Making freedom "greater"

Senator Jim DeMint recently spoke at an event billed as the "Greater Freedom Rally." The goal of the rally was "to close the chasm between 'economic and social conservatives.'"

If what he said constitutes "closing the chasm," I'd hate to think about what he would say if he wanted to open it:

DeMint said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend -- she shouldn't be in the classroom.

"(When I said those things,) no one came to my defense," he said. "But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion."

What rights is the government purging? The right not to have a homosexual or an adulteress teaching? And why did he single out females? What about adulterers in general? Are they OK?

What is the "greater freedom" we are talking about here? If there is a right not to have a gay or adulterous teacher, then don't cab drivers also have a right to refuse to transport gay passengers? Who holds these rights, and under what theory of freedom are they found? Freedom of religion? Does that mean that religious people have a right not to have their children taught by an atheist?

Do Christians have a right to demand that Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim teachers be fired too?

I'm not quite following what DeMint means. I do not doubt that homosexuality and adultery are considered sinful according to his religion, but so is not honoring the Sabbath, worshiping the wrong gods, and many other things.

Do people who believe certain things have a right to not have their children taught by people who don't? I think they do if they are willing to pay for schools that uphold such beliefs. For example, I would not compel a religious school to hire a homosexual, an adulterer, an atheist, a Sabbath breaker, or a Hindu. But on what basis can the government require government employees to conform themselves to certain religious dictates?

Presumably, though, DeMint thinks schools should fire all gay teachers and all women who sleep with boyfriends, in order to uphold freedom of religion.

Is that what freedom of religion means?

The First Amendment is supposed to restrain the government from "prohibiting the free exercise of religion." How is the right of any parent to freely exercise his religion violated by the existence of a gay teacher or by a woman who has somehow been discovered to have been sleeping with her boyfriend? What right to free exercise of religion has been forfeited by that? Unless the parents are prohibited from expressing religious disapproval of such teachers' lifestyles (which is not what DeMint complained of), I don't get it.

It hardly endears me to Senator DeMint and his concept of freedom.

If people like him keep trying to limit sexual freedoms according to the religious dictates of others, they're just begging for the hedonists to start their own religion. You know, something like the Pan-Priapic Temple for the Advanced Worship of Human Sexuality. Then they could demand the schools fire all teachers who engage in celibacy, so that the government wouldn't be able to purge their rights and their freedom of religion.

(Worshiping together in the filthy church of your choice? That freedom thingie really sucks, doesn't it? Fortunately for me, this is just a blog post and I'm not a priest....)

posted by Eric on 10.04.10 at 12:37 PM










Comments

If they're doing their job as a teacher, the response should be "How would I know if they were?"

Their social/sexual/political convictions should not be part of the classroom. If they choose to make it an issue, then perhaps they should not be there in the first place, not because of what they are or what they do, but because they've permitted non-academic behavior to become an issue in an academic environment.

T   ·  October 4, 2010 2:43 PM

You make a good point, but had DeMint said that "their social/sexual/political convictions should not be part of the classroom" I wouldn't have bothered with this post.

He said "openly homosexual" as opposed to "openly heterosexual." So I would assume he thinks admitting to being gay should be disqualifying, but admitting to being straight should not. And that "an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend" should also be disqualified -- whether she admits it or not.

That is not quite the same thing as telling teachers not to discuss their sex lives in class.

Eric Scheie   ·  October 4, 2010 3:06 PM

How do you do it? I posted my latest before reading this. How do you know what I'm going to post about? I know. It is a miracle. You have my vote for Sainthood.

M. Simon   ·  October 4, 2010 3:11 PM

Pan-Priapic Temple for the Advanced Worship of Human Sexuality

Michael Valentine Smith.

Stranger in a Strange Land

M. Simon   ·  October 4, 2010 3:15 PM


The simple answer is to let the parents decide what they wish to tolerate regarding their children's teachers. The state requires (by law) education. The state pays for it. This does not mean they own the children.

As long as a curriculum meets the minimum standards of a state required education, the state should not be permitted to demand anything further.

Each parent should be given a voucher for the money the state spends on each child, and the parents should then decide where they want their children educated, be it in public, private, or religious schools.

You speak of the First Amendment, but the Freedom of Association comes with an axiomatic corollary: The Freedom of Disassociation.

DiogenesLamp   ·  October 4, 2010 3:20 PM

Eric,

My comment was not intended to defend or explain Demint's comment, but simply to point out that if a teacher makes his/her personal life part of the teaching regimen, they have made a mistake. A math class should be just that, not math as taught by a homosexual, an adulterer etc.

T   ·  October 4, 2010 3:30 PM

You make a good point, but had DeMint said that "their social/sexual/political convictions should not be part of the classroom" I wouldn't have bothered with this post.

He said "openly homosexual" as opposed to "openly heterosexual." So I would assume he thinks admitting to being gay should be disqualifying, but admitting to being straight should not. And that "an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend" should also be disqualified -- whether she admits it or not.


That is not quite the same thing as telling teachers not to discuss their sex lives in class.
Eric Scheie October 4, 2010 03:06 PM


As Homosexuality has been considered perverted and a form of mental illness for most of humanities existence, and as it is explicitly denounced by the tenets of the most major religion in this nation, it cannot be cavalierly regarded as being the equivalent of the normal heterosexual condition for all intents and purposes. It is just as appropriate to mention or let slip that one is a homosexual as it is to mention or let slip that one engages in felching. (which is in many cases exactly the same thing.)

Your attitude is just another example of the current fad of "mainstreaming" homosexuality. Many people regard the issue as nothing but a bunch of mentally ill people engaging in sick and perverted behavior while defenders try to convince the rest of us that they aren't sick and their is nothing wrong with the unnatural (and often deadly) things that they do.

Mainstreaming homosexuality has become the new "Politically correct" attitude.

DiogenesLamp   ·  October 4, 2010 3:32 PM

DL,

And what is the most important tenet of nearly all religions? "We will kill you."

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2010/10/the_eternal_tru.html

M. Simon   ·  October 4, 2010 3:37 PM

DL,

You ignorance of the history of sexual fashions is astounding.

But I'm going to start a religion to fix that. So watch out or we will kill you.

M. Simon   ·  October 4, 2010 3:43 PM

Diogeneslamp wrote:

"Your attitude is just another example of the current fad of "mainstreaming" homosexuality."

I didn't get that impression at all. Diogenes, you are conflating a moral judgement with tolerance. You are certainly w/in your right to make any moral judgement you want. You comment, however, strikes me as intolerant.

To say one shouldn't be able to determine . . . is not the same as mainstreaming or approving of mainstreaming.

Furthermore, that you should zero in on homosexuality rather than adultery or womanizing or any number of other issues is telling.

T   ·  October 4, 2010 3:49 PM

I didn't get that impression at all. Diogenes, you are conflating a moral judgement with tolerance. You are certainly w/in your right to make any moral judgement you want. You comment, however, strikes me as intolerant.

To say one shouldn't be able to determine . . . is not the same as mainstreaming or approving of mainstreaming.

Furthermore, that you should zero in on homosexuality rather than adultery or womanizing or any number of other issues is telling.
T October 4, 2010 03:49 PM


Oh yes, i'm a closet homosexual. That's what you are implying isn't it? The notion that Adultery and Womanizing is far more pervasive and in most cases less fatal than homosexuality doesn't occur to you? Rest assured, I rant on about those issues as well. Just ask MSimon what I think should be done with Deadbeat fathers who skip out on their children!

I wonder how many of you who defend\accept the practice have ever actually studied it? The homosexual component of the population is a vast reservoir of disease and probably always has been. It is for THAT reason I believe it was ostracized by many religions. Syphilis today can be cured. Syphilis beyond 80 years ago was fatal.

DiogenesLamp   ·  October 4, 2010 4:03 PM

DL,

You ignorance of the history of sexual fashions is astounding.

That's funny. I often think the same thing about you. The Victorian age came AFTER the Georgian Age, and was a consequence of the rampant and fatal debauchery of the Georgian age. Sexually transmitted diseases were wiping out the population of England. The Victorian era was a self defense mechanism against a libertine driven extinction.


But I'm going to start a religion to fix that. So watch out or we will kill you.
M. Simon October 4, 2010 03:43 PM


A more accurate description would be "We will kill you before your behavior endangers others."

There is a REAL penalty to be paid by the innocent for sexual promiscuity, just as there is for stealing or murder. In such cases, often times the most reasonable solution is to kill the malefactors.

I suggested giving Deadbeat fathers a vasectomy as a compassionate alternative to the way the problem would have been handled in the past.

DiogenesLamp   ·  October 4, 2010 4:12 PM

Wow... I decided I was going to comment when I first read Eric's post, but after reading the other comments, I think I'll refrain. This one has gone WAY off the rails.

John S.   ·  October 4, 2010 5:20 PM

Wow... I decided I was going to comment when I first read Eric's post, but after reading the other comments, I think I'll refrain. This one has gone WAY off the rails.
John S. October 4, 2010 05:20 PM

It is reality which has gone of the rails. (at least some people's perception of it has) My comments are simply attempts to steer it back on again. By pointing out the ugly truth, I hope to get people to confront their cognitive dissonance.

DiogenesLamp   ·  October 4, 2010 6:30 PM

Diogeneslamp,

I was implying nothing of the sort.

T   ·  October 4, 2010 6:38 PM

Your attitude is just another example of the current fad of "mainstreaming" homosexuality.

"Mainstreaming homosexuality"? I couldn't care less about what is mainstream. I'm talking about freedom, which includes the freedom to engage in homosexuality or not, the freedom to condemn it (as DL has) or praise it (which I have not, although I suppose I could). To say that there is a right to be gay (or be into S&M, or whatever activity might occur between consenting adults) has nothing to do with what is in "the mainstream." I guess those who are into S&M should be glad DeMint did not say they shouldn't be allowed to teach, or else I would have had to defend them too, (and probably be accused of "mainstreaming sadomasochism").

Many people regard the issue as nothing but a bunch of mentally ill people engaging in sick and perverted behavior while defenders try to convince the rest of us that they aren't sick and their is nothing wrong with the unnatural (and often deadly) things that they do. And many people don't. So what?

DL, I understand that you find homosexuality repellent. But please bear in mind that I will defend to the death our mutual right to make each other vomit.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/12/post_545.html

I have been doing so for years, too!

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2005/03/i_will_defend_t.html

However, I think it is just as unreasonable for you to expect me to puke along with you as it would be for me to expect you not to be sick!

Sorry if I sound as if I'm mainstreaming vomit. I'd hate to be accused of following the latest fad.

Eric Scheie   ·  October 4, 2010 11:58 PM

DL, I understand that you find homosexuality repellent. But please bear in mind that I will defend to the death our mutual right to make each other vomit.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/12/post_545.html

I have been doing so for years, too!

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2005/03/i_will_defend_t.html

However, I think it is just as unreasonable for you to expect me to puke along with you as it would be for me to expect you not to be sick!

Sorry if I sound as if I'm mainstreaming vomit. I'd hate to be accused of following the latest fad.
Eric Scheie October 4, 2010 11:58 PM


Yeah yeah, i've been through this discussion before. When you deign to note the discussion, the moment it turns to defending Necrophilia, Pedophilia,Apotemnophilia or Beastophilia, you suddenly go silent. The notion that from the perspective of the participant, the issues are identical simply doesn't seem to occur to you.

Nowadays it gives people a warm fuzzy feeling to think they are defending someone's "rights", but not so much if the consensus is that the practice you are defending is a form of mental illness.

That your righteous indignation is contrived is obvious because of the lack of adherence to principle. Again, Necrophilia, Coprophilia, Apotemnophilia, Pedophillia, and Beastophilia are all exactly the same side of the same coin as homosexuality.

That all such disorders have historically been regarded as a "mental illness" is irrelevant to your belief that people have a right to engage in them even if they are mentally disturbed!

You might as well support conjugal visits between asylum inmates, and perhaps you do. After all, it's about FREEDOM!

DiogenesLamp   ·  October 5, 2010 11:39 AM

When you deign to note the discussion, the moment it turns to defending Necrophilia, Pedophilia,Apotemnophilia or Beastophilia, you suddenly go silent. The notion that from the perspective of the participant, the issues are identical simply doesn't seem to occur to you.

When you say I "go silent," you are implying I have not discussed these issues. I have specifically discussed the false comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia and cannibalism in a number of posts. They simply are not comparable to consenting acts between adults, and your saying they are does not make them so. True, I have not written posts about eating shit and amputating limbs, but are you demanding I do so on your say so? Whose blog do you think this is?

I suspect that what you meant by "go silent" is that I do not reply to your comments to your satisfaction. I don't have to. This is not a debating club. You can repeat ad infinitum that "Necrophilia, Coprophilia, Apotemnophilia, Pedophillia, and Beastophilia are all exactly the same side of the same coin as homosexuality" but that does not make it true. All that they have in common with homosexuality is that they are sexual practices. Something they have in common with many heterosexual practices and sexual fetishes. But that does not make them the same. BTW, your list includes non-consensual activities (pedophilia and bestiality) which I do not defend and never have.

Beyond that, defending the right to do something is not an endorsement of it.

In any case, why would defending the right to engage in homosexual conduct oblige me to defend all other sexual variants any more than would defending the right to engage in heterosexual conduct? I'm sure there are guys who get off on torturing cats, but I would send them straight to prison.

And why the concerns about conjugal visits between asylum inmates? Are they something to be prevented? Why? What would make their sexual acts be of special concern?

Eric Scheie   ·  October 5, 2010 2:15 PM

When you say I "go silent," you are implying I have not discussed these issues. I have specifically discussed the false comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia and cannibalism in a number of posts. They simply are not comparable to consenting acts between adults, and your saying they are does not make them so.

You're saying they are not doesn't make it so either. I've seen your arguments. They are weak, and can not stand up to a logical challenge.

True, I have not written posts about eating shit and amputating limbs, but are you demanding I do so on your say so? Whose blog do you think this is?

I am not demanding you do anything. I am just challenging your contention that things are as you say, rather than as they are. Obviously it is your blog, and you are free to ignore any data that does not fit your narrative.


I suspect that what you meant by "go silent" is that I do not reply to your comments to your satisfaction. I don't have to. This is not a debating club.

If it is not, it's only because you chose not to allow it. I don't mind a bit when people challenge MY ideas. I can defend them from their foundations of basic principles all the way up to the pinnacle of their conclusions. Where I run afoul is when emotion trumps and people refuse to think outside their usual rut. Cognitive dissonance is a serious problem with many people.

You can repeat ad infinitum that "Necrophilia, Coprophilia, Apotemnophilia, Pedophillia, and Beastophilia are all exactly the same side of the same coin as homosexuality" but that does not make it true.


Nor does your saying it isn't. The objective evidence speaks for my side. Mental illness ~ Mental illness.


All that they have in common with homosexuality is that they are sexual practices. Something they have in common with many heterosexual practices and sexual fetishes. But that does not make them the same.

This is like saying that Chinese, Indians, Africans, and Europeans are not the same. Sure, they're not the same on one level, but on the basic level (human) they are exactly the same with less than 1% difference in their DNA. It is simply a question of scope. If you define the criteria narrowly enough, then you can assert they are different. That's what you're trying to do with these various mental conditions.


BTW, your list includes non-consensual activities (pedophilia and bestiality) which I do not defend and never have.

You see, this is exactly what I mean. You refuse to accept that BOTH conditions can be consensual. You use the "consent" excuse to avoid dealing with the obvious reality that you find these practices abhorrent and accept that they are rightfully banned. Because this creates a dichotomy in your principle, you have to use the "Consent" rationalization to square that circle. You can hide behind your "Legal" fig leaf, or you can face the fact that "legal" has no place in a philosophical argument. Beastiality WAS legal in the Netherlands until this year, and the Dogs DID consent! If you insist on clinging to this fiction, I can find a link for you to PROVE animals consent!


Beyond that, defending the right to do something is not an endorsement of it.

Sophistry. Try that logic on the issue of slavery.

In any case, why would defending the right to engage in homosexual conduct oblige me to defend all other sexual variants any more than would defending the right to engage in heterosexual conduct?

Because heterosexual conduct is natural and necessary for the survival of all species. Homosexuality (and other dangerous fetishes) are not necessary, they are in fact unnatural and detrimental to the survival of the species.


I'm sure there are guys who get off on torturing cats, but I would send them straight to prison.

Only under the laws of today. The laws a century ago? Not so much. You suffer from a modern zeitgeist and seemingly cannot visualize life according to the rules of previous ages. It would give you more insight if you could.


And why the concerns about conjugal visits between asylum inmates? Are they something to be prevented?

Yes. You see crazy people cannot consent. Since you are so interested in the consent issue, I don't see why you want to discard it in this particular instance, where it is in fact, legitimate.

Why? What would make their sexual acts be of special concern?
Eric Scheie October 5, 2010 02:15 PM

Really? You Really don't know the answer to this? Well, first of all they lack the judgment to consent, they lack the judgment to prevent, they lack the judgment to take care of offspring or the ability to pay for them, and lastly, passing on "crazy genes" is considered to be not in the best interest of the offspring or society.

It is STILL standard procedure to sterilize people suffering from mental retardation in state run homes. ( I know this to be true because I know one individual to which this was done.) The concept was adjudicated by a Supreme Court ruling: Buck vs. Bell with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stating that "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

DiogenesLamp   ·  October 5, 2010 3:27 PM

I've seen your arguments. They are weak, and can not stand up to a logical challenge.

What logical challenge? I have already addressed the issues you raised, and you just want to make your points over and over. I have simply argued that freedom includes sexual freedom -- the right of consenting adults to have whatever sex they want in the absence of direct harm to others. I grant that they may harm themselves, and that might be stupid, but what is the difference between that and consensual boxing in which combatants can sometimes seriously hurt or kill each other?

You have a problem with consenting homosexual acts, and I don't. I see it as a matter simple human freedom for adults to be allowed engage in conduct that does not harm others, and you are trying to compare it with conduct that is nonconsensual and does harm others.

You are saying that animals and children can consent, and I am saying they cannot. (Can they intelligently sign binding contracts? I don't think so.) You cannot persuade me and I cannot persuade you. Yet it seems that you want to persuade me, while I do not want to persuade you. That is not why I am here. My blog does not exist to persuade anyone, and it is only interactive because I don't want to turn off comments. The blog is for me to write about what I want, when I want. It is not here for you to argue with me. There is no resolution of this argument.

You assert that homosexuality is a form of mental illness. I don't know how are you defining mental illness, but you also say that "crazy people cannot consent." Does that mean consenting homosexuals do not consent? If so, then our argument is indeed hopeless, and is just going in circles.

You also say I "suffer from a modern zeitgeist and seemingly cannot visualize life according to the rules of previous ages" and that "it would give you [m]e insight if [I] could."

Thanks for trying to help give me insights from the past. I should probably visualize life according to the rules of the Greeks and Romans. Were they mentally ill too?

Oh, and how are "homosexuality (and other dangerous fetishes)"... "unnatural and detrimental to the survival of the species"? What do you mean by "natural"? Not occurring in nature? No. Not done by animals? No. Then what?

And if we assume that exclusively homosexual people never reproduce, if homosexuals are as you say "mentally ill," then why isn't the species better off if they don't reproduce? (As you say, "passing on 'crazy genes' is considered to be not in the best interest of the offspring or society.")

Eric Scheie   ·  October 5, 2010 4:13 PM

Oh I forgot something.

To my "defending the right to do something is not an endorsement of it" you replied:

Sophistry. Try that logic on the issue of slavery.

No, that is not sophistry.

I do not think there is a right to own slaves, nor do I endorse slavery. So what would obligate me to "try that logic on the issue of slavery"? However Abraham Lincoln did defend the right of pre-war slaveholders to own slaves while not endorsing slavery.

You missed my point -- which is that defending the right to do something has nothing to do with endorsing it. We see this in the case of free speech all the time. I would defend the right of Nazis to march, to use the N word, and so on, but never in a million years would I endorse such conduct.

To defend the right to say or do that which you disapprove is not sophistry. It goes to the heart of our tradition of freedom.

Eric Scheie   ·  October 5, 2010 5:51 PM

What logical challenge? I have already addressed the issues you raised, and you just want to make your points over and over.


You have DECLARED that you addressed them. Not the same thing.

I have simply argued that freedom includes sexual freedom -- the right of consenting adults to have whatever sex they want in the absence of direct harm to others. I grant that they may harm themselves, and that might be stupid, but what is the difference between that and consensual boxing in which combatants can sometimes seriously hurt or kill each other?

The difference is that they are BOTH In their right mind, AND they only harm themselves. Irresponsible\Unnatural sex harms others. It creates unwanted children, (and dead children through abortion) and it spreads fatal (AIDS, Hepatitis C) and once Fatal (Syphilis) diseases.


You have a problem with consenting homosexual acts, and I don't. I see it as a matter simple human freedom for adults to be allowed engage in conduct that does not harm others, and you are trying to compare it with conduct that is nonconsensual and does harm others.

You ignore the fact that it DOES harm others, and you allege non-consensual when I did not even mention RAPE. (Real rape, where one participant refuses.)


You are saying that animals and children can consent, and I am saying they cannot. (Can they intelligently sign binding contracts? I don't think so.)

Again, hiding behind the "Law", and completely overlooking the FACT that the LAW denied this EXACT SAME ABILITY TO CONSENT to Homosexuals!

Can you not comprehend how SILLY and un-serious your argument is? It is the "LAW" which denied HOMOSEXUALS the ability to consent! They used to LOCK them UP! And Thomas Jefferson proposed a law that they be CASTRATED!

You are lucky this is not a debate forum with actual judges. You have been herded into a paradox that you cannot escape from except by renouncing one of your claims.

You cannot persuade me and I cannot persuade you. Yet it seems that you want to persuade me, while I do not want to persuade you.

I may not persuade you, but I seldom argue with the belief that I am persuading my opponent of anything. It would be as though the Defense attorney persuaded the Prosecutor. That just doesn't happen. What I am about, however, is trying to influence persuadable non involved spectators, and teaching people such as yourself to be gun shy. I offer arguments that you cannot have taken into account in formulating your opinion, and seemingly are having trouble comprehending now. You have too much time invested in your dogma to change it, despite the evidence.


That is not why I am here. My blog does not exist to persuade anyone, and it is only interactive because I don't want to turn off comments. The blog is for me to write about what I want, when I want. It is not here for you to argue with me. There is no resolution of this argument.

If you don't write to persuade anyone, than why write about anything controversial? The term "controversial" means "provoking controversy", meaning "to initiate discussion." Your actions belie your words.


You assert that homosexuality is a form of mental illness.

So does the vast bulk of human history. It wasn't until 1973 that it was removed from the list of "Mental Disorders" by the American Psychiatry Association, not because they actually believed that, but because during their meeting in 1973, a horde of homosexuals showed up and threatened them with bodily harm if they did not remove it.

I don't know how are you defining mental illness, but you also say that "crazy people cannot consent." Does that mean consenting homosexuals do not consent?

That's exactly what it meant in accordance with the law for most of this nation's existence. Homosexuality prior to the 1970s would often result in the individual being placed in a mental institution. Homosexual acts were ILLEGAL, and in some cases only recently changed.(And through Liberal courts, not the Legislature) Consider that every time you come back with that "Consent" argument.


If so, then our argument is indeed hopeless, and is just going in circles.


Years ago, I attended a performance by a hypnotist. He hypnotized an audience member to "forget" the number "7". He then asked the person to count to 10. The person counted 1,2,3,4,5,6,...8,9,10. He did it several times. The hypnotist asked him to add 4+3. The man looked confused, and had a hard time responding. He finally said "6". When told that was wrong he said "8". The man was experiencing a "cognitive dissonance." That is where you are on this "consent" issue. Yes, the argument is going around in circles, and will continue to do so as long as you cannot break through that "cognitive dissonance" you don't realize you are experiencing.


You also say I "suffer from a modern zeitgeist and seemingly cannot visualize life according to the rules of previous ages" and that "it would give you [m]e insight if [I] could."

Thanks for trying to help give me insights from the past. I should probably visualize life according to the rules of the Greeks and Romans. Were they mentally ill too?

Not at first, but eventually the practiced pederasty as a matter of routine, and then things went down hill from there. There is a reason why both civilizations collapsed. It is the same reason why our's is collapsing.

Oh, and how are "homosexuality (and other dangerous fetishes)"... "unnatural and detrimental to the survival of the species"? What do you mean by "natural"? Not occurring in nature? No. Not done by animals? No. Then what?

Neither you nor I have time for a complete coverage of this point, and I don't even know if you have a sufficient understanding of various sciences to follow what I would tell you. It is "unnatural" on several levels, not the least important of which is the most basic. XX and XY.

And if we assume that exclusively homosexual people never reproduce,

We do not assume that. They do in fact, sometimes. The latest theory is that the "homosexual" gene gets passed on through the female side of the family, and makes up for in enhanced re productivity on the female side, what it loses (evolutionarily speaking) on the male side.

if homosexuals are as you say "mentally ill," then why isn't the species better off if they don't reproduce? (As you say, "passing on 'crazy genes' is considered to be not in the best interest of the offspring or society.")
Eric Scheie October 5, 2010 04:13 PM


This is one of those things that takes a long time to explain. You may not be aware of this, but the "Male" and "Female" genes are at war with each other. This war manifests itself in various ways, of which Homosexuality is considered to be one of them. (It promotes superior fertility in females which carry it.) Other examples include male genes that code for fetuses growing as quickly and as large as possible while in utero against female genes which code for hormones that suppress fetal growth and pace it to the mother's biology.

In Duck biology, the female's vagina is corkscrew shaped, while the male's penis is also corkscrew shaped but in the opposite direction. Since the females cannot prevent the males from raping them, their biology evolved to prevent unwanted males from impregnating them. As their sexual organs are spiraled opposite, the only way a male can impregnate a female duck is if she relaxes her muscles and allows her vagina to expand. This allows the female the mate selection characteristics of other species.

There are dozens of examples of this "War between the sexual genes" but those are the first two that come to mind.

DiogenesLamp   ·  October 6, 2010 4:19 PM

You say I "ignore the fact that [consensual homosexuality] DOES harm others, and

Wait -- I guess I can't even say "consensual homosexuality," as you don't believe homosexuality is consensual because homosexuals are mentally ill, and because the law prevented them from consenting.

Before the Lawrence case declared them unconstitutional, the sodomy laws then extant in 14 states prohibited certain specific practices, which varied from state to state. Not necessarily ALL homosexual acts, as you imply.

That these acts were illegal had nothing to do with the ability to consent. (If consent were proved, it would only be a defense against a rape charge.)

Consent was an admission of the crime, because the crime REQUIRES consent in order to be completed. Consent was thus an element of the crime, and was punished. (No consent, no crime!) In the event that one party had not consented, he would have been considered a victim; otherwise both were criminals, who consented to the crime. The idea of consenting victims contributed to the growing movement against victimless crimes.

The difference in the case of pedophilia is based on the legal incapacity of a child to give consent. Thus, unlike in the case of adult homosexuality or adultery, a child having sex with an adult is inherently -- and always -- seen as a victim. He cannot be charged with crime, even if he appears to consent, because the law deems him incapable of consenting to the crime -- and thus not legally culpable, no matter what he did or how voluntary it might have appeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

***QUOTE***

Thus, the law assumes, even if he or she willingly engages in sexual intercourse, the sex is not consensual.

***END QUOTE***

No such assumption was ever made between adult homosexuals or adulterers. By conflating adults with children, you are mixing two wholly unrelated concepts.

You say that I "have been herded into a paradox that [I] cannot escape from except by renouncing one of [my] claims." I think it's the reverse, and I also notice you did not mention the incapacity of animals to give consent.

Again, I think this is a waste of time. My point involves consenting adults, and if you are arguing that certain adults cannot consent, it is indeed pointless.

But I did want to address your point that homosexuality "DOES harm others."

Irresponsible\Unnatural sex harms others. It creates unwanted children, (and dead children through abortion) and it spreads fatal (AIDS, Hepatitis C) and once Fatal (Syphilis) diseases.

First, not all homosexual conduct transmits disease. Second, if some homosexuals do transmit diseases, unless there was rape, where is the harm to persons other than the ones who had sex? Oh, I forgot. They didn't consent because they can't. So they are victims of their partners. Sorry, but I can't follow your logic. I also have a serious problem with the logic of holding all homosexuals responsible for the harm committed by some. That is a communitarian approach, and is like saying that because some gun owners commit murder, gun owners are murderers.

You say a lot more, of course (your claim that Rome and Greece were destroyed by their sexual practices is belied by the fact that these practices predated their fall by centuries), but I have no duty to provide answers. I let my blog speak for itself. I am, however, fascinated by the personal remark directed at me that you fancy yourself to be "teaching people such as yourself to be gun shy." Is that supposed to provoke me into spending hours debating you or something? If this is teaching me anything, it's only reminding me of why I have long known -- that arguments with commenters distract me from the purpose of the blog, which is to write posts, not debate them.

I don't have time for the duck vaginas, but I am fascinated by your apparent position that homosexuals should be reproducing, and I do find it amazing that you apparently care so much about what consenting people do with their genitalia. I don't get it. Again, unless there is harm to others, I do not care what they do, and I certainly do not think it is the business of the government.

Eric Scheie   ·  October 6, 2010 6:05 PM

DL,

Do you have the slightest idea what you sound like here?

Let me quote a few examples: Can you not comprehend how SILLY and un-serious your argument is? It is the "LAW" which denied HOMOSEXUALS the ability to consent! They used to LOCK them UP! And Thomas Jefferson proposed a law that they be CASTRATED!

And a few centuries before that torture was a normal and accepted part of the law. Law changes as people learn. A medieval view of morality is no longer acceptable in most Western countries. Would you shout in all-caps about the evils of slavery if it remained legal in this country (Slavery is legal or semi-legal in some places even now). "The Law" is not necessarily right or good. It is merely the consensus of a society on what is beneficial to that society at the time.

From further up-thread: As Homosexuality has been considered perverted and a form of mental illness for most of humanities existence, and as it is explicitly denounced by the tenets of the most major religion in this nation, it cannot be cavalierly regarded as being the equivalent of the normal heterosexual condition for all intents and purposes. It is just as appropriate to mention or let slip that one is a homosexual as it is to mention or let slip that one engages in felching. (which is in many cases exactly the same thing.)

How very intriguing that you display awareness of a term which requires a fairly thorough knowledge of exotic sexual practices, and yet condemn homosexuality as evil. Since that term does not hit mainstream discussion anywhere (and is a practice which is rather more exotic than your average person is going to ever encounter, be they homosexual or not), I find myself wondering just how it is that you know so much about it? Do you go hunting for things that disgust you? Do you think doing so is normal? (Hint, it isn't. Most people avoid things that disgust them). Or is there, perhaps, something to this debate you choose not to mention - or possibly, not to think?

Oh, and while I'm here, a minor grammar nit for you: it should be "humanity's existence" - unless you think there are multiple humanities floating around. Or possibly, you're referring to the schools of humanities that started up in the Middle Ages, in which case you are in fact technically correct.

If, however, you actually meant "humanity's existence", allow me to shine a little light on something you apparently don't know about. Homosexuality is and has been an accepted practice in most cultures through history, with certain quirks. Islam still teaches that it's not immoral if the recipient is a boy. ("Beardless" is the usual term. You can find any number of references to this). Ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece, and most of the Mediterranean cultures were firm believers in "a woman for heirs and a boy for pleasure". So was the Ottoman Empire. Edward II wasn't despised because of his homosexuality (Richard the Lionheart was equally homosexual). He was despised because he was a lousy king.

As for "the most major religion in this nation", which precise flavor of said religion did you mean? The one that gets upset if you mention that no, Jesus did not speak 17th Century English in red text? The one that ordinates homosexual clergy? One of the many denominations in between? How much of the religion in question is cultural detritus, and how much is genuinely from the scriptures? Bearing in mind, of course, that the translations can be somewhat iffy despite the best efforts of the translators, because they are ultimately flawed humans who shade things in certain directions because they can't understand anything more. (This is not a condemnation. If you showed someone from as little as 100 years ago the modern world, and then got that person to describe it, the results would be meaningless. Any human attempts to explain the infinite suffer the same problem. Especially when the source document looks more like this: SPCLL WHN TH SRC DCMNT LKS MR LK THS.

The First Amendment's freedom of association does indeed permit disassociation. It does not and never has permitted any person to deny any other person freedom of association. In other words, feel free to disapprove of married, unmarried, homosexual, white, black, religious, atheist, anythingelse-ist teachers as much as you want. You don't have the right to force other people to disapprove with you, and you don't have the right to deny other people their skills.

For those who are tired of the rant, the short version is: if you don't approve of homosexual teachers, don't learn from one.

Kate   ·  October 6, 2010 7:10 PM

Diogenes Lamp,

How much IS Soros paying you to drive a stake between libertarians likely to vote republican and the social conservative wing of the republican party?

Letting alone the terms you know and use as has been pointed out -- and which my so con friends would NOT know... You sound much too much like a caricature of a conservative. The kind of caricature that leftists who never met anyone of faith believe in.

If you are not being paid, look up the term "Beclowning one's self" and ponder the meaning.

And if you are indeed religious, consider the fact that Himself left men free will. Are you greater than Him that you'd take it away?

Sarah   ·  October 6, 2010 8:08 PM

You say I "ignore the fact that [consensual homosexuality] DOES harm others, and

Wait -- I guess I can't even say "consensual homosexuality," as you don't believe homosexuality is consensual because homosexuals are mentally ill, and because the law prevented them from consenting.


I'm saying you can't have it both ways. If the LAW is the RULE you use, then you have to agree with it when it made Homosexuality illegal. If you disagree that the law should have been that way, then you can't use the Law as a rule for consent. This point has nothing to do with what *I* believe, it has entirely to do with what *YOU* believe and how it contradicts itself.

Before the Lawrence case declared them unconstitutional, the sodomy laws then extant in 14 states prohibited certain specific practices, which varied from state to state. Not necessarily ALL homosexual acts, as you imply.

Look at older laws, and consider the possibility that lawmakers were unaware of such practices and could not make laws against them. Queen Victoria outlawed ALL male homosexuality, but did not outlaw Female Homosexuality because she simply couldn't conceive of such a thing.


That these acts were illegal had nothing to do with the ability to consent. (If consent were proved, it would only be a defense against a rape charge.)

I guess you CAN'T find all your answers on Wikipedia! :) Mental patients could not consent. (non compos mentis) Homosexuality was considered a mental condition. It was axiomatic, and that's exactly how the system handled it.


Consent was an admission of the crime, because the crime REQUIRES consent in order to be completed. Consent was thus an element of the crime, and was punished. (No consent, no crime!) In the event that one party had not consented, he would have been considered a victim; otherwise both were criminals, who consented to the crime. The idea of consenting victims contributed to the growing movement against victimless crimes.

At one time it was a "victimless crime" to torture a cat or other animal to death. Not only is it now illegal, but society discovered that people who do such things are invariably psychopaths that simply move on to doing such things to humans. There have been numerous examples of the same sort of dynamic playing out among homosexuals who graduate from molesting each other to molesting unwilling participants and children. Gacy and Eng come to mind. Catholic Priests pederasts seem to all be of the homosexual variety. People a long time ago realized that this transition from one aberrant sexual behavior was far too common and decided to regard the initial stages of it as warning signs.


The difference in the case of pedophilia is based on the legal incapacity of a child to give consent.

According to the SAME LAW that denied it to Homosexuals! By the way, the law is different in MEXICO (age 12) and Arab countries (any age) Even if we accept your argument (just for the sake of the discussion) This still ignores the examples of animals, who according to the law of the Netherlands COULD give consent! (till just this last year.) STOP HIDING BEHIND THE LAW TO COVER THE HOLES IN YOUR PHILOSOPHY!

Thus, unlike in the case of adult homosexuality or adultery, a child having sex with an adult is inherently -- and always -- seen as a victim.

Not true. That is NOT the custom in Arab countries, and in the earlier part of THIS country was not objectionable either. It was not uncommon for 12 or 13 year old girls to be married to 20+ year old men. Again, you are STUCK in a modern zeitgeist.

He cannot be charged with crime, even if he appears to consent, because the law deems him incapable of consenting to the crime -- and thus not legally culpable, no matter what he did or how voluntary it might have appeared.

Again we're talking about what the LAW says! This is the same law that says DRUGS are ILLEGAL! Fine. So DENOUNCE the use of drugs because the LAW decides your philosophy! You can't have it both ways. Either the LAW is always right, or it isn't. If it can sometimes be wrong, it's not a good basis for your principles.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

***QUOTE***

Thus, the law assumes, even if he or she willingly engages in sexual intercourse, the sex is not consensual.

***END QUOTE***


****"THE LAW"*****

"Drugs are illegal. Using Drugs is a FELONY."


How do you like your "LAW" argument now?


No such assumption was ever made between adult homosexuals or adulterers. By conflating adults with children, you are mixing two wholly unrelated concepts.


Exactly the same assumptions were made regarding Adult homosexuals who were regarded as unable to consent because they suffered from a mental disorder.


You say that I "have been herded into a paradox that [I] cannot escape from except by renouncing one of [my] claims." I think it's the reverse, and I also notice you did not mention the incapacity of animals to give consent.


I notice you didn't ask for the link where it can be proven beyond anyone's reasonable doubt that animals can consent. Check out videos from Brazil or the Netherlands. Plenty of consenting animals to chose from! Just google "Dog Porn" and you'll find out about consenting animals, and It was LEGAL! (not in THIS country of course. At least not yet.)


Again, I think this is a waste of time. My point involves consenting adults, and if you are arguing that certain adults cannot consent, it is indeed pointless.

It is a waste of time. You have your mind made up and you will not even LOOK at the facts, nor can you even comprehend how logically bankrupt are your arguments. After today, I intend to leave you with your bastardized philosophy which sometimes depends on the law and the rest of the time depends on your whim.

But I did want to address your point that homosexuality "DOES harm others."

Irresponsible\Unnatural sex harms others. It creates unwanted children, (and dead children through abortion) and it spreads fatal (AIDS, Hepatitis C) and once Fatal (Syphilis) diseases.

First, not all homosexual conduct transmits disease. Second, if some homosexuals do transmit diseases, unless there was rape, where is the harm to persons other than the ones who had sex?

Ask Freddie Mercury. Ask John Holmes. Seriously?


Oh, I forgot. They didn't consent because they can't. So they are victims of their partners. Sorry, but I can't follow your logic.

I can't follow your strawman version of it either. The law USED to to define them as unable to consent. Nowadays it says they can. The fact that they both end up being victims doesn't seem to be a clue for you either.


I also have a serious problem with the logic of holding all homosexuals responsible for the harm committed by some.

You could make that argument for the Spaniards and the Incas, or the Nazis and their victims. Drunk drivers would also fit that category. Or COURSE not all Drunk Drivers should be held responsible for the victims of OTHER drunk drivers.

That is a communitarian approach, and is like saying that because some gun owners commit murder, gun owners are murderers.

Or you could say that Murderers are (often) gun owners, which fixes the venn diagram properly. Of course in the case of guns, they are necessary because history has shown humans to be needing protection from each other. Should it become needful for people to ensure their protection through homosexual activity, you would have an equivalent point.

You say a lot more, of course (your claim that Rome and Greece were destroyed by their sexual practices is belied by the fact that these practices predated their fall by centuries), but I have no duty to provide answers.

I did not claim that homosexuality was the cause of their collapse, except in jest. It was merely a symptom of their larger social collapse. An analogy to make it easier to understand would be to look at the national Debt as a symptom of the disease... Immoral Spending.


I let my blog speak for itself. I am, however, fascinated by the personal remark directed at me that you fancy yourself to be "teaching people such as yourself to be gun shy." Is that supposed to provoke me into spending hours debating you or something?

Not at all, it is intended to teach you to not advance ideas which can so easily be knocked down. The flaw in my intent was the belief that your could SEE the logical errors in your thinking. It is apparent to me that you cannot, so I am reminded of what Robert Heinlein said.

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

I'm done with you. No hours attempting to debate me are required or desired.


If this is teaching me anything, it's only reminding me of why I have long known -- that arguments with commenters distract me from the purpose of the blog, which is to write posts, not debate them.

God only knows that it's far more important to get ideas OUT there than to make sure they are correct and based on a sound philosophy. :)

I don't have time for the duck vaginas, but I am fascinated by your apparent position that homosexuals should be reproducing,

I didn't say that they "should", I said that they "are." It's only a small distortion, but I should have expected nothing less.

and I do find it amazing that you apparently care so much about what consenting people do with their genitalia.

If it gets innocent victims killed, I ought to be concerned about it. I assure you, did we live in the time of Yersinia Pestis, I would be very concerned about other people's pets and hygiene.


I don't get it. Again, unless there is harm to others, I do not care what they do, and I certainly do not think it is the business of the government.
Eric Scheie October 6, 2010 06:05 PM

Oh, I agree with that completely. The difference is, I don't pretend people aren't causing harm to others when in fact they are. The dispute here is whether such acts constitute harm, or a reasonable expectation thereof. (like firing a gun into the air.)

You say they don't. I say they do. In cases where we both agree that someone is harming someone else, we are ALL in favor of government intervention.

DiogenesLamp   ·  October 7, 2010 12:27 PM

DL,

Do you have the slightest idea what you sound like here?


Like Joe McCarthy telling people that the communists had infiltrated the government. Joe turned out to be correct about almost all of his claims. Funny that. :)

Let me quote a few examples: Can you not comprehend how SILLY and un-serious your argument is? It is the "LAW" which denied HOMOSEXUALS the ability to consent! They used to LOCK them UP! And Thomas Jefferson proposed a law that they be CASTRATED!

And a few centuries before that torture was a normal and accepted part of the law. Law changes as people learn.


You are making my point for me. You cannot base your philosophy on what the law currently says. It must be based on something deeper than the whim of legislators.


A medieval view of morality is no longer acceptable in most Western countries. Would you shout in all-caps about the evils of slavery if it remained legal in this country (Slavery is legal or semi-legal in some places even now). "The Law" is not necessarily right or good. It is merely the consensus of a society on what is beneficial to that society at the time.

No quibbles except that last part. It is the consensus of legislators who THINK it is beneficial to that society at that time. Many's the example where they turned out to be wrong.


From further up-thread: As Homosexuality has been considered perverted and a form of mental illness for most of humanities existence, and as it is explicitly denounced by the tenets of the most major religion in this nation, it cannot be cavalierly regarded as being the equivalent of the normal heterosexual condition for all intents and purposes. It is just as appropriate to mention or let slip that one is a homosexual as it is to mention or let slip that one engages in felching. (which is in many cases exactly the same thing.)

How very intriguing that you display awareness of a term which requires a fairly thorough knowledge of exotic sexual practices, and yet condemn homosexuality as evil.

Some previous guy already tried the "You're a closet homosexual argument." Whatever. Apart from that, here's an amusing example of the word being used in a comedy skit by Hugh Laurie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcnbfHGPxT0

Since that term does not hit mainstream discussion anywhere (and is a practice which is rather more exotic than your average person is going to ever encounter, be they homosexual or not),

How would you know? Why don't you tell me that "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That If You Know What I Mean And I Think You Do"? NTTAWWTIYKWIMAITYD

I find myself wondering just how it is that you know so much about it? Do you go hunting for things that disgust you? Do you think doing so is normal? (Hint, it isn't. Most people avoid things that disgust them). Or is there, perhaps, something to this debate you choose not to mention - or possibly, not to think?

You got me. I'm a Closet homosexual! Reductio ex nihilo.


Oh, and while I'm here, a minor grammar nit for you: it should be "humanity's existence" - unless you think there are multiple humanities floating around. Or possibly, you're referring to the schools of humanities that started up in the Middle Ages, in which case you are in fact technically correct.

No nit to small to pick. If only you showed such diligence to the logic of Eric's argument.


If, however, you actually meant "humanity's existence", allow me to shine a little light on something you apparently don't know about. Homosexuality is and has been an accepted practice in most cultures through history, with certain quirks.

So was human sacrifice and child molestation. Where are these great societies now?

Islam still teaches that it's not immoral if the recipient is a boy. ("Beardless" is the usual term. You can find any number of references to this).

Yes, we should use the Muslims as examples of Morality and Stability. Seriously?


Ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece, and most of the Mediterranean cultures were firm believers in "a woman for heirs and a boy for pleasure". So was the Ottoman Empire.

And where are they now? An argument I have long made is that the most advanced part of the world is that which came about as a result of Christianity, especially after the reformation. The argument is too long for me to make here, and after today I plan to leave you all to your delusions, but here. I'll throw you a clue bat.

http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm

Edward II wasn't despised because of his homosexuality (Richard the Lionheart was equally homosexual). He was despised because he was a lousy king.

The same might be said of Caligula, but it overlooks the point. In the Case of the English Kings, none dared to make it an issue. If your point is that Any debauchery is acceptable provided you are powerful enough to cow everyone into acquiescence, then your point is unnecessary, but well made. I actually think you were going for something else though.


As for "the most major religion in this nation", which precise flavor of said religion did you mean? The one that gets upset if you mention that no, Jesus did not speak 17th Century English in red text?

A straw man. I reject your description of Christians, and your cheap tactic.

The one that ordinates homosexual clergy?

The Current fad among the more delusional denominations of ordaining (known) homosexuals as clergy does not make a fly speck on the demographic of Religion in America. You either knew that, and wanted to be obnoxious, or you didn't know that and are too ignorant to take seriously.


One of the many denominations in between? How much of the religion in question is cultural detritus, and how much is genuinely from the scriptures?

It is a philosophical question which doesn't interest me much. Suffice it to say, whatever the source, it constituted a majority of opinion for the longest period of time.

Bearing in mind, of course, that the translations can be somewhat iffy despite the best efforts of the translators, because they are ultimately flawed humans who shade things in certain directions because they can't understand anything more.

Fortunately, the Jews have preserved the important bits regarding this issue in their own ancient documents, and the translations are accurate enough. Apart from that, the point was that whatever the reason, that WAS the beliefs of Most Americans for Most of this nation's existence.


(This is not a condemnation. If you showed someone from as little as 100 years ago the modern world, and then got that person to describe it, the results would be meaningless. Any human attempts to explain the infinite suffer the same problem. Especially when the source document looks more like this: SPCLL WHN TH SRC DCMNT LKS MR LK THS.

Yes, it's a shame we don't have people who speak Greek, Aramaic and Latin nowadays.


The First Amendment's freedom of association does indeed permit disassociation. It does not and never has permitted any person to deny any other person freedom of association.

Well, except for that nasty slave business. And then of course there's Andrew Jackson and the Indians, Oh, and those Riots that Lincoln put down in New York and Chicago. (arrested the entire Legislature of Maryland he did!) Oh, and when Woodrow Wilson's Henchmen J.Edgard Hoover locked up all dissenters against American involvement in WWI, oh, and I forgot about Japanese Internment under Roosevelt and Truman, then the whole Black\White racial strife thing and so on...

Yeah, other than that, the nation has NEVER denied "freedom of association" to anyone!


In other words, feel free to disapprove of married, unmarried, homosexual, white, black, religious, atheist, anythingelse-ist teachers as much as you want. You don't have the right to force other people to disapprove with you, and you don't have the right to deny other people their skills.

Sigh... Straw man again. Let me set you straight. You are somewhere else out of physical reach of me. You are reading words on a computer screen. If you think that consists of some sort of "force" then you have a severe misunderstanding of the difference between "force" and "reading." Obviously I cannot force you to do anything, including confronting unpleasant realities. I can only urge you and others to absorb accurate knowledge from whatever source. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because everyone thinks a certain way, it must be true. That is Argumentum ad populum.

I think what you are objecting to is the fact that you cannot "force" ME to go along with your view of the world. Sorry, freedom is a two way street.


For those who are tired of the rant, the short version is: if you don't approve of homosexual teachers, don't learn from one.
Kate October 6, 2010 07:10 PM

And the same advice applies to communist spies. Of course the difficulty is figuring out whether you are talking to a homosexual teacher or a communist spy. Nowadays the differences are becoming less and less apparent. :)

The analogy is not so silly as it might at first seem. Communist spies undermine the nation while hiding their true intentions. Nowadays they are able to come out more or less in the open because they have so many sympathizers in government and media. Ditto Homosexuality.

Time will tell which of the views espoused are correct. I think those who have objectively studied history would say "it already did."

DiogenesLamp   ·  October 7, 2010 2:11 PM

Diogenes Lamp,

How much IS Soros paying you to drive a stake between libertarians likely to vote republican and the social conservative wing of the republican party?


If I am being paid, what concern is it of yours?


Letting alone the terms you know and use as has been pointed out -- and which my so con friends would NOT know...

It will shock me not at all to learn of the depths of knowledge that your friends have never plumbed. It is indeed a common enough occurrence for me.

You sound much too much like a caricature of a conservative. The kind of caricature that leftists who never met anyone of faith believe in.

Too plain spoken, too unwilling to put lipstick on a pig. Not concerned about going along with consensus.


If you are not being paid, look up the term "Beclowning one's self" and ponder the meaning.


Now see here, this is an example of pitiful thinking. If I am getting paid, what care I if I were beclowning myself?


And if you are indeed religious, consider the fact that Himself left men free will. Are you greater than Him that you'd take it away? Sarah October 6, 2010 08:08 PM

I'm not religious. But that does not mean I don't see the merits of Judeo-Christian ethics for the nation.


DiogenesLamp   ·  October 7, 2010 2:21 PM

I have a question Eric, answer it if you dare.

You're on record as being against bestiality, if I understand you, because the "beast" part can't consent.

What about animals, like porpoises or dolphins (I forget which) that want to have sex with humans?
I've read about males trying to get it on with their female trainers. Maybe orcas too.

What if the women acquiesced? Would you defend it? (I'm not asking about approval)

That would be two consenting parties as presumably the dophin or porpoise would be consenting as he's the one who initiated it.

If so, is that an intolerable double standard as you can't really know if the female "beast" wanted it or not so only a male animal/female human could be definitively known as a "consenting couple"?

Veeshir   ·  October 7, 2010 4:35 PM

I am having a great deal of trouble following the argument that I am "hiding behind the law." This post -- and much of my argument about consensual sex -- is grounded in my view of what the law should be. My legal philosophy. There is no way not to discuss the law freely and say what I think without referencing the law, past and present.

I'm saying you can't have it both ways. If the LAW is the RULE you use, then you have to agree with it when it made Homosexuality illegal. If you disagree that the law should have been that way, then you can't use the Law as a rule for consent. This point has nothing to do with what *I* believe, it has entirely to do with what *YOU* believe and how it contradicts itself.

If I'm talking about consent as an element of the crime in the context of criminal law, it makes zero difference whether I agree with the law. Consent (in the form of criminal intent) formed the basis of the crime, and under the sodomy law scheme, there were no victims. It is impossible to discuss this without reference to the law.


Look at older laws, and consider the possibility that lawmakers were unaware of such practices and could not make laws against them. Queen Victoria outlawed ALL male homosexuality, but did not outlaw Female Homosexuality because she simply couldn't conceive of such a thing.

Laws can only forbid the conduct they describe. It was not a crime to be a homosexual, so homosexuality per se was not illegal. (If two men were discovered lying in bed and kissing, and the law prohibited oral or anal penetration, then they couldn't be convicted on those facts.)


I guess you CAN'T find all your answers on Wikipedia! :) Mental patients could not consent. (non compos mentis) Homosexuality was considered a mental condition. It was axiomatic, and that's exactly how the system handled it.

That is simply wrong. Homosexuals were imprisoned and punished for their acts, and consent (intent) was a material element of the offense. In spite of mounds of legal records and historical evidence, you are saying that these homosexuals would never have been imprisoned because their acts proved them insane and thus incapable of consent.

That's a remarkable and incorrect assertion. The European criminal laws date back to medieval times, while the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder is a relatively modern concept, which began to take form in the 19th century. It was not included in the DSM until 1952, at which time it was classified not as insanity, but as a "sociopathic personality disturbance." That is not true insanity, and insufficient legal cause to render a person incapable of consent. True, for two decades it was classed as a personality disorder -- but that is a far cry from the claim you are making that because homosexuals are "insane" they cannot consent. No serious psychiatrists from the period would have asserted such a thing, nor would they have said that homosexuality was insanity. A few hired guns might have tried it in a criminal case (to keep the guy from going to prison), but it would have failed as a legal defense. And it had to, because allowing criminal defendants to claim insanity as a result of a "sociopathic personality disturbance" would violate the M'Naghten Rule. (A level of insanity rendering the defendant incapable of understanding that his actions were against the law.)

At one time it was a "victimless crime" to torture a cat or other animal to death. Not only is it now illegal, but society discovered that people who do such things are invariably psychopaths that simply move on to doing such things to humans. There have been numerous examples of the same sort of dynamic playing out among homosexuals who graduate from molesting each other to molesting unwilling participants and children. Gacy and Eng come to mind. Catholic Priests pederasts seem to all be of the homosexual variety. People a long time ago realized that this transition from one aberrant sexual behavior was far too common and decided to regard the initial stages of it as warning signs.

Homosexuality led Gacy and Eng to murder people? Really? Did Hitler start make this same "transition" too?

According to the SAME LAW that denied it to Homosexuals! By the way, the law is different in MEXICO (age 12) and Arab countries (any age) Even if we accept your argument (just for the sake of the discussion) This still ignores the examples of animals, who according to the law of the Netherlands COULD give consent! (till just this last year.) STOP HIDING BEHIND THE LAW TO COVER THE HOLES IN YOUR PHILOSOPHY!

What holes in my philosophy am I using the law to hide behind? I don't care what the laws in each country of the world say about children or animals; I am just saying that I do not think sex between adults and children or adults and animals is at all comparable to sex between consenting adults. It is my opinion that the government ought to allow the latter but not the former.

Not true. That is NOT the custom in Arab countries, and in the earlier part of THIS country was not objectionable either. It was not uncommon for 12 or 13 year old girls to be married to 20+ year old men. Again, you are STUCK in a modern zeitgeist.

I think I mentioned ancient Greece and Rome. A number of cultures have different views of the proper age of consent. That is inherently a legal argument, and there is no getting around it. As to what the age should be, that's debatable, isn't it? Why are children legally not allowed to engage in adult behavior such as entering contracts, etc.? If I say that consenting adults should have a right to buy cars and drive them, does that mean I am hiding behind the law if I don't think children should have the same rights?

I just don't think there is a right for adults to have sex with children, and I am getting tired of your insistence that I ought to think otherwise.

Again we're talking about what the LAW says! This is the same law that says DRUGS are ILLEGAL! Fine. So DENOUNCE the use of drugs because the LAW decides your philosophy! You can't have it both ways. Either the LAW is always right, or it isn't. If it can sometimes be wrong, it's not a good basis for your principles.

I never said the law decided my philosophy, but if I'm talking about my legal philosophy, then I have to discuss it, whether I like it or not. How else can I discuss what the law should be?

"Drugs are illegal. Using Drugs is a FELONY."

How do you like your "LAW" argument now?

My legal argument is that the federal drug laws violate the Constitution. As to state laws, I would argue against the state regulating what substances put into their bodies. That's my opinion, and my right as a citizen, and I can freely criticize whatever laws I don't like -- and cite or quote them as necessary.

I notice you didn't ask for the link where it can be proven beyond anyone's reasonable doubt that animals can consent. Check out videos from Brazil or the Netherlands. Plenty of consenting animals to chose from! Just google "Dog Porn" and you'll find out about consenting animals, and It was LEGAL! (not in THIS country of course. At least not yet.)

Animals cannot consent. It is not possible. Nor can they commit rape or any other sex crimes. I would never charge an animal with a crime, as it is absurd. I think, however, that humans who have sex with them are violating the laws against cruelty to animals, and I would not allow it.

It is a waste of time. You have your mind made up and you will not even LOOK at the facts, nor can you even comprehend how logically bankrupt are your arguments. After today, I intend to leave you with your bastardized philosophy which sometimes depends on the law and the rest of the time depends on your whim.

Bastardized or not, I think what I think, and I believe I have looked at the facts you presented with as much logic as I can muster.

Ask Freddie Mercury. Ask John Holmes. Seriously?

Ask them what? Whether they harmed people? They suffered harm, but were they raped? Did they rape people? Don't people who have sex voluntarily assume the risks?

I can't follow your strawman version of it either. The law USED to to define them as unable to consent. Nowadays it says they can. The fact that they both end up being victims doesn't seem to be a clue for you either.

Both end up being victims? Of what? How?

You could make that argument for the Spaniards and the Incas, or the Nazis and their victims. Drunk drivers would also fit that category. Or COURSE not all Drunk Drivers should be held responsible for the victims of OTHER drunk drivers.

I'm not talking about drunk drivers versus drunk drivers but people who don't spread disease versus people who do. You are placing irresponsible people in the same category as high risk people. (Reminds me the way some people regard pit bull owners.)

Not at all, it is intended to teach you to not advance ideas which can so easily be knocked down. The flaw in my intent was the belief that your could SEE the logical errors in your thinking. It is apparent to me that you cannot, so I am reminded of what Robert Heinlein said.

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

I'm done with you. No hours attempting to debate me are required or desired.

It is hard to see the logical errors in my thinking when you have shown me none. You simply insist that I am "inconsistent" if I think sex between consenting adults is not a proper scope of government regulation, but sex with children and sex with animals is. I have tried to explain why I think what I think. Logic does not dictate that I should recognize the rights of adults to have sex with children any more than I should recognize the rights of children to buy heroin or drive.

I didn't say that they "should", I said that they "are." It's only a small distortion, but I should have expected nothing less.

Actually, you mentioned that homosexual acts are "detrimental to the survival of the species." By that I assumed you meant that homosexuals fail to reproduce. If you meant something else, my mistake.

If it gets innocent victims killed, I ought to be concerned about it. I assure you, did we live in the time of Yersinia Pestis, I would be very concerned about other people's pets and hygiene.

If any innocent victims are killed, by all means those responsible should face charges. But if someone consented to dangerous sex, I can't see him as an innocent victim, and more than a smoker is an innocent victim of Big Tobacco.


Oh, I agree with that completely. The difference is, I don't pretend people aren't causing harm to others when in fact they are. The dispute here is whether such acts constitute harm, or a reasonable expectation thereof. (like firing a gun into the air.)

You say they don't. I say they do. In cases where we both agree that someone is harming someone else, we are ALL in favor of government intervention.

You have not shown in any way how consenting adult homosexual conduct harms anyone except possibly the participants if they are not careful.

Eric Scheie   ·  October 7, 2010 10:06 PM

Veeshir, that's a good question. In humans, we can generally assume that consent on the male side can be inferred by the act of penetration. (I've struggled with the complexities of this, but the fact is it's hard to convince most people that an erect penis that penetrated something was somehow the victim of whatever it penetrated. Might make an interesting post!)

But with animals, there is no way to prove consent, and animals are not only legally incapable of consent, they cannot speak, so even if someone said an animal did consent, there is is absolutely no way to prove it. I can't prove Coco actually consents to going for a ride in the car!

Because there's no way for the animal to consent, I would not allow a woman to claim that a dolphin consented to having sex with her. However, as a practical matter the woman who had sex with the dolphin would only have to say that she did not consent, that any sex took place against her will, and all would be well! Dolphins cannot be charged with rape, because they are not people, so the dolphin would go Scot free, and the woman would simply be seen as the victim of a terrible accident. Of nature!

There I go, hiding behind the law!

:)

Eric Scheie   ·  October 7, 2010 10:26 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPHciZD2nag

So you'll probably just say that the soccer ball doesn't have any rights and the tortoises are the victims.
For shame.

Veeshir   ·  October 8, 2010 10:57 AM

Hmmm.... That video is a profound and disturbing example of what can happen when we allow unnatural activities that directly threaten the species' survival!

Perhaps I should rethink everything I said.

One of these days, when I have time...

Eric Scheie   ·  October 8, 2010 11:00 PM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits