Nobody has a perfect right to do anything they want in the privacy of their bedroom. Every law and moral imperative that applies outside applies inside too. You may not have sex with an underage person in the privacy of your bedroom, for example. You may not cook meth in your bathroom. The "consenting adults" and "privacy of the bedroom" argument has gotten us to capitulate to the point where they accept almost no limits at all. I'm not sure what to do. Can't arrest them. Perhaps dipping them in hot tar, covering them with chicken feathers, and riding them out of town on a rail might be good.
John said: Nobody has a perfect right to do anything they want in the privacy of their bedroom. Every law and moral imperative that applies outside applies inside too.
Absolutely. Sexual predators are being 'created' every day in the privacy of their bedrooms and homes. Porn is a 'how-to' manual for sex predators. And it flows like a sewer right into every Americans home via the internet.
From the ObscenityCrimes.org website:
"Mr. Pierce, asking if he had "observed a frequent connection between pornography (including stripping) and sexual crimes" and if he would be willing to share his observations in an interview.
NYPD detective (retired) Raymond Pierce
Mr. Pierce responded affirmatively. The resulting interview appears on Morality in Media's Web site, www.obscenitycrimes.org, on the Porn Problems and Solutions page, under the title, "The sexual criminal's relationship to porn."
Here is an excerpt from that interview:
MIM: What are your definitions of "pornography," and related terms like "soft-core pornography," "hard-core pornography," "violent pornography"?
RMP: I have no need to differentiate between "soft core," or "hard core" pornography. I know what the media defines as "soft core" and "hard core." For me it's anything written, spoken, printed, photographed or videotaped to elicit a sexual response from an individual. What the general public may consider soft-core pornography, that's enough stimulation for a criminal. It depends on what goes on in the individual's mind. If there's enough stimulation for a criminal to use to fantasize before committing a crime; sometimes they use it during a crime and many times they use it afterwards.
MIM:So pornography is one word, essentially, for you.
RMP:For me it is yes.
MIM: Do you believe, from your experience, that there's a greater consumption of pornography among sex offenders in contrast to non-offenders?
RMP: In my experience, offenders in general have a heavy exposure to pornography. I
I'm not claiming otherwise. My position is that consenting adults have the right to engage in whatever private sexual behavior they want with other consenting adults.
Every law and moral imperative that applies outside applies inside too.
Not even remotely true. There are many, many things you are free to do in the privacy of your own home that you cannot do in public. Have sex. Walk around naked. Drink yourself into unconsciousness.
You may not cook meth in your bathroom.
Of course you can't. What's your point?
The "consenting adults" and "privacy of the bedroom" argument has gotten us to capitulate to the point where they accept almost no limits at all.
You are arguing from consequences. That is a logical fallacy. Just because people have used the "consenting adults in the privacy of their own home" argument as justification to engage in certain behavior in public in no way invalidates the original argument. Two guys can bang each other in the privacy of their own homes all they want, but they can't do that in public.