COMensarations
Sunday, February 12, 2006
A Continued Discussion….
....of thoughts from another blog.
A while back, Stephen ’VodkaPundit‘ Green, pointed to the new look of Venomous Kate’s blog known as Electric Venom. Kate’s an attorney-at-law who has set aside her shingle to raise a family, with the assistance of some Army guy.
At any rate, I tooled over to see what impressed Stephen so much. And stumbled upon an interesting soliloquy of the esquiress. So I jumped in and contributed my two-bits.
During the course of the discussion, someone joined in and engaged me on some of my thoughts on the matter. However, now, the thread at that location has been ‘disabled’. I’d like to continue the discussion with the individual to see what else I might learn. Therefore, I’ve decided to open this thread in the hope that he’ll oblige me to further our mutual better understanding of each other and this matter.
If you followed the links to the Electric Venom discussion, you’ll see that it relates to her stance on homosexual marriage.
JB and I have been exchanging comments towards the end of the discussion that left a LOT of room for discussion. I’ll address his later comments to me here. And so it begins....
I will confess that homosexuality is not the norm, but am curious regarding your interest in reducing that which is not the norm. Deny them rights, or much status - because their sex acts aren’t naturally lubricated? What movie did you enjoy last night, sir? I don’t think it was Schindler’s List.—JB
Good that we agree that homosexuality is not the ‘norm’. However, I will point out that I offered the lub-job argument as evidence. Evidence is part of a proof. Not the whole of a proof, in most cases.
As for the denial of ‘rights’. Which explicit right(s) are you referring to? If you’re thinking of “the pursuit of happiness”, I do believe that is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution of the United States. Furthermore, I think that the law says that some forms of ‘happiness’ are not legal, e.g., illicit drugs, rape, prostitution (in most states), etc., etc., etc. Therefore, it is understood that not all ‘happiness’ is permitted by society. Marriage? I don’t believe that is an explicit right in the Constitution.
Regarding movies, I believe it was A Shot in the Dark, with Peter Sellers and Elke Somers. That, after a classic Warner Bros. cartoon, an episode of Cheers and an installment of the BBC’s Elisabeth I. Your point is....what?
As to your pointing to a story of cannibalism “proving” that we cannot stomach the things “consenting adults” dream up - I will offer that you have accidentally stumbled onto the heart of the matter. I don’t think you’re being serious, but you have actually identified the main problem here that makes it a civil rights issue. You equate the different with the criminal. Cannibalism is a crime because it is murder. (Sorry, but I don’t think the food source in your German story is considered a rational actor here.) In much the same way, we have “anti-sodomy” laws throughout the South - principally to stop them gays from having unnatural relations. When people talk against gay marriage, they invariably say “what’s next? Sheep? Children??”—JB
For those who missed it, the story on cannibalism related toinfamous case of a homosexual couple in Germany.
JB...Yes.....cannibalism is not the ‘norm’ either—thank God. Except in old New Guinea. But I don’t think they’re homosexuals in the outback there. Cannibalism is a crime because we have made laws against it. In New Guinea, if they had their way, they’d still be practicing it. Indeed, I think they do still.
Why did we call this incident a crime? Because it is reprehensible in our sight. I don’t even recall a place in the Bible where it is forbidden. But maybe you could refresh my memory. My Friday Morning Mens’ group, which is reading and discussing all the text of that old Book this year, won’t get to Leviticus until April. And besides, the case back then was between ‘mutually consenting adults’; and this guy agreed to have it done to him as it happened. Based on the typical homosexual stance, what happens between two such is not a matter for the law. And as for whether or not the victim of this encounter was a ‘rational actor’ is beside the point. We can call anyone we like ‘irrational’; cannibals included. Typical libertarians would say this is not right, criminalizing cannibalism between consenting adults.
However, you’ve tickled a thought I’ll have to pursue. Not here, but elsewhere. I think the cannibalism argument might be interesting to try against the libertarian, as well as the homosexual, camps. Thanks for that.
Back on-topic....
Good of you to mention ‘children’. I don’t care that much about the ‘sheep’ matter, but I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that PETA will take exception. Children are another matter.
Years ago, as in the 60s, the American Psychological Association (APA) had a stance that identified homosexuality as abnormal behavior resulting from a mental disorder. In the 70s they changed that stance to say that it was not a mental disorder. And now they embrace it as ‘acceptable’. The laws have been changed according.
However, back in the 60s, the APA also considered pedophelia as being an abnormal behavior. Today, it STILL ‘officially’ recognizes it as such. However, it’s now showing indications that there is a sea-change coming on that stance. A few years ago I noticed reports of articles showing up in their publications suggesting that it isn’t always a ‘bad thing’. Furthermore, I do believe that some of the people named in the masthead of their publications were also named in the masthead of Pedlika, a pedophiles psychological magazine published in Europe. So, in answer to your comment about ‘what next’, I think the indication IS “children”. Or have you not noticed the amount of news traffic regarding adults sexually preying upon children of late?
By equating the different with the criminal, you advocate using the State to legislate your intolerance. I sense you are more civilized than this, and haven’t yet thought through the implications.—JB
As I pointed out over at Venomous Kate’s blog, we are ALL ‘intolerant’; of one thing or another. And, to restate my argument there, are you ‘tolerant’ of a drunk in a bar, fishing out his car keys and staggering towards the door? I should hope not.
As some wit put it...
“Tolerance is the virtue of those who have no convictions.”