Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jet Grind · 06-30-2003, 06:25 AM

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=33324

Another right wing lunatic ranting and raving about the sodomy law being struck down, except this one calles himself a "libertarian." As a true libertarian I'm disgusted.

Vylo · 06-30-2003, 07:12 AM

OK, where to start on this fine little piece.

Quote:

Unfortunately, by insisting on the fabrication of a constitutional right to engage in same-sex relations, homosexuals have now opened the door to a Pandora's box that will wreak havoc on sexual and familial relationships across America, and contribute to the acceleration of America's decline into decadence and ultimate bondage.

This is a very pessismistic view of the changing family. The definition of family is merely adjusting to be better suited to survive in the current environment. Because there are same sex relations which have the same cojunctive forces of the "traditional" marriage, homosexual marriage must be acknowledged and included in the very definition of marriage.

Quote:

How can a state possibly defend statutes against prostitution

I do believe that many nations do not outlaw prostitution, but they seem to be doing fine. I do not condone prostitution, but I really dont give a rat's ass if others do

Vylo · 06-30-2003, 07:36 AM

Gah broke my post by accident :banghead: let me continue.

Quote:

How can a state defend its laws against incest, bigamy, polygamy or bestiality, as long as such acts are committed outside the public view?

Personally I see nothing wrong with bigamy or polygamy, so long as all parties are consenting.

With bestality, the animal doesnt consent

Incest is already at the point where it slips through the cracks, I seriously doubt we would see much change with that, though for health reasons I could see them keeping laws trying to prohibit it.

Quote:

They can't � not anymore. Because of the self-serving manner in which the judicial system gives precedence to its own decisions over statutory law, anyone challenging a law against prostitution or any of these behaviors long held to be socially deviant will simply need to cite Lawrence v. Texas in order to trump whatever case has been built by the prosecuting state.

In the case of bestality and incest there are health issues that would definetly shatter any defense of such actions.

Quote:

While the wisdom of attempting to support morality through legislation can be rightly questioned, preventing such attempts on specious grounds when they are the expressed will of the majority in support of centuries-old tradition is deranged foolishness of the kind seldom encountered throughout history. One does not have to believe that prostitution, or any of these other activities, should be illegal to recognize that making them government-protected rights are likely to lead to serious negative repercussions for the entire society as it spirals into full-blown decadence.

Just because something is traditional, does not make it correct, clever though trying to use traditional dominance, as many right-wings will, as it is the most legitimated form of dominance. There were century old traditions of oppressing women to the point of them being property, should we have also keep that tradition since the majority seemed to agree with it at the time?

Quote:

The war on tradition, morality and civilization will not end here. Without a change of at least one justice on this renegade Supreme Court, the worst since the Warren era, we will soon see the concept of marriage redefined,

True marriage has already been redefined, and family has been redefined several times, with great success might I add.

Quote:

completing the destruction of the family that began with the so-called sexual revolution, Roe v. Wade and the easing of divorce laws. Lawrence v. Texas is not a cause, it is merely a symptom, but it is a warning sign of a fatal disease.

Redefining is not destroying, the family will still exist, just that it will allow a broader scope of people, a group of people whose lifestyle does no harm to others.

Quote:

a harsh anti-libertine reaction will take place, one without the traditional moral constraints that were dismantled over the last 100 years.

There is an anti-libertine reaction (you). that tries to slow down progress. Not that this is entirely bad, it does force us to take a look at what we are doing, gives us longer to consider what we are doing.

Quote:

The American Augustus will be no friend to freedom, but he will also view libertine decadence as cultural weakness, thus an impediment to the national greatness that will be his monument to himself. And he will stamp it out, as ruthlessly as did Hitler and Stalin before him. The infamous closet of old will look like a paradise in comparison.

That is a lot of speculation from 2 very different cases.

Quote:

The basic family structure has survived for thousands of years, across cultural and religious boundaries.

What are you smoking? The basic family structure has changedat least twice in the past 100 years. First from the industrial age where we had large extended family networks and 3 generation home into the 1950's nuclear family. Second from the 50's family into the modern family which has fewer children, dual working parents, very elderly members (the separation of the young old 65 +, and the oldest old 85 +), and older parents themselves. There are even more changes in the shifts to aspects of family structure if you care to examine them.

hezekiah jones · 06-30-2003, 07:53 AM

The Court did not "invent" the right to privacy with Roe v. Wade. If this jerk is that stupid, he has no business criticizing the Court.

That's where I stopped reading.

BibleBelted · 06-30-2003, 08:38 AM

The most alarming new trend I'm seeing from the neo-cons is this campaign they've recently started claiming that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. I don't know how they can make this claim and then in the next breath say they oppose big government intervention in their lives, but intellectual consistency has never been a hallmark of the brownshirts trying to steal the USA.

Fascism is a word I hesitate to use (mainly because it is so over-used), but is IMO entirely appropriate to describe what is happening in this country which I always thought was founded on liberty.

Apparently I'm mistaken, though. This country was really founded on christian principles like .. uh .. uh .. hating sex and all its practitioners! Yeah, that's it.

MzNeko · 06-30-2003, 08:59 AM

Quote:

How can a state defend its laws against incest, bigamy, polygamy or bestiality, as long as such acts are committed outside the public view?

Adult-on-child incest is covered by laws against pedophilia/sexual abuse.

Adult-on-adult incest has reproductive health concerns, though really, as long as both adults consent and use protection... well, I think it's kind of creepy, but whatever...

Polygamy (or polyandry) - to be honest, as long as ALL parties are consenting adults (no sixteen-year-olds pushed into it by their parents, etc.), I don't really see much of a problem with this... except for the mess it might make of inheritance laws.

Bigamy is at least a breach of contract with the first spouse. Usually one spouse does NOT know about the other and did NOT consent to the second marriage. Otherwise, it would be polygamy.

Bestiality - would be covered under animal-cruelty laws. Animals can't give informed consent.

beejay · 06-30-2003, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MzNeko

Bestiality - would be covered under animal-cruelty laws. Animals can't give informed consent.

Not sure what informed consent they give at the slaughterhouse.

And I don't think "creepy" is a good enough reason to make something illegal, so when the argument is "if you allow gay sex on the grounds of privacy, how can you ban [adult] incest and bestiality", I have to say they convinced me.

I don't know how those can be against the law now.

Jet Grind · 06-30-2003, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by beejay
And I don't think "creepy" is a good enough reason to make something illegal, so when the argument is "if you allow gay sex on the grounds of privacy, how can you ban [adult] incest and bestiality", I have to say they convinced me.

I don't know how those can be against the law now.

If I understand your position correctly, you are saying that if private, consentual activities between adults of the same gender are legal that we can't make laws against incest or beastiality. That's utterly rediculous, in the case of incest their are health issues involving potential children (hence it is not a victimless crime) and in the case of beastiality there is animal cruelty ( btw, there is a difference between killing an animal for the purpous of survival and simply abusing it).

dangin · 06-30-2003, 10:50 AM

Slaughtering animals in the US, for mass consumption means the animal is stunned before death. Usually by a blow to the head from a spring loaded metal bar in a thing that looks like a shotgun. (at least at the slaughter house I worked at. It was slaughter house four if I remember correctly)

So to compare to bestiality, I guess bestiality would be legal if you rendered the animal unconscious, and had equipment so small as to not injure the animal during coitus. Then you are A-OK.

Toto · 06-30-2003, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jet Grind
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=33324

Another right wing lunatic ranting and raving about the sodomy law being struck down, except this one calles himself a "libertarian." As a true libertarian I'm disgusted.

Is Vox Day for real? A mohawk haircut, a self described "Christian Libertarian" novelist, and a member of Mensa. It sounds like he's digested half of Camille Paglia's rantings without really understanding anything.

Looking into his archives, he states here (where at least he's answering the hate mail he got when he said Harry Potter was ok)

Quote:

. . . I would point out that a closer viewing of "The Matrix," the first movie, is basically a violent technorwellian retelling of the Christian story with an emphasis on spiritual warfare. Since I'm an author, I am no doubt biased, but I find the fact that the Christian media would rather complain about secular novels than devote coverage to those books written by and for Christians is tremendously annoying. I can't speak for other authors, but I can state for a fact that my publisher, a major New York house, sent out books to over 50 Christian media outlets and not a single one bothered to review it, despite the fact that Publisher's Weekly did.

His original review of Harry Potter here

Quote:

Well-meaning Christians have attacked Harry Potter because of the idea that the books make the occult appear fun. But this is like attacking pornography because it makes sex appear fun. The problem with this approach is that sex is fun, as is getting drunk, gossiping and a whole host of other things that are accounted sin.

Sin, in general, is fun. And so is the occult. Aleister Crowley, at least, knew how to party. "OK, guys, and for the altar, we'll use a hot naked redhead!"

While pornography can be dismissed as an evil temptation on its own, reading for simple pleasure cannot. Thus, the question becomes: Does reading Harry Potter and other books of similar ilk cause one to become involved in the occultic arts? I am willing to believe that magical fantasy might foster an interest in the supernatural, to be sure, but an interest, even a belief, in the supernatural is exactly what a Christian should hope to foster in one's children!

The basic challenge facing Christians in the West is not that too many people believe in the supernatural, it is that too many people do not! As Christians, we believe in spiritual forces, in demons, and, yes, in magic too. Sorcery may be forbidden to us, as is astrology and fortune-telling, but it is an element of our worldview. If Harry Potter does indeed inspire one to think of the world beyond the pure material, then he is at least operating within the boundaries of the Christian worldview, if not in the precise manner that the Christian parent might prefer.

I looked for his published novel, and found this on Amazon:

Rebel Moon

89 used & new from $0.01

06-30-2003, 06:25 AM	#1
Jet Grind Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Southern Maine, USA Posts: 220	Religious Reich lunatic predicting doom due to homosexuality. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=33324 Another right wing lunatic ranting and raving about the sodomy law being struck down, except this one calles himself a "libertarian." As a true libertarian I'm disgusted.

06-30-2003, 07:53 AM	#4
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Idiot. The Court did not "invent" the right to privacy with Roe v. Wade. If this jerk is that stupid, he has no business criticizing the Court. That's where I stopped reading.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-30-2003, 08:38 AM	#5
BibleBelted Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Oklahoma, USA Posts: 891	The most alarming new trend I'm seeing from the neo-cons is this campaign they've recently started claiming that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. I don't know how they can make this claim and then in the next breath say they oppose big government intervention in their lives, but intellectual consistency has never been a hallmark of the brownshirts trying to steal the USA. Fascism is a word I hesitate to use (mainly because it is so over-used), but is IMO entirely appropriate to describe what is happening in this country which I always thought was founded on liberty. Apparently I'm mistaken, though. This country was really founded on christian principles like .. uh .. uh .. hating sex and all its practitioners! Yeah, that's it.

06-30-2003, 10:50 AM	#9
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Slaughtering animals in the US, for mass consumption means the animal is stunned before death. Usually by a blow to the head from a spring loaded metal bar in a thing that looks like a shotgun. (at least at the slaughter house I worked at. It was slaughter house four if I remember correctly) So to compare to bestiality, I guess bestiality would be legal if you rendered the animal unconscious, and had equipment so small as to not injure the animal during coitus. Then you are A-OK.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.