[eDebate] In Re:Sanchez/Will (ans Duane)

[Kevin Sanchez]

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 
behaviors.

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. :)
             .k

___

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*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus