the category of people that thinks that the recent supreme court ruling is part of step two, not a new step towards another realm of perversion. Why should we extend so-called "special" rights to married people? In George Will's perfect world would only people who are married have the right to engage in consensual sex if its only between two people of the opposite sex? Is allowing unmarried people to have sex just gonna lead us to an eventual reality of people having sex with farm animals? I doubt anyone would make that arguement except maybe a 19th century George Will. He is right to point out as a 80's pop song did that "one thing leads to another" but in his little universe any step he doesn't approve of will invariable lead us into a headlong rush to hell in a handbasket while anything that he approves of is just another inevitable step up to perfection. Let's call it selective sliding. Lets see what this post does for my hit count. | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
