N
No One
Guest
In discussions over gay marriage I've heard many people warn that
acceptance of homosexuality will eventually bring with it incest,
polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. Frankly, there is a logic to
this that few are willing to admit. The premise behind the movement
for the acceptance of homosexuality is that since gay sexual activity
is private and consensual, it is the business of no one else. In other
words, if actions between two (or more) individuals bring no actual
harm to those who do not consent to be involved, then the state has no
compelling interest in regulating, opposing, or proscribing that
activity. The proponents of this line generally (though there are
exceptions) claim that in this they are referring only to consensual
homosexual activity. However, homosexual activity is not the only form
of sexual practice proscribed by society which could be portrayed as
consensual, private, and therefore free from any regulation and
oversight. If two gay men have a constitutionally protected right to
buggery, then on what grounds may the state forbid a Grandfather and
Granddaughter from marrying each other if they so choose? For what
reason can they forbid that Grandfather from marrying both his
daughter and his Granddaughter?
The idea that simply because an act is consensual and not harmful to
anyone who has not consented to be armed is dangerous. We are seeing
the consequences of that idea now played out in a German courtroom
where
Arwan Meiwes, a forty-one year old computer technician, is presently
on trial of killing and cannibalizing another man. But the catch is
this: the man who he killed and ate volunteered for the task. In fact,
the two men made together a videotape on which we see Herr Meiwes cut
off and cook his victim's penis, which the two of them then ate
together.
Here is the question then: under the new standard of morality in our
society, did Herr Meiwes do anything wrong? After all, he apparently
had the informed consent of this man before he killed and ate him. We
might find the practice gross and repellent: but what right do we have
to judge?
I am not attempting to assert that consensual cannibalism sessions are
about to become commonplace in our society. But, I do not know that
they aren't: Herr Meiwes claimed that he began having fantasies about
cannibalism before his tenth birthday: and he apparently found his
victim on an internet group made up of individuals of the cannibal
sexual orientation. So, who knows?
The principle of consent is value-free. People talk about the rights
of 'consenting adults' but, frankly, two sufficiently sick people can
consent to pretty much anything. The entire concept is the result of
an abdication of moral responsibility. Homosexuality does not lead to
pedophilia because all homosexuals are pedophiles (though the evidence
seems to show that gay men molest children at a much higher rate than
straight men do)- acceptance of homosexuality as 'normal' will
inevitably lead to an acceptance of pedophilia because, in order to
convince a people of Judeo-Christian morals that homosexuality is
acceptable, one must reconstruct morality to make the surrender to
individual impulse a virtue rather than a vice.
Once we accept the idea that anything is alright just so long as the
people involved agree it is, then we gradually lose our ability to
make moral judgements. Really, the only thing preventing the
advancement of a serious 'child molester's rights movement' right now
is the widespread (and self-evidently true) belief that child
molestation is harmful to children. But I doubt we'll have to worry
about that for very long, since our finest ethicists and academics are
already hard at work telling us just why pedophilia is A-OK.
Let us not be foolish. Despite the claims of some, by accepting
homosexuality as normal, we are passing into the unknown. I do not
know that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia: but I do not know that
it will not lead to pedophilia either. After all, in many places,
homosexuals have actively been at the forefront of the movement to
lower the age of consent. In the early 1990's, the International Gay
and Lesbian Organization was stripped of its observer status at the
United Nations after it was revealed that the North American Man-Boy
Love Association, a pedophile-advocacy group, was a member.
If we strip away traditional morality, disregard it as a basis for the
law, then we will soon find ourselves living in a world of social
anarchy. That is, of course, if we do not already. The way things are
going I suspect that, in a few decades, we're going to be arguing
about the need for an Amendment to the Constitution to ban
cannibalism.
This is what makes politics so exhausting today. The left, with all of
their money, all of their media, all of their tenured professors and
all of the rest has plenty of time to argue about anything. When we
remove the foundations of traditional Judeo-Christian morality, we
suddenly place everything up for discussion all of the time, and we do
so under conditions where the side that is for everything has a
natural advantage. Suddenly, instead of talking about how to best
defeat the terrorists, we suddenly find ourselves having to patiently
explain why people shouldn't be murdering, cooking, and eating other
people. In our exhaustion too many of us are always willing to concede
a little ground. But a conservative seeking to appease a liberal by
giving just a little territory will have the same rate of success as
the Israelis have had in giving just a little territory to the
Palestinians. I can see Crossfire in about thirty years, with
discussions centering on the moral difference between pre and post-
mortem cannibalism, with 'moderate' Republicans explaining their
support for the 'right to choose' to eat the flesh of the already
dead, but expressing their opposition to killing people for that
explicit purpose.
acceptance of homosexuality will eventually bring with it incest,
polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. Frankly, there is a logic to
this that few are willing to admit. The premise behind the movement
for the acceptance of homosexuality is that since gay sexual activity
is private and consensual, it is the business of no one else. In other
words, if actions between two (or more) individuals bring no actual
harm to those who do not consent to be involved, then the state has no
compelling interest in regulating, opposing, or proscribing that
activity. The proponents of this line generally (though there are
exceptions) claim that in this they are referring only to consensual
homosexual activity. However, homosexual activity is not the only form
of sexual practice proscribed by society which could be portrayed as
consensual, private, and therefore free from any regulation and
oversight. If two gay men have a constitutionally protected right to
buggery, then on what grounds may the state forbid a Grandfather and
Granddaughter from marrying each other if they so choose? For what
reason can they forbid that Grandfather from marrying both his
daughter and his Granddaughter?
The idea that simply because an act is consensual and not harmful to
anyone who has not consented to be armed is dangerous. We are seeing
the consequences of that idea now played out in a German courtroom
where
Arwan Meiwes, a forty-one year old computer technician, is presently
on trial of killing and cannibalizing another man. But the catch is
this: the man who he killed and ate volunteered for the task. In fact,
the two men made together a videotape on which we see Herr Meiwes cut
off and cook his victim's penis, which the two of them then ate
together.
Here is the question then: under the new standard of morality in our
society, did Herr Meiwes do anything wrong? After all, he apparently
had the informed consent of this man before he killed and ate him. We
might find the practice gross and repellent: but what right do we have
to judge?
I am not attempting to assert that consensual cannibalism sessions are
about to become commonplace in our society. But, I do not know that
they aren't: Herr Meiwes claimed that he began having fantasies about
cannibalism before his tenth birthday: and he apparently found his
victim on an internet group made up of individuals of the cannibal
sexual orientation. So, who knows?
The principle of consent is value-free. People talk about the rights
of 'consenting adults' but, frankly, two sufficiently sick people can
consent to pretty much anything. The entire concept is the result of
an abdication of moral responsibility. Homosexuality does not lead to
pedophilia because all homosexuals are pedophiles (though the evidence
seems to show that gay men molest children at a much higher rate than
straight men do)- acceptance of homosexuality as 'normal' will
inevitably lead to an acceptance of pedophilia because, in order to
convince a people of Judeo-Christian morals that homosexuality is
acceptable, one must reconstruct morality to make the surrender to
individual impulse a virtue rather than a vice.
Once we accept the idea that anything is alright just so long as the
people involved agree it is, then we gradually lose our ability to
make moral judgements. Really, the only thing preventing the
advancement of a serious 'child molester's rights movement' right now
is the widespread (and self-evidently true) belief that child
molestation is harmful to children. But I doubt we'll have to worry
about that for very long, since our finest ethicists and academics are
already hard at work telling us just why pedophilia is A-OK.
Let us not be foolish. Despite the claims of some, by accepting
homosexuality as normal, we are passing into the unknown. I do not
know that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia: but I do not know that
it will not lead to pedophilia either. After all, in many places,
homosexuals have actively been at the forefront of the movement to
lower the age of consent. In the early 1990's, the International Gay
and Lesbian Organization was stripped of its observer status at the
United Nations after it was revealed that the North American Man-Boy
Love Association, a pedophile-advocacy group, was a member.
If we strip away traditional morality, disregard it as a basis for the
law, then we will soon find ourselves living in a world of social
anarchy. That is, of course, if we do not already. The way things are
going I suspect that, in a few decades, we're going to be arguing
about the need for an Amendment to the Constitution to ban
cannibalism.
This is what makes politics so exhausting today. The left, with all of
their money, all of their media, all of their tenured professors and
all of the rest has plenty of time to argue about anything. When we
remove the foundations of traditional Judeo-Christian morality, we
suddenly place everything up for discussion all of the time, and we do
so under conditions where the side that is for everything has a
natural advantage. Suddenly, instead of talking about how to best
defeat the terrorists, we suddenly find ourselves having to patiently
explain why people shouldn't be murdering, cooking, and eating other
people. In our exhaustion too many of us are always willing to concede
a little ground. But a conservative seeking to appease a liberal by
giving just a little territory will have the same rate of success as
the Israelis have had in giving just a little territory to the
Palestinians. I can see Crossfire in about thirty years, with
discussions centering on the moral difference between pre and post-
mortem cannibalism, with 'moderate' Republicans explaining their
support for the 'right to choose' to eat the flesh of the already
dead, but expressing their opposition to killing people for that
explicit purpose.