Incest Repellent? If gay sex is private, why isn't incest?

Slate ^ | 4/23/03 | William Saletan

[Laurie S]

"You may think that even one person charged is too many, and you may be right (see my reply above to someone else on my opinion of sodomy laws). But to claim that suddenly there will be a homosexual gulag is just plain silliness. "

I didn't say the jail would just be filled with gays. Since this no 'right to privacy in the bedroom' does not specifically mention gays then it would have to be applied to everyone who has sex. Heterosexuals could be arrested just as easily as gays for not having the baby-making kind of sex. Otherwise, the anti-gay law would have to be struck down as it keeps heterosexuals' 'right to privacy in the bedroom' unlegislated. The 'right to privacy in the bedroom' would only be applied to a certain section of the population and not equally to the entire population.

[William McKinley]

have to be applied to everyone who has sex

No, on this is would not be. Sodomy does not equal intercourse.

[Laurie S]

The baby-making kind of sex in the traditional military position is only one of many sex acts consenting adults commit. Some are considered 'intercourse', others 'sodomy'. Which ones should we be arrested for? How can the state enforce the law equally across the entire population? There's no way.. not without the state becoming Big Brother.

[William McKinley]

Let me give you an example. For decades, Georgia had a sodomy law on the books that made oral sex illegal.

Somehow, Georgia survived for generations without the state becoming Big Brother.

I think it was a silly, unenforceable law, and it wasn't enforced, except in rare occasions-- when the act was committed in public, for example. I think that law did more harm than good. But the nightmare situation you described as being what would happen, didn't.

I get the sense that you would like to see no laws regarding sexual activity to be on the books, which is fine as an opinion. However, that is about as far out of the mainstream as you were trying to suggest Santorum was in his comments.

As for what I think should be and shouldn't be legal, see post 196.

[Laurie S]

If these laws are silly and unenforceable, why have them on the books at all?

"I get the sense that you would like to see no laws regarding sexual activity to be on the books.."

I never said that. I just don't think there should be a sex law on the books that only applies to a certain part of the population. The laws should be applied equally. If gay people can't commit type X sex act then heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to commit type X sex act either. (although there's no way to enforce it other than barging into one's bedroom which is exactly what started this court case) That's all I'm saying.

Santorum seems to be saying that gays can't commit type X sex act, but hetero's can. Not only that, but if you allow gays to commit type X sex act then that means that all hell will break loose and anyone can commit any type of sex act they want. It's an insane argument on Santorums part.

[William McKinley]

If these laws are silly and unenforceable, why have them on the books at all?

A good question for a legislature to handle.

I never said that. I just don't think there should be a sex law on the books that only applies to a certain part of the population.

Pretty much by definition, any sex law on the book only applies to a certain part of the population- the part that partakes in the act.

The laws should be applied equally. If gay people can't commit type X sex act then heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to commit type X sex act either.

I think, although I am not sure, that most sodomy laws are written this way. They don't outlaw male-male sex acts, they outlaw anal intercourse. The Georgia law I mentioned above didn't outlaw male-male intercourse and oral sex, it outlawed anal intercourse and oral sex, period.

(although there's no way to enforce it other than barging into one's bedroom which is exactly what started this court case)

That may or may not be what started this court case. But it is clearly not the only way to enforce it.

That's all I'm saying.

Been a fun discussion, but at this point I am dropping out. Time to take care of other things away from the computer.

[Laurie S]

"The laws should be applied equally. If gay people can't commit type X sex act then heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to commit type X sex act either."

"I think, although I am not sure, that most sodomy laws are written this way. They don't outlaw male-male sex acts, they outlaw anal intercourse. The Georgia law I mentioned above didn't outlaw male-male intercourse and oral sex, it outlawed anal intercourse and oral sex, period. "

But the Texas law specifically targets homosexuals not the specific sex act (which can be committed by heterosexuals). You are talkign about male-male sex or sodomy, whereas the Texas law says 'homosexual conduct'. But what is that specifically because there are certain sex acts that gays do that heterosexuals also do.

[William McKinley]

Well, it seems to me that even as defined as 'homosexual conduct', it still works for equal application. Every single person, by not having sex with a member of the same gender, stays inside the bounds of the law.

[Laurie S]

The law singles out gays. This is unconstitutional.

You can't just make up a law against a certain group of people you don't like and then say it is applied fairly because it applies to everyone. It clearly does not apply to everyone.

Since the 'right to privacy in the bedroom' is not granted to gays as it is to heterosexuals then the law must not stand.

[kevao]

Every single person, by not having sex with a member of the same gender, stays inside the bounds of the law.

Even bootleggers? ;-)

[Reactionary]

"You seem to equate sodomy with murder.

And you obviously can't read. My point was that if one accepts that consent and privacy are the two criteria by which one establishes whether or not sexual behavior should be legal, then there is no reason to prohibit a sadist from murdering a masochist for sexual pleasure.

Please try to follow along.

[RipSawyer]

"If I want to put my freaking head through my freaking windshield then by God I'm gonna put my freaking head through my freaking windshield and if the government doesn't want to pay for my rehab that's fine by me because socialized medicine sucks ass anyway. This isn't about libertarianism, this is about getting America back. The state doesn't own me and doesn't have the right to make me live to a ripe old age."

Bravo, brief, clear, and concise enough for even an idiot Democrat to understand.

[Hodar]

I said:
"You seem to equate sodomy with murder.
You responded that I can't read. Let's look at your arguement again

My point was that if one accepts that consent and privacy are the two criteria by which one establishes whether or not sexual behavior should be legal, then there is no reason to prohibit a sadist from murdering a masochist for sexual pleasure.

How does inserting a penis into a rectum or mouth equate to murder? You are directly comparing murder to sodomy. These are your words, not mine. What consenting adults do (sexually), in the privacy of thier own homes is none of your business. Obviously, murder, cannabalism, forgery, drug sales, kidnapping, cheating on taxes, ecetera, are not sex.

[Reactionary]

I'll repeat it again.

If the criteria for sexual conduct are privacy and consent, they are not enough.

Why? Because there are any number of very questionable sexual practices would satisfy both rules: incest among parents and offspring, incest among sisters and brothers, among grandparents and grandchildren. Sexual sadists and masochists would satisfy both critera, as would those who would want to hold multiple wives.

If the criteria for sexual conduct is privacy and consent, all of the above could easily satisfy the criteria in question. My example of a sadist and a masochist engaging in murder for sexual pleasure is meant to bring the point home.

[Hodar]

... incest among parents and offspring, incest among sisters and brothers, among grandparents and grandchildren. Sexual sadists and masochists would satisfy both critera, as would those who would want to hold multiple wives.

And once again, all these activites are PRESENTLY happening, and have been going on for millenia, it's nothing new. Although we may find these actions revolting, I don't believe I want a gov't to have the ability of kicking down bedroom doors to inspect the activities inside. It's frankly, none of your business when, how, how often, what position, and who adults have consentual sex with. How would you police these activities anyway? Randomly storm bedrooms? Bug private citizen's bedrooms? If you can't enforce a law, it's pretty silly to have a law.

I assume you know that the reason this is being tried by the Supreme Court, is because police responded to a bogus burglary call, and kicked the door down of a private residence to find two men having sex in their own home. The bogus call was made by a jealous 'boyfriend'. The police, after having invaded a private home, decided to charge the owner and his 'guest' with a crime, rather than being sued for kicking down the front door of an otherwise 'normal' house.

[NovemberCharlie]

But the Texas law specifically targets homosexuals not the specific sex act (which can be committed by heterosexuals). You are talkign about male-male sex or sodomy, whereas the Texas law says 'homosexual conduct'.

What exactly is the Texas statute? I'd like to look it up.

[Reactionary]

"And once again, all these activites are PRESENTLY happening, and have been going on for millenia, it's nothing new."

Sadism, masochism, incest have certainly been practiced throughout the ages. They've also been nearly universally condemned in nearly every culture. I didn't say that any of these acts were "new." What is "new" is that the Supreme Court may legitimize these acts by appealing to privacy and consent. That is the issue here.

"Although we may find these actions revolting, "I don't believe I want a gov't to have the ability of kicking down bedroom doors to inspect the activities inside."

I don't suppose that, even if these activities are illegal (and many of them currently are), we would have a proactive police force on call to weed out funny business in peoples' bedrooms.

"It's frankly, none of your business when, how, how often, what position, and who adults have consentual sex with."

And why not? It's a free country, and I'm a citizen. Are you saying that citizens have no right to decide if incest or sadism should be allowed in their communities? If so, how do you reconcile restricting my freedom in favor of the freedom of masochists, sadists, and those practicing incest?

"How would you police these activities anyway? Randomly storm bedrooms? Bug private citizen's bedrooms? If you can't enforce a law, it's pretty silly to have a law."

The laws against incest are currently enforced; laws against all sorts of deviant sexual behavior are currently enforced without stormtroopers breaking down doors.

Next argument?

[Hodar]

I stated:

"It's frankly, none of your business when, how, how often, what position, and who adults have consentual sex with."

You replied: And why not? It's a free country, and I'm a citizen.

And everyone else is free too. They are free to worship as they chose, associate with people as they choose, and certainly should be able to have sex with whomwever they chose; whether you like it or not. As a citizen, you are neither in charge of enforcing your morality, nor imposing your ethos upon anyone else. It used to be illegal for blacks and whites to have sex; and I'm certain people like you would have loved to intervene in that situation too.

In 48 states in America (with the exceptions of Mo and Tx) people are free to behave sexually with whomever they want (assuming adults and consentual). Texas will not likely win the Supreme Court; thus Mo will be the only state dictating what manner of sexual congress is legal within it's borders.

[Jorge]

My point was that if one accepts that consent and privacy are the two criteria by which one establishes whether or not sexual behavior should be legal, then there is no reason to prohibit a sadist from murdering a masochist for sexual pleasure.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that "consent and privacy" by themselves are the two criteria by which one establishes whether or not sexual behavior of any kind should be legal.

However, when it comes to homosexuality, unmarried sex or adultery between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes...most Americans simply don't want police barging into people's bedrooms and arresting them.

Rick Santorum should clarify if is supporting the idea of police arresting and jailing adults for private acts of adultery or homosexuality.

[BOOTSTICK]

Because both homosexuals and pedophiles are perverted degenerates.