[eDebate] In Re:Sanchez/Will (ans Duane)
Thu Jul 17 16:24:21 CDT 2003
previous post in thread: http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200307/0320.html
duane writes: "Hi, Uhmm..Kevin...George Will was mocking the Supreme Court's
decision in the Texas Sodomy Case...Duh."
you must really think i'm an idiot if you don't think that i know george
will would never advocate the legalization of bestiality. :)
i was using george will's logic to respond to liberal defenders of the
supreme court's ruling who hypocritically advocate the repel of anti-sodomy
laws but do not even consider lifting prohibitions of other consensual
at least george will is consistent in that he believes the matter should be
settled legislatively and not judicially. those who argue that homosexual
sex is a consistutional right should also argue (as i do) that any and all
other consensual sexual choices are just as constitutionally protected.
what i'm saying to the likes of terry west (for an example) is that they
don't have the guts to follow their beliefs to their logical (yet socially
taboo) conclusion; these are the same kinds of people who 50 years ago would
say 'i think inter-racial marraiges are a constitutional right, but not for
those sick homosexuals!', and then they'd pat themselves on the back for
being open-minded and tolerant.
notice also, however, that george will never presents any clear
argumentation for why consensual forms of incest, polygamy, heroin-use, etc.
should remain prohibited - he simply relies on the ad populum sort of
disgust that the mere mention of these practices creates in a reader; but
then again, he's a conservative, and i respect that it is his job to
perserve traditional cultural morays.
my point (more directed at self-described 'liberals') is that those who set
themselves up as the guardians of people's privacy rights should also,
rationally and unequivocally, stand publicly by alternative sexualities (as
well as the legalization of all consensual behavior, including prostitution
and heavy drug use). and in this, mr. will and i appear to agree; we're both
mocking the same people. :)
the quote again: "Thursday the court held that Texas' law "furthers no
legitimate state interest" which can justify abridging the privacy right to
consensual adult homosexual activity. The logic of the court's ruling, which
the court flinches from recognizing, is that no legitimate state interest is
served by any law for the promotion of a majority's convictions about sexual
morality. ... 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? ... And given that in a 1992 abortion ruling the privacy right
was explained as "the right to physical autonomy," the question is not just
whether there is a fundamental right to engage in sodomy. Why not the right
to physical autonomy in using heroin?"
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
More information about the Mailman