Posted on 05/11/2003 7:04:33 AM PDT by RJCogburn
IN AN April 30 essay titled "The Libertarian Question," my fellow National Review Online contributing editor Stanley Kurtz argues that laws against sodomy, adultery and incest should remain on the books largely to protect the institution of heterosexual marriage.
By stigmatizing sexual relations outside that institution, Kurtz believes "the taboo on non-marital and non-reproductive sexuality helps to cement marital unions, and helps prevent acts of adultery that would tear those unions apart."
Kurtz also states that keeping adult incest illegal will reduce the odds of sex between adults and their minor relatives. Anti-pedophilia laws, virtually everyone agrees, should be energetically enforced, whether or not the child molesters and their victims are family members.
But Kurtz overlooks the fact that anti-sodomy laws can throw adults in jail for having consensual sex. Approval or disapproval of homosexual, adulterous or incestuous behavior among those over 18 is not the issue. Americans should remain free to applaud such acts or, conversely, denounce them as mortal sins. The public policy question at hand is whether American adults should or should not be handcuffed and thrown behind bars for copulating with people of the same sex, beyond their own marriages or within their bloodlines.
If this sounds like hyperbole, consider the case of Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, currently before the Supreme Court.
On Sept. 17, 1998, Harris County sheriffs deputies responded to a phony complaint from Roger Nance, a disgruntled neighbor of John Geddes Lawrence, then 55. They entered an unlocked door to Lawrence's eighth-floor Houston apartment looking for an armed gunman. While no such intruder existed, they did discover Lawrence having sex with another man named Tyron Garner, then 31.
"The police dragged them from Mr. Lawrence's home in their underwear," says Brian Chase, a staff attorney with the Dallas office of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund (www.lambdalegal.org) which argued on the gentlemen's behalf before the Supreme Court. "They were put in jail for 24 hours. As a result of their conviction, they would have to register as sex offenders in Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. If this arrest had taken place in Oklahoma, they could have faced 10 years in prison. It's kind of frightening." Lawrence and Garner were fined $200 each plus $141.25 in court costs.
Ironically, Chase adds by phone, "At the time the Texas penal code was revised in 1972, heterosexual sodomy was removed as a criminal offense, as was bestiality."
Even though some conservatives want government to discourage non-procreative sex, those Houston sheriff's deputies could not have apprehended a husband and wife engaged in non-reproductive oral or anal sex (although married, heterosexual couples still can be prosecuted for the same acts in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia). And were Lawrence caught naked in bed with a Rottweiler, consenting or otherwise, the sheriffs could not have done more than suggest he pick on someone his own species. However, because Lawrence preferred the company of a willing, adult human being of his same sex, both were shuttled to the hoosegow.
"The point is, this could happen to anyone," Chase says. "This was the result of a malicious prank call made by a neighbor who was later arrested and jailed for 15 days for filing a false report."
As for grownups who lure children into acts of homosexuality, adultery and incest, the perpetrators cannot be imprisoned quickly enough. The moment members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association go beyond discussion of pedophilia to actions in pursuit thereof, someone should call 911 and throw into squad cars the men who seek intimate contact with males under 18. Period.
The libertarian question remains before Stanley Kurtz and the Supreme Court. Should laws against adult homosexuality, adultery and incest potentially place taxpaying Americans over 18 behind bars for such behavior? Priests, ministers, rabbis and other moral leaders may decry these activities. But no matter how much people may frown upon these sexual appetites, consenting American adults should not face incarceration for yielding to such temptations.
Here is the libertarian answer to this burning question: Things deemed distasteful should not always be illegal. This response is one that every freedom-loving American should embrace.
He also attempts to spin the original arrest. The police were sent there by a homosexual lover of one of the men. It talks of how they were dragged outside but does not mention that they continued having anal sex with the officers in the room. They wanted the arrest so that they could overturn the law. The incident carries a fine but no jail time. Ask yourself, what were these men arrested for?
Their friend, the caller, was sentenced to 30 days for his false statement. I read that he served 15 of those 30 days.
Is that you?
Cutting and pasting articles from people whose opinions support your point of view?
Can I play too?
Or will you simply engage into more name-calling as a rebuttal?
It's customary to provide links when posting stuff like this CJ.
All those words, and all you had to say instead was "Gee, CJ, I can't rebut your essay."
That's YOUR essay CJ?
You take claim for the essay?
I can easily rebutt it, I want to know who wrote it.
It sounds like Hitler justifying the Holocaust, the self-preservation of the State was his excuse after all, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.
"Of course, as I have said before, it is easier to see in state authority the mere formal mechanism of an organization than the sovereign embodiment of a nationality's instinct of self-preservation on earth. For in the one case the state, as well as state authority, is for these weak minds a purpose in It self, while in the other, it is only a mighty weapon in the service of the great, eternal life struggle for existence, a weapon to which everyone must submit because it is not formal and mechanical, but the expression of a common will for preserving life."---Adolph Hitler, Main Kampf
To say that society shouldn't impose controls on anyone is hypocritical. We all impose controls on others' behavior. We all expect that motorists should stop at stop signs. We all expect others to pay their taxes, to pay their alimony. We all expect parents to send their kids to school, to get medical treatment for their children.
We all live in society. No one lives in isolation. Society can't function if we all "do our own thing." Would we want people to speed at whatever velocity they wished to? What if I decided to stop at green lights and go through red lights?
We limit the right of free speech. Slander isn't allowed. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre isn't allowed.
It is necessary for all of us to give away some of our freedoms and rights in order to live in society. But we gain so much more by doing so. We all give up some freedoms and rights in order to live a safe, healthy, and long life.
Fornication, adultery, abortion, sodomy, homosexuality, pornography, obscenity: all should be made illegal.
** Enforcing Morality **
"Why should human beings enforce God's Law, anyway?"
Even if one doesn't believe in God or religion, it would still be in their own self-interest to uphold morality, since the repercussions of sin affect us all.
For the believers in God, it is a matter of compassion for the sinner. To sit by and allow them to hurt themselves and others would be wrong, and down-right cruel to them. Retribution and punishment would come to a Christian moral-coward, who allowed his brother to act immorally.
There will always be a measure of suffering in the world, but some seem to want to bring upon themselves UNNEEDED suffering. It can be said that every person who ever acts immorally will suffer greatly in this life. Sure, there are examples, such as Job, who were good and yet suffered. But ALL evildoers have/do/will suffer greatly.
What will befall the unrepentant sinner in the AFTERLIFE is not very pleasant. God will deliver the soul over to demons, who will be very cruel, indeed. Demons have a hatred for human souls, and will relish in the tortures they will bring to the spiritual-body of the soul in hell. They will use all manner of crude torture instruments, and the torture will be ceaseless. They won't give you a break after, say, three hours of utter torment to let you rest. No. They will not let you rest after 3 or 4 weeks of constant torture. They will continue forever in inflicting great pain.
Yet, this constant torture will not bring about the greatest pain. The keen awareness of lacking the ONE thing, which alone would have brought complete happiness to the soul, will be more unbearable. That ONE missing thing is God.
For a moral-coward to lay back and say: "Well, people shouldn't enforce God's Law. Let them do as they please. Only God will enforce His Own Law," such a coward is actually being very cruel, to himself as well as to the immoral.
** Aversion To Evil **
"Anything goes with the flow!" is the watchword of the day. Some would be critical of another's aversion to evil, implying that aversion is similar to an attachment.
Firstly, we're ALL sickened by evil. Our own souls, basically good, are sickened by it. From spending time with evildoers, the aversion to evil is lessened. The soul becomes callused, inured.
Secondly, apart from the effects of evil behavior on society, there is a much greater, central concern; namely, that there is a war going on right now between God and the devil, a war over human souls. I want God to win all the souls, and for the devil to not gain even one.
A human soul for the devil is a loss for God. The soul becomes the devil's booty, his loot. There is no gloating in this, no glee at the thought of the devil winning even one soul. The lover of God desires that all souls reach God, that they not suffer, not be lost to the devil.
How serious and important it all is. It's not just some game, this shared experience called Life.
"Well, we don't believe in guilt. We're modern. We don't have to pay attention to what morality is." Such is a recipe for disaster, and is really upsetting.
A poll recently stated that 97% of Americans believe in a Supreme Being, in God. Yet, much fewer really know what that means, what is expected or required of them by God.
** Judging Others **
Many today have no problem with promiscuity or homosexuality, because they're not involved in those things. In their minds, promiscuity and homosexuality are okay. But what if they also thought that "brutalizing is okay?" The problem with being "non-judgmental" when it comes to morality, is that THEY might become victims, or somebody they know or care about, or even a stranger they don't know.
This idea that "Anything Goes" is cruel, to oneself and others. It would be immoral not to speak out against immorality.
Where do we stop? When cannibals move in next door, we'll have to say: "Well, that's their flow, their trip. I'd be full of 'aversion' if I were to think that cannibalism is wrong." Suttee? Hindu widow self-immolation? "Well, that's okay. I may not be into it, but I can't cram my morals down another's' throat." Child marriage? "One can't be judgmental." Slavery? "Who's to say there's a right and a wrong?" Torture of political prisoners and criminals? Chopping off of hands, etc.? "Well, no one can judge what is right and wrong. It's all relative."
This idea that "you can't judge anyone else" is cruel to oneself and others. Society is already starting to sink back into Paganism. Imagine the world 100 years from now: Gladiator contests; people's lives being thrown away; kidnapped off the streets and sent to hungry tigers; people being burned alive; snuff films on multimedia 3-D: all for the drunken spectator's entertainment on their day off.
The problem with not being judgmental of immorality is that then our society will never progress. It will become mired in cruelty and exploitation. We're trying to get away from all that awful behavior. If "moral relativism" triumphs, then say goodbye to human progress. We've made great progress in the past. There's no Law that says we're going to stay the way we are now. Sure, the strong will survive. So will the rich. But what about the poor, the weak, the innocent?
** ACT UP and Radical Activism **
Concerning the antics of ACT UP activists, it must be seen as something good. They're just getting people hostile at them. People don't like that sort of behavior. It makes them look bad, and reflects on their "cause." The more lunatic fringe, the better. They haven't figured that out yet, and hopefully never will.
Other sufferers of other diseases are taking up the ACT UP tactics, though. Victims of breast cancer, and other diseases, pressuring for more research. That's absolutely the worst thing that could happen, because if you look at our society and the policies that have come about as a result of radical activism, you get a mess.
They went after the CIA in the '70s and emasculated them. The Frank Church Commission and Congress fired all these people, reducing their capabilities so much they didn't even know the Shah of Iran was in trouble. The Shah fell, and Khomeini came to power.
They've been handcuffing the military for years.
A lot of social welfare programs the radicals have put in just haven't worked. They've basically destroyed the Black family. Many Black leaders are saying this now, that what's needed is more personal responsibility, and not some kind of welfare program.
It's been a real mess every time these ideologically-oriented people get involved. They perceive the world through their ideology. They just have a real skewed outlook, which just doesn't fit reality, so it's doomed to failure, and everyone suffers as a result.
We saw it with the ALAR (apple poisoning) scare. It turns out there's no danger at all, but they did a lot of damage to apple-growers in California. So you have these radicals going after agriculture, which is really bad. Agriculture in this country is really great. We feed hundreds of millions of people around the world. We have the cheapest food in the world, because it's so productive. These guys are going to go in there are wreck that, and here they are starting again. The radicals are going after the medical system.
Do we really want our medical research to be guided and directed by ideologues? We shouldn't allow that. We should expect scientists to do that, using evidence and real careful scientific methods.
History will look at this generation and say: "They had so much going for them. What a bunch of fools!"
** The Government **
The government has a responsibility to enforce the laws. But it does much more than that. It sets a moral standard, based on the knowledge that some practices have evil consequences.
Doctors are aware how harmful sodomy is. The intestines were not designed for this purpose, and expensive operations have to be done to repair the damaged muscles and intestinal tissue. Diseases, also, are introduced through sodomy.
Practices which are harmful to the practitioners, as well as society, should not be encouraged. Such practices should be frowned upon, and not allowed. It would be cruel to allow people and society to suffer. We have no problem decrying the harmfulness of tobacco. But not sodomy, and other sexual perversions.
Why is this so?
The word "liberal" used to be religious term, denoting generosity of giving. Now, it's a secular term of licentiousness.
The vast majority of people are moral and decent. But in all the areas of power in this country, in the media, the advertisers, the entertainment industry, the government, the universities and schools, there are powerful groups of liberals who think if only people would fall into a "let live" attitude in morals, everything would be fine.
The whole liberal power-structure is geared to lowering morality, and they see it as a "crusade" to bring "freedom."
The bottomline, though, is greed. That is the driving-force behind their campaign against morality. Immorality generates money, and they're right behind, scooping it up.
** Domestic Partners vs Families **
On St. Valentine's Day, 1991, San Francisco began the registration of "domestic partners."
"What's so wrong with extending the same benefits that heterosexuals enjoy? Don't they just want to be left alone to live their lives?"
If that were so, just look at the self-inflicted disease they suffer from. If they'd listened to religion, they'd all be alive right now. We told them not to do that, and they went ahead and thumbed their noses at us, and did it. Now they're dying, and we're supposed to bail them out. They try to make all these plays for sympathy. Let them do what they want to? In other words, let them jump off the bridge if they want to? Let them play Russian Roulette if they want to? Is there any kind of behavior we shouldn't allow? So your neighbor moves in next door and starts having marital relations with a horse. Are you going to feel good about that? Are you going to feel good about raising your kids next to that guy?
We all have an interest in the general moral level of society, because if that level goes down, we all suffer, through diseases, for instance. Our kids grow up in this climate where they're encouraged to engage in these really bizarre behaviors, that'll end up hurting them. We have an interest in that.
Also, families are falling apart. One half of all children in California live in divorced families. A lot of kids have no mom or dad, so they're deprived of a parent they really need. Every child needs a mom, needs a dad. They need both, for their own psychological health. There was a study in the paper that said children from divorced families have a lot more psychological problems than children in families with both parents, where both parents are there. So now we have all these mental health problems coming up down the road.
Society has an interest in maintaining the INTEGRITY of the family, and making the family a really strong, stable structure, because that's where the new members of our society learn how to behave and learn to treat each other in a good way. So by allowing ANYBODY to come along and say they're a married couple, no matter what, that would DESTROY the family. And that's going to destroy our whole society, because the family is the basic unit of society.
The "Anything Goes" attitude is so destructive to not only our society, but to us individually. But people claim: "Oh, I tolerate homosexuals, because I'm compassionate." They try to use that argument. But actually, how about having some compassion for all the people who are INJURED by allowing this to go on? Not just the people who get AIDS, such as the kids that come up thinking that they should go out and engage in these activities and get these horrible diseases, and compassion for children growing up in families that are all split up and broken.
It's sort of a very one-sided "compassion."
** Societal Sanctions **
As Saint Paul directs: "Hate the sin; love the sinner." I don't treat homosexuals myself differently. I treat them like normal people, but I despise their sins, and when they stand up and start flaunting their sin, and start saying how it's NOT a sin. I'm really against that. But again, as far as individual human beings, no. Going around beating up homosexuals, that's wrong. But that's not to say our society should have laws that tolerate evil behavior.
If a landlord doesn't want to rent to these people, he should have that right. If an employer doesn't want to hire them, he should have that right, too. We don't want to encourage it. We want to DISCOURAGE it. We DO that in our society through various SANCTIONS, and we have a right to DEFEND ourselves.
Being in the closet doesn't make it right. There should be laws against it. There should be a felony to commit sodomy. But if they're really quiet about it, and they don't say anything about it, okay. I'm not going to go out and look at some guy who I think seems effeminate, and taunt him, because he may not BE a homosexual. Who knows?
There should be societal sanctions. There should be laws, and there still ARE in half the states in the Union. There were, in ALL of the states, until the liberals got a hold of it about 30 years ago, and started passing all this garbage-legislation. I'm speaking of moral-liberals. There are good things about liberals, too, such as civil rights for LEGITIMATE minorities. It's only just.
That's what I want them to do. I want them to go back in the closet. I don't think that they have to come out and say: "I'm a homosexual. Throw me in jail," or "I'm a homosexual. Fire me." I don't think that should happen. They wouldn't do that, but I don't think there's any obligation that they have to do that.
But it would be a really good thing, because then there wouldn't be all these bars, these bathhouses, all these contacts, over telephones, over computers. Self-inflicted diseases would be cut down a lot. It would be a lot harder for them to get together, and a lot less sinning going on, if society put a sanction on them.
We have a right to live in the society we want to live in. We don't want this to go on. This idea that: "I can't help it. This is the way I was born." Well, what about rapists? There are rapists that say: "I have no control over this. I really have this strong urge to do this." What about child molesters? Same thing. They have really strong desires.
Should EVERY impulse of the body be allowed, simply because it's an impulse?
Should EVERY inviting seduction of the world be surrendered to?
Should ANY evil suggestion of a wily devil be entertained?
** Silence? = Death **
The title of this post is derived from the homosexual "rights" group, ACT-UP. What they mean by their slogan is that since their community is being devastated by the AIDS plague, and although funding for AIDS research is about equal to cancer and heart disease research combined, they are griping because society is not spending ALL the money on research for AIDS.
A better slogan would be: SODOMY = DEATH.
Sodomy results in both spiritual death and physical death. It wasn't silence which brought on their own unneeded suffering. It was their own evil behaviors.
** The Supermen **
The AIDS plague has created sympathy for homosexuals. They are using their retribution to get pity, to gain societal acceptance.
"Oh, you want us to die!"
But it's not true. No one wants to see unneeded suffering. They went out, and murdered each other. Rather than realize this, that immorality brings death, they blame society.
Rather than say:
"Oh, we made a terrible mistake. We made our own bed, and now we must lie in it,"They say:
"We are a third gender, a higher gender. We are the source of civilization. We are the font of civilization. We are superior to men and women. Our lives are more valuable than everyone else's."So they feel justified in grabbing an enormous amount of the public budget. Heart disease and cancer combined account for some 5 million deaths each year. Yet, the health research budget for AIDS is equal to heart disease and cancer combined. Yet, they still want more money. The only explanation: They think they're supermen, a higher being.
Look at what they call women: COWS.
Look at what they call men: BREEDERS.That's how they soothe their guilt. They think they're superior beings, the font of civilization.
There's all kinds of sins: fraud, theft, all kinds of cruelties. They're not the worst form of sinners, but it's right up there, with murder.
The superior gender, the supermen, the higher beings. There's a name for it: homofascists.
The San Francisco School Board, confronted by 300 shouting "gays," cower and pass whatever program they want. That's how Nazism started.
** Don't Take My Fun Death Away! **
There was a headline in the San Francisco Examiner:
"AIDS Backlash."
Apparently, it was this idea that funding for AIDS is going up and up, just doesn't hold it anymore. People are starting to view AIDS as one of those unsolvable social problems, such as crime, and drug abuse, and homelessness. Its novelty has worn off, and people are no longer willing to see all these huge increases in AIDS money.
People wanted to follow their own morality, and for years ridiculed and criticized religion for condemning this kind of self-destructive behavior.
("Oh, they're trying to take my fun away!")
It turns out that was the wisest, most compassionate advice that anybody could give. If people had only followed that advice, all these thousands of men who died of AIDS would still be alive. It's really a kindness, that they should pay attention to it. If they HAD, they'd all be alive, instead of dead.
I'm suprised that you say that about alcohol, but it's realtively easy to die from alcohol poisoning in one sitting if you're not careful.
Once we have excersized the right to protect society against one specific obnoxious threat, please remember not to bend over in the shower for the next 10-20 years.
"Let's start arresting people on the basis of what they might do.
I believe it is beyond dispute that much of the blame for the rapid spread of AIDS in the U.S. can be directly blamed on male homosexual promiscuity.
Therefore, perhaps it can be argued that some aspects of the promiscuous behavior represents an actual danger to the population at large.
I am not one for the government intruding into our bedrooms. But do we have to have these queer bath houses that are apparently responsible for a lot of this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.