The slippery gay slope
Picking up another thread off Mr. Capps, I must say I don't understand the conservative stance against anti-sodomy laws. If you're interested in a small part of this debate, you should read this, which is the link Capps provided. Most of this post will be a response to that debate.
First off, I'd like to point out that the blogger who posted that discussion is named "feddie," and that, for his cute, personalized text that denotes the response link, he uses "10 rebel yells." Why are we required to take these people seriously?
He also talks about having a concern for maintaining separation of powers, but didn't Bush--and maybe i'm wrong here--just carry out an entire war without Congress's formal declaration?
Finally, here's a slippery slope: if legislatures are allowed to ban sodomy, why can't they ban any sexual practice they want? I really don't understand the distinction between banning sodomy and regulating any facet of one's private life they want. Granted, legislation can be moral in nature, but what if some state were to ban consensual oral sex between married couples? Is that different? Someone clarify for me. And to run through his list of other sexual acts that would suddenly be allowed:
1. Prostitution involves a financial transaction, which is why it is left to the states.
2. Adultery constitutes breaking the terms of a marriage contract, a binding legal agreement, right? Then again, is adultery even illegal?
3. Necrophilia and bestiality can be legislated in the interest of the public health.
4. Child pornography and pedophilia physically and emotionally harm children, which cannot be excused because the child was "willing." In the case of incest, there is a demonstrable risk that any children produced by such a coupling will have severe handicaps.
Two counter-arguments I can forsee: (a)Sodomy could also be legislated in the interest of the public health, but I believe that would require scientific evidence that shows sodomy is more harmful than any other sexual activity; and (b) the slippery slope would still allow incest between partners who were not at risk of producing children (I bet if Santorum were to visualize what I just suggested, he'd probably have to go beat up some practicing fags). The latter, I don't have any response for, besides it's utter disgustingness. And, as feddie's counterpart asks, why can't some distinction be drawn between these specific acts?
This stuff isn't my forte, so y'all feel free to correct me where I'm wrong or raise other points.
Picking up another thread off Mr. Capps, I must say I don't understand the conservative stance against anti-sodomy laws. If you're interested in a small part of this debate, you should read this, which is the link Capps provided. Most of this post will be a response to that debate.
First off, I'd like to point out that the blogger who posted that discussion is named "feddie," and that, for his cute, personalized text that denotes the response link, he uses "10 rebel yells." Why are we required to take these people seriously?
He also talks about having a concern for maintaining separation of powers, but didn't Bush--and maybe i'm wrong here--just carry out an entire war without Congress's formal declaration?
Finally, here's a slippery slope: if legislatures are allowed to ban sodomy, why can't they ban any sexual practice they want? I really don't understand the distinction between banning sodomy and regulating any facet of one's private life they want. Granted, legislation can be moral in nature, but what if some state were to ban consensual oral sex between married couples? Is that different? Someone clarify for me. And to run through his list of other sexual acts that would suddenly be allowed:
1. Prostitution involves a financial transaction, which is why it is left to the states.
2. Adultery constitutes breaking the terms of a marriage contract, a binding legal agreement, right? Then again, is adultery even illegal?
3. Necrophilia and bestiality can be legislated in the interest of the public health.
4. Child pornography and pedophilia physically and emotionally harm children, which cannot be excused because the child was "willing." In the case of incest, there is a demonstrable risk that any children produced by such a coupling will have severe handicaps.
Two counter-arguments I can forsee: (a)Sodomy could also be legislated in the interest of the public health, but I believe that would require scientific evidence that shows sodomy is more harmful than any other sexual activity; and (b) the slippery slope would still allow incest between partners who were not at risk of producing children (I bet if Santorum were to visualize what I just suggested, he'd probably have to go beat up some practicing fags). The latter, I don't have any response for, besides it's utter disgustingness. And, as feddie's counterpart asks, why can't some distinction be drawn between these specific acts?
This stuff isn't my forte, so y'all feel free to correct me where I'm wrong or raise other points.
posted by Matt at 2:11 PM
|
<< Home