-
Revisiting Judicial Review
October 5, 2009 | 23 comments
Buy the Book
The Politics of Humanity
Martha Nussbaum’s unusual argument about opposition to gay rights.
(Page 2 of 2)
Why did most states regulate contraceptives? The judicial record reveals three main purposes: to discourage premarital sex, to promote fidelity to one’s spouse, and to encourage the begetting of children within marriage. Implicit in these purposes was the view that sexual relations between a man and a woman are (or ought to be) “sacred” — perhaps a strange notion to contemporary liberals, but a view that accords with the teachings of Judaism and Christianity. Even if someone dislikes this language, the earlier view assumed (pace Nussbaum) that societies have an interest in trying to restrict sex to married couples. Before the sexual revolution and the invention of the “right to privacy,” most educated persons understood that the sexual act is typically fraught with social consequences — relating, for example, to public health, the long-term strength of marriage, and the welfare of children. Unsurprisingly, legislators in nearly every state enacted laws intended to make the public mindful of the gravity of so many of our choices relating to our sexuality. But our world is very different today.
After all of the ostensibly “self-regarding” sex of recent decades, nearly 40 percent of the nation’s children are born out of wedlock. Marriage remains in a highly precarious state, having suffered additional damage by the policy of “no-fault” divorce. Nussbaum has few things to say about these matters; she considers the invention of constitutional “privacy” a signal advance, and defends it without seriously considering the counterarguments. If widespread social problems are traceable to “privacy” and the social revolution it abetted, the welfare state can simply be expanded to solve those problems. Or so Nussbaum thinks.
In another chapter, she asks her readers to think of sexual orientation in the same way that most of us think of religion. That is, we may disagree with a neighbor’s religious convictions, but we ought to respect his or her right to worship freely (or not to worship at all). This analogy has some value, but not as much as Nussbaum believes, because there is a fundamental distinction between religious belief and conduct, and the freedom of the latter must be less than that of the former. (So to cite an important Supreme Court ruling, there is no “free exercise” right to ingest peyote as part of a religious ritual.)
Nussbaum, however, briskly moves from “sexual orientation” to “sexual conduct” and wants us to accept them as essentially the same. But we ought to reject the Supreme Court’s idea — put forward in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) — that the Constitution contains an unenumerated right for all adults to engage in consenting, noncommercial sexual relations. That is the ideology of the sexual revolution, and it has no place in constitutional law.
THROUGHOUT THE BOOK, Nussbaum seems to want to affirm the moral legitimacy of the entire gay rights movement. But she does not acknowledge the hostility of some gay activists toward vital social norms such as sexual exclusivity in marriage. The book includes references to works in academic “queer theory,” but a discussion of these truly radical ideas is missing.
Nussbaum’s silence here is hardly surprising, because despite her choice of words, the “politics of humanity” is really a misnomer. It does not embrace all of humanity, but only certain groups favored by academic liberals. She is more interested in championing the rights of those who would defy or “transgress” time-honored moral precepts than in assessing how such conduct might affect the lives of others.
There is irony here, because the “politics of humanity” stresses the importance of using our imagination. But as this book consistently shows, the real failure of imagination is on Nussbaum’s part.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (81) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David L. Tubbs
More Articles From Buy the Book
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/02/the-politics-of-humanity
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- Her Unrequited Letter
- The End of the Castros?
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 12.2.10 @ 7:23AM
The world would be a much better place if everybody woul simply shut the hell up about sex.
Evanston2| 12.2.10 @ 2:11PM
Why don't you start, then?
Alan Brooks| 12.2.10 @ 8:27PM
But you have to allow openly gay applicants into the Services, the Pentagon thinks so-- they know they need as large a choice as possible to select the best from the pool.
Don't know about the rest of the gay agenda, however concerning gays in the Services,
YOU LOSE.
Tyler S.| 12.4.10 @ 10:21AM
This article is poorly thought out, poorly written, and betrays the author as a bigot attempting feebly to justify his own bigotry. It is a sad attempt by a man who is beginning to realize that he will be remembered as fighting on the wrong side of history to mitigate the far more justifiable disgust we will all someday look back upon him and his ilk with. Give it up, hate monger, no one's fooled. We don't excuse racists because they cloak their hate in religious dogma, and we do not need to excuse you. Rather, we recognize that it is the basest, most detestable aspects of your humanity that lead you to hold such a belief.
Michael S.| 12.5.10 @ 3:26PM
Could not agree more. I think too often we forgive people who are simply mean to their fellow man because they cite a private belief. To say to someone: "You're not a child made in the image of god, you're a faggot and you can't join our church and you can't go to heaven". This is disgraceful and it needs to stop.
Jari| 1.6.11 @ 11:20AM
Or to say, "your beliefs aren't legitimate, and even though we claim to believe in tolerance, we make exceptions for YOU, because you don't deserve basic human rights, we say you're just mean and a bigot so all that stuff about tolerance and equality doesn't apply to YOU"
Pascal| 5.18.11 @ 6:42PM
The point is rather: live and let live. Homosexuals just want to live their life how they think best, without telling others what to do. Christians, on the other hand, want to live their life how they think best AND tell others what to do. That's the big difference here. To say there's no tolerance is to mix up two different things. What liberals don't accept is the imposition of majority beliefs...
MTM| 12.2.10 @ 7:45AM
What's so bad about disgust, again? Or rather, why does it necessarily follow that disgust will lead to inhumanity. Can't we be disgusted by the practice(s) of sodomy in such a way that leads us to pity those trapped in the clutches of that behavior? Good review, but it does not challenge the premise of Nussbaum's argument.
Alert1201| 12.2.10 @ 8:40AM
True. Disgust, like many other emotions liberals anathematize such as guilt, shame or fear, can be manifestions of a deeper reality. Those who lack a true sense of these feelings are often less human then those who do. Think of the lack of humanty of the serial killer, rapest or terrorits. What do they lack? A true sense of shame, guilt and fear with no thought of the disgust their actions should elicit.
The disgust I feel for the homosexual's actions are not much different then that which I feel for the college bing drinker, prostitute, serial adulterer or drug addict. This disgust does not illicit a hatred for the person but a deep sense of sorrow for the loss they will suffer in this life and the next.
Tyler S.| 12.4.10 @ 10:28AM
Its funny, The way you feel about homosexuals is almost exactly the way I feel about you. Except I would say you're worse than the college bing drinker, prostitute, serial adulterer or drug addict because you try to force your stain on all our souls, and you do so wearing a cloak of false righteousness.
Robert Pinkerton| 12.2.10 @ 8:47AM
The fact of the matter is that the mechanics of carnal transactions between homo-erotic males (I do not buy the subtext of the coinage, "homo-'sexuality', because I differentiate between sex and sodomy.) are aesthetically repugnant to at least a large minority, if not a majority. Perhaps this is the reason why precise disclosure constitutes a "hate-fact." (My maternal-line uncle was a proctologist, and what he had to say about the effects of sodomy upon health would curl your hair.)
John2| 12.2.10 @ 7:12PM
Robert,
Good points, there is nothing about sex in playing with another boy's bum, or allowing him to play with yours. Sex is completely different from these activities. These guys are just unfortunate and sad masturbators. That goes for lesbians as well.
Precise disclosure in clear words allows the reader to see the truth of what he is doing or promoting. Even if they don't want to see it.
Tyler S.| 12.4.10 @ 10:32AM
Ah, the pathetic and endless cry of the gay rights opponent: "I don't like it because its icky and it makes me uncomfortable." If we're gonna let what's "aesthetically repugnant" to a minority of Americans determine what we will allow in this country, I'm pretty sure you're gonna have to go. I could find a large minority, if not a a majority, who find bigots like you to be "aesthetically repugnant."
Answers1| 12.6.10 @ 12:19AM
Yes, let's allow people who have over 1,000 sex partners get married...that will improve things in America so much.
Jari| 1.6.11 @ 11:24AM
Although I personally do not feel disgust at the idea of homosexuality, I do feel disgust at certain other "sexual identities" that could very well be deemed victimless and hence subject to forced acceptance.
It seems to me that disgust protects us from harm.
But what is more important is that the idea that cleanliness and the sacred are essential to religious freedom.
To pass laws designed to deliberately eradicate the boundary between conjugal relations vs. recreational sex is not a matter of granting rights, because the group doing the recreational sex will not gain any rights at all. It is purely about stripping religious groups from having the right to separate the sacred from the profane.
Imagine if there was a law whose entire purpose was to make it impossible and criminal to follow kosher dietary laws, or to practice vegetarianism, under the guise of making people with different appetites "not feel second class".
vtwin| 12.2.10 @ 8:42AM
hey teabaggers! what the hell do ya know about sodomy anyway? it's so pleasurable even straight couples should try it. come to the "Bronze Rod" in San Fran (my favorite watering hole), each friday night we have a free f..k-aoke on stage. amazing performance sometimes.
Eric with The Movers| 12.2.10 @ 9:51AM
Imagination Movers
you got to think about it.
Imagination Movers
you got to talk about it.
Imagination Movers
you got to sing about it.
I think what this situations need is some imagination.
Hi guys . . . . . Guys? . . . . . . Warehouse Mouse? . . . . Rich? . . . . Scott? . . . . . Smitty? . . . Guys! It's Eric. Eric Cartman? Hellloooo. Why are you all standing there wide-eyed with your mouths open unable to speak? Dudes?! Oh, wait, wait,wait . . . . Are you reacting to what that dumbass vtwin said? What, couldn't you figure out that not only is he an unimaginative turd, but the only thing he CAN be imaginative about is hamster sex and glory holes? I mean, the guy is still using the term teabaggers, for God's sake - and he's not referring to his date last night.
Hello? Guys? Warehouse Mouse? (snap-snap). Can ya snap out of it? Look, you should see what he is doing over at Timmy Time! vtwin read that Timmy was "Self-willed and naughty . . ." and scampered right over there. He didn't read the rest. He's there now in a raincoat with a pocket full of carrots, KY Intense Arousal Gel and Animal Planet magazine looking for Timmy. Guys? Hello?
Well, when ya come to, call me. Jeeze, you guys should have never let your imagination wonder in vtwin's direction. You're too goody-goody. Next time, call me. I'll explain it.
Skip Cashwell| 12.2.10 @ 12:50PM
What is a "teabagger" in the context of your post? I have not heard this word used outside of the context of the beverage. Thanks.
Jonnie| 12.4.10 @ 10:36AM
Its a man, in this context a conservative member of the tea party movement, who places his unclothed testicles upon the forehead of another person. Hilariously, FOX News used the term in the early days of the tea party movement. Oops.
Jari| 1.6.11 @ 11:26AM
yes, liberals are always so amused when they come up with new in-crowd ways to call other people dehumanizing, disgusting, filthy names.
It must be part of that whole "dedicated to tolerance" thing.
Glad they're not hateful like conservatives.....
p.s. I thought the unclothed testicles were to be dipped in an open mouth, hence "tea bag"?
skip| 12.2.10 @ 1:51PM
I am disgusted.
I was sure vtwin had contracted aids and died.
Loshooligan| 12.2.10 @ 4:45PM
Vtwin is like a bad case of herpes. He flares up from time to time.
katievs| 12.2.10 @ 9:17AM
Excellent review. Thank you. The liberal attitude toward "the religious right", Sarah Palin in particular, is a great example of "the politics of disgust."
WeMustResist| 12.2.10 @ 9:19AM
I was very pleased to read "...there is a fundamental distinction between religious belief and conduct" because that distinction is vital to the resistance to Islamic supremacy. I also believe that JS Mills "harm" principle should be used against gay marriage. The purpose of justice is to protect the innocent and vulnerable. In family law, who are the innocent and vulnerable? Children and mothers, first. So if grown adult men want the same legal protections that we confer on married women (to protect children) then they must think they are very precious and vulnerable. Now in the decades to come we will want future lawmakers to treat family law as they do now, with the interests of the genuinely vulnerable at heart. But if the same laws have to treat adult men as if they were the same as nursing mothers then the tension will be resolved either by two sets of rules/regulations/laws (one for the adult males and one for the normal family situation) or by keeping one family law and compromising the interests of the genuinely vulnerable for the sake of the adult men who self-assess themselves as vulnerable. That means harm to the genuinely vulnerable. In addition, if homosexuals are allowed their own brand of family law then every subsection of society will want their own opt-out from basic family law - Mormons, Muslims for a start. Our society cannot survive such diversity. We must have some things in common, and family law is a foundation of society. Without it there is no melting pot, only centrifugal forces pushing social groups away from each other. That is harm. It might be harm on a large scale, whereas John Stuart Mill only imagined it on a private, individual scale, but it is devestating harm, and we should resist all evil ideas, as much as we forgive mistaken people.
Art| 12.2.10 @ 10:45AM
Wow... well reasoned and insightful.
Jim Wilson | 12.3.10 @ 5:04PM
There's no need for separate family law for Mormons. You spoil your otherwise sound argument with this ridiculous canard. The homosexual activists constantly berating we Mormons are so very lucky to have unlikely allies carrying water for them among purported Christians.
WeMustResist| 12.4.10 @ 6:50AM
Yes Jim, you are right and I made a mistake for which I apologise. It has been a long time since the Mormons were polygamous.
Tyler S.| 12.4.10 @ 10:39AM
Wow, Stupid. As a great admirer and student of JS Mill, I think I have to object to your twisting of his philosophy. Wanna tell us how the teachings of Jesus support the oppression of women, while you're at it?
Peppermint Tea| 12.2.10 @ 9:31AM
"...nearly 40 percent of the nation's children are born out of wedlock. "
The latest data came out for 2008, and the USA has 40.6 percent born out of wedlock. The percentage increases almost 1 point per year.
This is the new most-important demographic statistic because it leads to a nanny state.
Evanston2| 12.2.10 @ 2:15PM
The nanny state is the cause, not the effect, of the out of wedlock increases.
John Navratil| 12.2.10 @ 2:33PM
Evanston2,
It is both. The growth of government requires the dependence of the people. What better way than to destroy the family.
No fault divorce is mentioned as a cause in this article, but you might go back to the repeal of the laws of bastardry. When a bastard child could not inherit, it made sense for the woman to keep her legs together. Scullery maid anecdotes illustrated the downside.
Jari| 1.6.11 @ 11:29AM
Scullery maid anecdotes then, today it's teenage girls having babies out of wedlock.
I don't see that much has changed.
Ray| 12.2.10 @ 9:44AM
Martha Nussbaum is a hypocrite. By resorting to negative imagery, the " politics of disgust" claim, she has resorted to the same tactics, that of inspiring disgust in others (acting with "Humanity" is far less disgusting than promoting an agenda through "the politic of disgust," correct?), that she decries in others. That is hypocritical behavior.
Madam, if you wish to change the way people debate an agenda, for the sake of "humanity" than I suggest you stop resorting to the very same tactics yo claim is harmful to debate. For , if you don't then you have shown yourself to be nothing more than a hypocrite and I, for one, will disregard your arguments.
Evanston2| 12.2.10 @ 2:17PM
I'm entirely in agreement with Ms. Nussbaum. I think I shall go kill some people right now. Please do not discuss the specific details involved in this action, as that might lead to "disgust"...and that would be unfair (and may I say?) immoral and UnAmerican.
Tyler S.| 12.4.10 @ 10:53AM
Disgust with a downtrodden minority fighting to stand as equals before humanity and disgust with a wicked majority so fearful of the unfamiliar that they would crush down their fellow human beings just to avoid exposure to it are not the same thing.
Lets use a metaphor. Your a 4th grader. In your class is a giant, hulking bully who forces the other students to do what he wants them to. Also in your class is a bespectacled child, small for his age, and a favorite target of the bully. Can you not see how getting in a fight with the bully because he attempts to control you against your will is far more justifiable that beating up the bespectacled kid because you don't like his glasses?
Jari| 1.6.11 @ 11:30AM
What downtrodden minority fighting to stand as equals?
I heard the children of gays were far too terrified of the evil conservatives to dare criticize their parents' selfishness in public. They're not going to start fighting for their equality for another decade at least.
Padoux| 12.2.10 @ 10:01AM
Well, perhaps we need a little disgust now and then. I'm sorry, but what gays must do to achieve sexual satisfaction IS disgusting. Straights may practice it which is also disgusting, but at least they have natural alternatives. That particular practice, by its' very nature led to the rapid spread of AIDS, a fact ignored by our PC society.
Wes in MT| 12.2.10 @ 10:30AM
And lost in all the "equal rights" blather is the fact that group that practices sodomy as habit also has a lower life expectancy, higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, as well as the same or higher levels of psychological and physical abuse. So exactly why would you wish this on anyone, nevermind actively promoting it??
Art| 12.2.10 @ 10:42AM
It's funny that the people who define themselves by a deviant sexual act balk when their motives are identified. For example, parents are vilified for not wanting gay-entitlement/pro-homosexual material accpeted into their children's curriculum. These parents are called bigots for wanting to protect their children from forced initiation. Ultimately I see the gay-entitlement movement as an attempt by homosexuals to escape accountability for their actions and recection by society. By attacking the correct moral base (and "disgust") caused by their lifestyle, they seek to create a non-judgemental society incapable of discernement or the ability to identify evil.
ACynic| 12.2.10 @ 11:22AM
Let me guess; Martha Nussbaum' second home is on the upper west side of Manhattan.
Big Jim| 12.2.10 @ 11:36AM
I often read the posts here but don't often write. A pet peeve of mine is the misuse of the words "than" for "then" and "then" for "than". Please take note Ray and Alert1201. Thank you.
Margie| 12.2.10 @ 11:43AM
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of Wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight." Prov. 9:10.
If one doesn't fear God there is no hope for them. If you don't have the fear of the Lord, you are lost.
The Bible defines everything we need to know about right from wrong, and tells us the Way to overcome Sin.
And isn't that really the issue?
Paul Cameron, Ph.D. | 12.2.10 @ 12:26PM
Nussbaum’s From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law
(2010) and Hiding from Humanity (2004) argue it is wrong permit disgust to in=luence
public policy regarding homosexuals. Most, she argues, have “a deep aversion akin to that
inspired by bodily wastes, slimy insects, and spoiled food — and then cite that very reaction
to justify a range of legal restrictions, from sodomy laws to bans on same‐sex marriage.” She
believes the politics of disgust contradict equality of all under the law. “It says that the mere
fact that you happen to make me want to vomit is reason enough for me to treat you as a
social pariah, denying you some of your most basic entitlements as a citizen.”
Nussbaum complains “‘anti‐gay activist… Paul Cameron, the founder and head of the
Family Research Institute’ has ‘seized upon this response and employed it unethically to
sway both legislative rulings and public opinion against gay rights.’” Unethically? Is it truly
unethical to point out that certain behaviors are disgusting?
Even Leon Kass, head of former President Bush’s President’s Council on Bioethics,
feels repugnance has “wisdom,” steering us from destructive choices. But Nussbaum
accepts John Stuart Mill’s dictum that ‘harm to others ought to be the requirement for legal
intervention,’ so she argues that disgust at men kissing and copulating with men does not
rise to the level of ‘real’ harm.
“Although some disgust‐reactions may have an evolutionary basis and thus
may be broadly shared across societies, and although the more mediated
2
types of disgust may be broadly shared within a society, that does not mean
that disgust provides a disgusted person with a set of reasons that can be
used for purposes of public persuasion… Disgust concerns thoughts of
contamination as opposed to real harm; it is usually grounded on ‘magical
thinking’ rather than on real danger; and its root cause is our ambivalence to
our mortality and animalistic qualities, namely to what we are (mortal
animals).” (2004, 27‐28)
“[T]he central locus of disgust in today’s United States [is] male loathing of
the male homosexual. Female homosexuals may be objects of fear, or moral
indignation, or generalized anxiety, but they are less often objects of disgust.
Similarly, heterosexual females may feel negative emotions toward the male
homosexual — fear, moral indignation, anxiety — but again, they rarely feel
emotions of disgust. What inspires disgust is typically the male thought of the
male homosexual, imagined as anally penetrable. The idea of semen and feces
mixing together inside the body of a male is one of the most disgusting ideas
imaginable — to males, for whom the idea of non‐penetrability is a sacred
boundary against stickiness, ooze, and death. The presence of a homosexual
male in the neighborhood inspires the thought that one might oneself lose
one’s clean safeness, one might become the receptacle for those animal
products. Thus disgust is ultimately disgust at one’s own imagined
penetrability and ooziness, and this is why the male homosexual is both
regarded with disgust and viewed with fear as a predator who might make
everyone else disgusting. The very look of such a male is itself contaminating
— as we see in the extraordinary debates about showers in the military. The
gaze of a homosexual male is seen as contaminating because it says ‘You can
be penetrated.’ And this means that you can be made of feces and semen and
blood, not clean plastic =lesh. (And this means you will soon be dead.)” (2004,
pp. 30‐31)
If it were merely unreasonable disgust and the ‘ick’ factor driving opposition to gay
rights, she might have a point. But far more than disgust empowers anti‐gay sentiments.
What goes on apparently every day in San Francisco at Blow Buddies (and matched in
every U.S. city in public parks and restrooms, as well as similar institutions) is certainly
disgusting. No animal or group of animals would ‘think of this’ much less carry it off. This is
a very human invention, and puts the ‘born that way’ claim to a severe test — born to do
‘what?’ But even setting aside the risks of disease transmission (for HPV, gonorrhea,
syphilis, etc. they are high, for HIV and hepatitis B, low), what possible ‘utility’ could this
activity have for humanity? No children come of this worthless behavior, even if some =ind it
pleasurable. As recounted by an eyewitness participant (with slight edits by FRI) [1]:
“My eyes took a moment to adjust. I was in a large space =illed with small
3
wooden cubicles, like cupboards, in which men were apparently expected to
kneel and give head. Glory holes were drilled into these closets, and other
men came by, hoisted out their d[…]cks, and inserted them into the holes in
the cubicles. In another part of the room, men stepped up on a raised
platform and other men stood below, eager to s[…]ck them off in a standing
position.”
How incredibly impersonal! You don’t know who, all you sense is a male genital — just
like the ‘glory holes’ drilled into bathroom stalls. Imagine confronting ‘genitals through
holes’ of the opposite sex — only a very unusual heterosexual would be interested, much
less partake. Weird? Queer? You bet. You can see why homosexuals are so apt to molest
boys; boys have ‘the right equipment,’ the same equipment that in and of itself arouses lust
when seen sticking through a ‘glory hole.’
“While there may have been thirty men in the room, none were talking. The
only sounds were the throb of the music and the sounds of c[…]cks[…]cking
— slurps, gagging, coughing, moans of relief… I moved toward the next room
and discovered more cupboards, aligned along an elaborate maze =illed with
several dozen men moving, glancing, stopping, moving, kneeling, s[…]cking,
moving, unzipping… As my eyes adjusted, I recognized more and more people
— colleagues from political work, neighbors from my apartment building,
friends from the gym. Everyone seemed plugged into the same intense energy
and focused on the same thing — oral sex.
Fixated, compulsive, silent — yet all ‘normal’ according to the lights of American
psychiatry. Over time, our eyewitness participant ‘recognizes’ some of his maybe ‘partners‘
— but he doesn’t know whose is whose. It is the bond between genitals that is being built
here, not ‘love’ or ‘companionship’ or any other common human relationship. All these men
— who might or might not know each other — are ‘married to each other’ via their genitals.
A large, genitalia‐obsessed group, determined to get our OK in their attempts to convert our
children to this madness.
“I remained at Blow Buddies until three in the morning. During that time, I
gave head to three different men. Seven men s[…]cked my d[…]ck. I did not
witness a single condom in use during oral sex. I did not encounter a single
man who refused to participate in unprotected oral sex, and four of the men
who s[…]cked me asked me to reach orgasm in their mouths. Of the men I
s[…]cked, one came in my mouth.”
We aren’t told why homosexual leader and author Gabriel Rotello had sex with some
and not with others. At best, a monumental waste of time; at worst, a string of disease
transmissions.
Martha Nussbaum’s liberalism blinds her. The harms gays do are substantial — to life
4
and property. Over 3,000 heterosexuals have died of HIV‐contaminated blood contributed
by homosexuals. Disgusting practices, coupled with the self‐centeredness and revenge that
accompanies participation in ‘disgusting practices,’ caused these deaths. Over 300,000 U.S.
male homosexuals have died of AIDS, and another 500,000 or so are on the HIV drugcocktail
which costs us as taxpayers between $12,000 and $45,000/year per homosexual.
Homosexuals infect another 25,000 homosexuals each year. The Centers for Disease Control
[CDC] estimated that male homosexuals accounted for 53% of new HIV infections in 2005,
and 57% in 2008 out of a total pool of infections that had risen by 8%!
As social acceptance of homosexuality has grown (e.g., gay marriage, antidiscrimination
laws, homosexual partner bene=its) and the AIDS drug cocktail has become
more widespread (which reduces the transmissibility of HIV), the rate at which
homosexuals are infecting each other has increased. AIDS, which started out as a gay
disease in the U.S., is returning to its roots.
The costs, both medical and to the public health, are disproportionate. Scientists [2]
“calculated an HIV diagnosis rate of 692/100,000 and a syphilis rate of 121/100,000 for
MSM [males who have sex with males] in 2007. For HIV and syphilis, respectively, the rate
was 60 and 61 times the rate for other men.” We all pay the medical bills and run the risks
associated with HIV and syphilis ‘running loose’ in society (e.g., people donating blood or
engaging in bisexuality). Male homosexuals are also much more apt to have HPV and salivaor
secretion‐linked viruses. Homosexuals cost society more than heterosexuals in
innumerable ways.
When Nussbaum argues that “other notions of disgust are ‘projective,’ or conceptual in
nature, such as the distaste at the thought of two men kissing…. a reaction to an offense of
the mind or spirit, neither literal nor physical, but imaginary,” she ignores the linkage
between men kissing men and the acquisition of HPV, HIV, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, syphilis
etc. for which kissing is either an effective means of transmission or a precursor to a more
effective mode.
References:
1. Rotello G (1998) Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the destiny of gay men. NY: Penguin.
2. Purcell DW, Johnson C, Lansky A, Prejean J, Stein R, Denning P, Gaul Z, Weinstock H, Su J, & Crepaz N (2010)
Latebreaker #22896 Presented March 10 at 2010 National STD Prevention Conference; Atlanta, GA
Paul Cameron,Ph.D. | 12.2.10 @ 12:35PM
Nussbaum’s From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law (2010) and Hiding from Humanity (2004) argue it is wrong permit disgust to influence public policy regarding homosexuals. Most, she argues, have “a deep aversion akin to that inspired by bodily wastes, slimy insects, and spoiled food — and then cite that very reaction to justify a range of legal restrictions, from sodomy laws to bans on same‐sex marriage.” She believes the politics of disgust contradict equality of all under the law. “It says that the mere
fact that you happen to make me want to vomit is reason enough for me to treat you as a social pariah, denying you some of your most basic entitlements as a citizen.”
Nussbaum complains “‘anti‐gay activist… Paul Cameron, the founder and head of the Family Research Institute’ has ‘seized upon this response and employed it unethically to sway both legislative rulings and public opinion against gay rights.’” Unethically? Is it truly unethical to point out that certain behaviors are disgusting?
Even Leon Kass, head of former President Bush’s President’s Council on Bioethics, feels repugnance has “wisdom,” steering us from destructive choices. But Nussbaum accepts John Stuart Mill’s dictum that ‘harm to others ought to be the requirement for legal intervention,’ so she argues that disgust at men kissing and copulating with men does not rise to the level of ‘real’ harm.
“Although some disgust‐reactions may have an evolutionary basis and thus
may be broadly shared across societies, and although the more mediated
types of disgust may be broadly shared within a society, that does not mean
that disgust provides a disgusted person with a set of reasons that can be
used for purposes of public persuasion… Disgust concerns thoughts of
contamination as opposed to real harm; it is usually grounded on ‘magical
thinking’ rather than on real danger; and its root cause is our ambivalence to
our mortality and animalistic qualities, namely to what we are (mortal
animals).” (2004, 27‐28)
“[T]he central locus of disgust in today’s United States [is] male loathing of
the male homosexual. Female homosexuals may be objects of fear, or moral
indignation, or generalized anxiety, but they are less often objects of disgust.
Similarly, heterosexual females may feel negative emotions toward the male
homosexual — fear, moral indignation, anxiety — but again, they rarely feel
emotions of disgust. What inspires disgust is typically the male thought of the
male homosexual, imagined as anally penetrable. The idea of semen and feces
mixing together inside the body of a male is one of the most disgusting ideas
imaginable — to males, for whom the idea of non‐penetrability is a sacred
boundary against stickiness, ooze, and death. The presence of a homosexual
male in the neighborhood inspires the thought that one might oneself lose
one’s clean safeness, one might become the receptacle for those animal
products. Thus disgust is ultimately disgust at one’s own imagined
penetrability and ooziness, and this is why the male homosexual is both
regarded with disgust and viewed with fear as a predator who might make
everyone else disgusting. The very look of such a male is itself contaminating
— as we see in the extraordinary debates about showers in the military. The
gaze of a homosexual male is seen as contaminating because it says ‘You can be penetrated.’ And this means that you can be made of feces and semen and blood, not clean plastic flesh. (And this means you will soon be dead.)” (2004, pp. 30‐31)
If it were merely unreasonable disgust and the ‘ick’ factor driving opposition to gay rights, she might have a point. But far more than disgust empowers anti‐gay sentiments. What goes on apparently every day in San Francisco at Blow Buddies (and matched in every U.S. city in public parks and restrooms, as well as similar institutions) is certainly disgusting. No animal or group of animals would ‘think of this’ much less carry it off. This is a very human invention, and puts the ‘born that way’ claim to a severe test — born to do ‘what?’ But even setting aside the risks of disease transmission (for HPV, gonorrhea, syphilis, etc. they are high, for HIV and hepatitis B, low), what possible ‘utility’ could this activity have for humanity? No children come of this worthless behavior, even if some find it pleasurable. As recounted by an eyewitness participant (with slight edits by FRI) [1]:
“My eyes took a moment to adjust. I was in a large space filled with small
wooden cubicles, like cupboards, in which men were apparently expected to
kneel and give head. Glory holes were drilled into these closets, and other
men came by, hoisted out their d[…]cks, and inserted them into the holes in
the cubicles. In another part of the room, men stepped up on a raised
platform and other men stood below, eager to s[…]ck them off in a standing
position.”
How incredibly impersonal! You don’t know who, all you sense is a male genital — just like the ‘glory holes’ drilled into bathroom stalls. Imagine confronting ‘genitals through holes’ of the opposite sex — only a very unusual heterosexual would be interested, much less partake.
Weird? Queer? You bet. You can see why homosexuals are so apt to molest
boys; boys have ‘the right equipment,’ the same equipment that in and of itself arouses lust when seen sticking through a ‘glory hole.’
“While there may have been thirty men in the room, none were talking. The
only sounds were the throb of the music and the sounds of c[…]cks[…]cking
— slurps, gagging, coughing, moans of relief… I moved toward the next room
and discovered more cupboards, aligned along an elaborate maze =illed with
several dozen men moving, glancing, stopping, moving, kneeling, s[…]cking,
moving, unzipping… As my eyes adjusted, I recognized more and more people — colleagues from political work, neighbors from my apartment building, friends from the gym. Everyone seemed plugged into the same intense energy and focused on the same thing — oral sex.
Fixated, compulsive, silent — yet all ‘normal’ according to the lights of American
psychiatry. Over time, our eyewitness participant ‘recognizes’ some of his maybe ‘partners‘ — but he doesn’t know whose is whose. It is the bond between genitals that is being built here, not ‘love’ or ‘companionship’ or any other common human relationship. All these men — who might or might not know each other — are ‘married to each other’ via their genitals.
A large, genitalia‐obsessed group, determined to get our OK in their attempts to convert our children to this madness.
“I remained at Blow Buddies until three in the morning. During that time, I
gave head to three different men. Seven men s[…]cked my d[…]ck. I did not
witness a single condom in use during oral sex. I did not encounter a single
man who refused to participate in unprotected oral sex, and four of the men
who s[…]cked me asked me to reach orgasm in their mouths. Of the men I
s[…]cked, one came in my mouth.”
We aren’t told why homosexual leader and author Gabriel Rotello had sex with some and not with others. At best, a monumental waste of time; at worst, a string of disease transmissions.
Martha Nussbaum’s liberalism blinds her. The harms gays do are substantial — to life and property. Over 3,000 heterosexuals have died of HIV‐contaminated blood contributed by homosexuals. Disgusting practices, coupled with the self‐centeredness and revenge that accompanies participation in ‘disgusting practices,’ caused these deaths. Over 300,000 U.S. male homosexuals have died of AIDS, and another 500,000 or so are on the HIV drug cocktail which costs us as taxpayers between $12,000 and $45,000/year per homosexual.
Homosexuals infect another 25,000 homosexuals each year. The Centers for Disease Control [CDC] estimated that male homosexuals accounted for 53% of new HIV infections in 2005, and 57% in 2008 out of a total pool of infections that had risen by 8%! As social acceptance of homosexuality has grown (e.g., gay marriage, antidiscrimination laws, homosexual partner benefits) and the AIDS drug cocktail has become more widespread (which reduces the transmissibility of HIV), the rate at which homosexuals are infecting each other has increased. AIDS, which started out as a gay disease in the U.S., is returning to its roots.
The costs, both medical and to the public health, are disproportionate. Scientists [2] “calculated an HIV diagnosis rate of 692/100,000 and a syphilis rate of 121/100,000 for MSM [males who have sex with males] in 2007. For HIV and syphilis, respectively, the rate was 60 and 61 times the rate for other men.” We all pay the medical bills and run the risks associated with HIV and syphilis ‘running loose’ in society (e.g., people donating blood or engaging in bisexuality). Male homosexuals are also much more apt to have HPV and saliva or
secretion‐linked viruses. Homosexuals cost society more than heterosexuals in
innumerable ways.
When Nussbaum argues that “other notions of disgust are ‘projective,’ or conceptual in nature, such as the distaste at the thought of two men kissing…. a reaction to an offense of the mind or spirit, neither literal nor physical, but imaginary,” she ignores the linkage between men kissing men and the acquisition of HPV, HIV, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, syphilis etc. for which kissing is either an effective means of transmission or a precursor to a more effective mode.
References:
1. Rotello G (1998) Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the destiny of gay men. NY: Penguin.
2. Purcell DW, Johnson C, Lansky A, Prejean J, Stein R, Denning P, Gaul Z, Weinstock H, Su J, & Crepaz N (2010) Latebreaker #22896 Presented March 10 at 2010 National STD Prevention Conference; Atlanta, GA
Rich Rostrom| 12.2.10 @ 12:41PM
Nussbaum's attack on "the politics of disgust" reminds me of a passage in C.S. Lewis' "That Hideous Strength". The protagonist is a young British academic who has pushed his career by sucking up to the "progressive" element. He is invited into the "inner circle", which is actually a monstrous conspiracy against humanity in alliance with malevolent spirits. As part of his initiation he is taken to the "Objective Room", where everything is twisted, repulsive, frightening, and disgusting - but "objectively" there is nothing wrong: the test is to become so "objective" that it doesn't bother one, and thus one can participate in the destruction of ordinary human life without qualms.
Nussbaum and her ilk have a similar attitude. They are obsessed with being "progressive" and "non-judgmental" and so want to suppress the instinctive human reactions that interfere.
Jari| 1.6.11 @ 11:34AM
Jonathan Haidt, "Why Do People Vote Republican?", includes information on studies where all people except one group of affluent young liberal types are disgusted by the same things.
Some of the affluent young liberals actually praised the efficiency of eating your dead-anyway family dog for dinner and using the American flag to clean the toilet.
They are missing a dimension, morally, and think the rest of us are crazy cuz we keep going on about something they can't see.
Skip Cashwell| 12.2.10 @ 12:47PM
Here's "Politics of Humanity" distilled to the core: "Do to others that which you would have them do to you."
"Politics of Disgust" = Those words & actions of others who deny another of their unalienable, G-D given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Ted R.| 12.2.10 @ 1:50PM
Mr. Tubbs,
I think that the general course of (classic) liberalism in the West, has been characterized by the gradually increased willingness and ability of majorities to accept difference, to say: "O.k., other people do X (like worship a different god, or convert to another religion, or marry across race, or cohabitate), and though it's not something I would do, I can live with them in my neighborhood." Liberalism has been all about the discovery that we can in fact live with kinds of difference that we previously thought we couldn't.
Liberalism in this wide sense has typically found itself set against traditionalist, conservative modes of thought, thought which has been characterized by the fixed hierarchies of a closed paradigm. Traditionalist conservatism, anthropologists have noted, is marked very clearly by the dichotomies of sacred/profane, endogamy/exogamy, and(especially) "pure"/"impure." Ideals of purity (and its counterpart, disgust) are really archetypes of the traditionalist's worldview (though they are present in some form in all human communities).
The ideals of purity, and its opposite, are one of the root-motivations of organized violence in human history (both within and between groups). More relaxed ideals of purity, in contrast, have characterized more cosmopolitan, more liberalized, more tolerant forms of human association.
Hence we are right to look with suspicion on the social sanction of individuals and behaviors, on the grounds of "disgust." Mill's harm principle is one of the (if not the) cardinal principle of the (classic) Liberal open paradigm, and is the best heuristic avaiable for determining whether the sanction of certain conduct is actually in the public interest, or if it is ultimately only arbitrary.
When you say,
the earlier view assumed (pace Nussbaum) that societies have an interest in trying to restrict sex to married couples. Before the sexual revolution and the invention of the "right to privacy," most educated persons understood that the sexual act is typically fraught with social consequences -- relating, for example, to public health, the long-term strength of marriage, and the welfare of children. Unsurprisingly, legislators in nearly every state enacted laws intended to make the public mindful of the gravity of so many of our choices relating to our sexuality.
you give a precis of the best case possible for the placing constraints on ostensibly "self-regarding" behavior - namely, that it creates negative cultural externalities. This is an argument from the practical wisdom of traditionalist conservatism, rather than one merely from its arbitrary prejudices. Still, you go on to remark,
But our world is very different today.
The question is, is the potential presence of these externalities enough to warrant curbing the privacy interests of individuals in society? They may be enough for you to lodge a legitimate protest; but are they sufficient, for example, to prevent gay couples from adopting?
That's where the we get down to brass tacks; and I simply do not believe that the disgust paradigm is the American Way.
Robert Hagedorn| 12.2.10 @ 2:45PM
Do a search: The First Scandal Adam and Eve.
da monk| 12.2.10 @ 2:56PM
What business it of anyone what anyone does in the privacy of their own home? Aren't there better things you "holier than thou folks" than worry how
are intimate with each other? Keep in mind, as long as it tickles, its ok.
John Navratil| 12.2.10 @ 3:00PM
Just for the record, I don't give a tinker's dam what you do in your intimate moments, don't want to know, and don't care if it tickles or not.
Appleby has it right!
iknownothing| 12.5.10 @ 9:45PM
"...in the privacy of their own home"? I wish to God that the gay activists would keep their lives private and leave us all alone.
By the way, if gay marriage ever becomes a reality, can we do away with gay affirmative action and gay activism?
After all, the whole reasoning behind affirmative action is that the recipients are a poor, persecuted minority of suffers losses in the marketplace. But this does square with the fact that gays tend to be whiter, wealthier, and more educated than the general population. Just ask an marketer or publicist that specializes in the gay community.
John Navratil| 12.2.10 @ 2:56PM
Ted R.,
"Liberalism has been all about the discovery that we can in fact live with kinds of difference that we previously thought we couldn't." - Horse Hockey! Liberalism is about compelling people to live with that which they do not choose. It is about change. You say it yourself in the very next sentence you write: "Liberalism in this wide sense has typically found itself set against traditionalist, conservative modes of thought, thought which has been characterized by the fixed hierarchies of a closed paradigm."
So there you have it. You aren't telling us anything we don't know. And we don't like it because we think it is destructive, but to you these are "fixed hierarchies of a closed paradigm." Why don't you tell us what you really think - stop sugar coating.
Those of us who value liberty aren't at all interested in your compelling us to do anything. Nor, for that matter are we particularly interested in compelling you to do anything.
Thomas Sowell captured this well in "A Conflict of Visions". To paraphrase Sowell, the conflict exists between those believing that all problems are solvable from first principles and all it takes is the dedication to do so and those believing that in it impossible to solve all problems in this way and relying on tradition as the distillation of generations of experience provides valuable guidance.
Ted R.| 12.2.10 @ 3:56PM
The liberalism I was referencing was original Liberalism, "capital L" liberalism, the ideal of liberalism as noninterference. Now, in truth, you are right, there is no such thing a pure negative liberty, no such thing as the prerogative of pure noninterference. It is for that very reason that original Liberalism evolved, in an organic way, in the direction of welfare-state liberalism.
Still, there remains a libertarian/classical liberal streak to modern day left-liberalism/welfare-state liberalism. On matters of individual conscience, and in matters of bilateral contract where no one is harmed, modern left-liberalism certainly champions non-interference.
Admittedly, conservatives will tend to look at the liberal repudiation of traditionalist strictures on behavior as a kind of interference, of (in your words) "compelling people to live with that which they do not choose." Liberalism most certainly IS about change - and understandably enough, those who do not like it (we typically call them conservatives) will be found objecting to it.
The real takeaway lesson here is that ALL liberty involves some kind or degree of imposition on others. That is simply unavoidable. The myth that it is, is one of the myths that keeps the small-government racket going.
John Navratil| 12.2.10 @ 5:43PM
Ted R.,
You confuse liberty and license. License is that "negative liberty" to which you refer and refers to laws restrict and enabling actions. Yes, we don't want the neighbors blasting their stereo at 3 AM so we cannot sleep and laws are made. When you have two people there will be traditions, accomodations, courtesies, and as a last resort laws. The society which is most free is the society of those exercising self-restraint. We can do anything we want because we don't do everything we can. Restated, we are at liberty because we haven't reduced everything to license.
Therein lies the problem with the liberal conceit. You know what is right and those who disagree must change. The problem is the presumption that the change you propose is for the better. It is betrayed by you last statement portraying small government as a myth.
I'd like nothing better than a great big government that I lead. Elect me dictator and there is no end to the good I can do. Now that's the myth.
Alan Brooks| 12.5.10 @ 4:20PM
Why don't they use K-Y Jelly? It gives great pleasure says my grandson. I always have a tube ready
vtwin| 12.2.10 @ 6:47PM
come on guys! no,seriously i mean it.i like when it's done to me nicely and kindly and i also like to give it to ladies,there's nothing dirty or stinky in it if you don't mind some basic hygiene. look at those babes in home made stuff and see if they don't like it.where's the stench?where's the pain? dont' be silly!
http://www.pornhub.com/view_vi.....124a822c64
http://www.pornhub.com/view_vi.....2013468552
John Navratil| 12.2.10 @ 7:42PM
Take your Mom, I'm sure she's a swinger.
greghawk| 12.2.10 @ 11:01PM
VTwin likes to be insulted... gets off on it actually. Eventually, a suicide.
Ted R.| 12.2.10 @ 6:51PM
No, Mr. Navratil, I don't think you took my meaning. Liberalism - what I call captial 'L' variety - what is otherwise known as original or classical liberalism, is all about the change that is facilitated when people are not barred, on arbitrary grounds, from cooperating. This is what is generally called 'negative liberty.' And when a general ethos of noninterference prevails in a society, change in that society accelerates. People are swept up in it, and have to adapt. This results in what Marx referred to as the revolutionizing of production.
Traditionalist conservatives usually don't like these changes. They eliminate jobs as they create new ones; and they often change moral views, as well. What used to be called license - peasants refusing to tip their hats to nobleman, for example - comes to be regarded as liberty.
Under Liberalism, economic opportunity increases, the division of labor increases, and society becomes more internally variegated.
Eventually you reach the point where commercial society has become almost dizzyingly complex. In order for business to be regularly and reliably conducted, a whole legal apparatus has to be in force to define and administer the ground rules of market competition - one reason why "small government" is a pipedream in advanced industrial capitalism.
Moreover, experience has shown us that bilateral contracts between commerical parties can have adverse affects on third parties - effects otherwise known as "negative externalities." In order to be able to define, identify, proscribe, and enforce rules against these kinds of effects - for the purpose of protecting consumers and citizens - government has to be right-sized to perform these functions.
The list of government's responsibilities goes on. Government is the size it is, because citizens have learned from experience how businesses can act against the public interest, when there is no oversight. When you have giant firms operating in the economy, you need an appropriate-sized counterweight to keep them from abusing their position. Those who have the greatest interest in "small government," are those whose who want to CONTROL the government for their own advantage.
We live in the 21st century, not the 18th. If you want to see the benefits of "small government" in this day and age, then you should move to Somalia or Mexico.
John Navratil| 12.2.10 @ 8:13PM
'Classical liberalism' says nothing about change. I define 'classical liberalism' (the big 'L') as the philosophy of small government, individual liberty and specifically, as regards limited government, freedom of speech, markets and religion. How do you define it? Clearly "people are not barred, on arbitrary grounds, from cooperating", but why does that necessarily imply "change". Your reference to Marx, IMHO the most failed economist of all times, doesn't speak volumes. Can you provide an example "when a general ethos of noninterference prevails in a society, change in that society accelerates"? Are you suggesting that if I leave you alone, you will change? Perhaps I should leave you alone. Perhaps you should leave the Conservatives alone. That way we'd both be happy.
Peasants refusing to tip their hats to noblemen would never be called license unless the nobleman permitted it. It would be called a crime. License derives from the law. Rights do not.
The Conservatives (I'll assume you mean Capitalists) "eliminate jobs as they create new ones" is a truism. Perhaps they "often change moral views". Are they related? I say, non sequitor.
The one statement with which I completely agree is: "Under Liberalism, economic opportunity increases, the division of labor increases, and society becomes more internally variegated.". But that isn't the Big L Liberalism of the Left, is it.
Were you come off the rails is "Eventually you reach the point where commercial society has become almost dizzyingly complex. In order for business to be regularly and reliably conducted, a whole legal apparatus has to be in force to define and administer the ground rules of market competition - one reason why "small government" is a pipedream in advanced industrial capitalism." This is the quintessence of the arrogance of the Left. The few, the smart, the elite know more than the millions of "little people" in how to order their affairs.
Everything else is the same old liberal clap-trap...
'bilateral contracts between commerical parties can have adverse affects on third parties - effects otherwise known as "negative externalities."'
This is fatuity marquerading as insight. When someone else gets the contract and you don't that is a negative effect on you. When the girl you love spurns you and marries someone else, when Apple signs with AT&T and not Verizon, when the supermarket no longer carries you favorite cereal -- these are all things you may not like. Does the government have a role in this? Right-sized on not? (I'd love to see your definition of right-sized. I'm sure it wouldn't be mine.)
'The list of government's responsibilities goes on.'
In your mind.
'If you want to see the benefits of "small government" in this day and age, then you should move to Somalia or Mexico.'
And if you want Socialism, move to Sweden or Greece. But I digress. Somalia is defined by no government - anarchy - the power of the strong man - the way the liberals want it. Mexico, which has never had a small government, is quickly becoming a failed state precisely because it NEVER supported Big L liberalism. Bad examples!
Ted R.| 12.3.10 @ 11:32AM
The claim that there is NO free market or division of labor in the left-liberal vision of society is laughable.
The belief that classical Liberalism is not a massive force for change in economy and society betrays a rank ignorance of history. Marx was as right on this point as you are wrong.
From what you've written, above, you don't grasp the concept of negative externalities. You seem not be paying attention to the word EXTERNALITIES. Go look it up if my defintion wasn't clear enough.
Today we do indeed have a much bigger government than we did in the 1880's. Bigger government didn't happen overnight, or for no reason. Government grew, in a stepwise fashion, in response to specific problems of externalities and oversight. Small-government enthusiasts today are like kids who grew up in rich households; unconscious of all the amenities they enjoy, they don't appreciate that it all has to be paid for.
John Navratil| 12.3.10 @ 3:49PM
Even though I didn't say "there is NO free market or division of labor in the left-liberal vision of society", is it really laughable that your entire treatise is about regulating the dizzying complexity of the market? How is that a free market? Laugh all you want, but I stand by my point.
"Marx was as right on this point as you are wrong."
That sums it up.
However, as a student of economics, I am indeed aware of the concept of externalities. Positive in the case of the apiarist and the orchard, and negative in the case of dumping sewerage in the river. You needn't, as you didn't, provide a definition.
The government has indeed grown in a stepwise fashion. You say "in response to specific problems of externalities and oversight". To which I add and in response to Progressive governments such as you support (FDR, Johnson, Carter, to a degree Bush and most certainly Obama). No thanks.
Go back to studying Marx, and when you can find a successful Marxist economy, come back.
Alan Brooks| 12.2.10 @ 7:20PM
Bad examples. And wrong conclusion. It's based on the fallacious assumption that the govenment is essentially good and big business is essentially bad. What kind of oversight are you talking about in the case of Big G? Who watches the watcher? Somalia used to be a socialist dictatorship under the late Siyad Barre and it has become an islamo-fascist dump with the ultimate Big G: Islam. Mexico used to be a social democratic secularist basket case with a nasty Big G that remains today and where corruption and religious persecution are rampant. You want real examples: Singapore, Taiwan, Luxemburg, Slovenia. Places where political correctness is at a very low level, where the government is strong but not BIG
Obama Rules| 12.2.10 @ 7:42PM
[img]http://mecanoblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/obama-no-i-cant1.jpg[/img]
gary siebel| 12.2.10 @ 11:52PM
The only disgusting thing is the complete abandonment of logic by liberals, in favor of argumentation based entirely on sympathy; the fact they feel "sorry" for people.
Exactly when did marriage switch from being a privilege to being a right?
Human rights are demanded, not requested, yet marriage is -- last time I checked -- based upon a request. Two people agreeing to marriage still does not create a human right. Marriage has always been regulated by the community -- that's why elopement is the only way some people can get married. Yet you still can't elope with your mom, dad, sister, or brother (unless, perhaps, you are Mormon:-), no matter how much you may be "in love." The secular argument against homosexual marriage has yet to be presented adequately.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right.
Ted R.| 12.3.10 @ 11:15AM
Haven't all rights begun as privileges? Society evolves - particularly as it grows richer. And as it does, claims that were not seen as rights in prior times, come to be seen as such. A right to an education, for instance.
A secular argument against homosexual marriage is only legitimate kind of argument that could be made against it, and you're right - no such argument that has so far been presented, has been adequate.
John Navratil| 12.3.10 @ 9:37PM
"Haven't all rights begun as privileges?"
No! You may believe so, but do to so suggests that rights are endowed by our brethren.
There is no right to an education. An education requires someone to provide it. Your "right" is an imposition of an obligation on others.
You might consider the word of the Declaration of Independence that "we are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This statement leaves room for others, no doubt, but the right to an education, as important as an education is, required an imposition on someone else's liberty.
In the weeds| 12.3.10 @ 12:59PM
>> unless, perhaps, you are a Mormon:-)
Very un-funny. A truly knuckleheaded comment. We have allies, yet some of us insist on insulting them.
Dr. Scott Lively | 12.3.10 @ 4:47AM
Excellent analysis by Tubbs, generally speaking, but he truly missed the bus he attempts to throw Dr. Cameron under by not considering the validity of disgust (formerly categorized under "shame") as an essential aspect of a society's self-regulation.
Ted R.| 12.3.10 @ 11:21AM
What you say certainly seems right; but you are leaving the door open for moral relativism, here. Digust and shame ARE vital factors promoting social order in society; but not only is order not the only civic value, but the specific behaviors that are to be proscribed by disgust and shame, can undergo change over time. If sufficient numbers of citizens cease to care about homosexual sex, then there is no longer any shame associated with it, and no reason on those grounds to deny adults who are in the love, the privilege to marry.
ton| 12.3.10 @ 3:35PM
This is disgusting!
Answers1| 12.6.10 @ 12:26AM
Facts:
25% of gays have over 1,000 sex partners.
40% of gays have over 100 sex partners.
Avg. gay lifespan: 10-15 years less than straight.
80% of pedophiles are gay.
No gays in military. No gay marriage. Forever. Period.
Aaron| 8.3.11 @ 5:08PM
"80% of pedophiles are gay"
Have you considered that 80% of opportunities for pedophilia occur in same-sex situations (church, boarding school, scouts, military cadets, a trusted same-sex relative etc.etc.)?
It is precisely because we have a presumption that all men are straight that men are permitted contact with young boys more readily than young girls - meaning, society carelessly allows those men who are both gay and pedophiles more opportunities to commit crimes than those who are straight and pedophiles.
If you don't drive people's sexuality underground but actually allow them to talk about it then you are less likely to screw gay men up, less likely top expose young boys to predatory adult males, and more likely to have pedophiles come forward for professional psychiatric help before they harm someone.
The scandal in the Catholic church should have taught you this much at least!
Peg| 12.6.10 @ 11:43PM
It is interesting that Arts and letters
Daily (http://www.aldaily.com/) links to the print version of this article. It seems that they don't want their readers to see the rest of this site.
Robert Hagedorn| 12.9.10 @ 6:02PM
Do a search: The First Scandal.
FREE tea| 2.3.11 @ 12:12AM
----For those out there who haven't yet realized
the ENTIRE sexual and gender 'liberation' trip of
the past half-century was engineered and implemented by the boys at Stanford Research
and designed for use by the ever sinister, and
ever active, Tavistock Institute in London.
IN SHORT ---a eugenics operation.
DO look up the 'Aquarian Conspiracy' documents
online. GO ON.
They're damning to the likes of the
Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford foundations,
and those famously inbred 'men of parts'
over in London
--the TRUE sponsors and directors of our
devastating 5 decades of cultural dislocation
and destruction.
---AS EVER, beware giggling yuppies
-they'll take you to HELL --IN FACT they lready have...
PornxTv | 5.7.11 @ 3:27AM
Nice Articles
Thanks for sharing
http://pornxtv.us
Aaron| 8.1.11 @ 6:33PM
'She suggests, incredibly, that the only strictures in the Bible pertaining to homosexuality are found in the Book of Leviticus. Has she managed to wipe completely the story of Sodom and Gomorrah from her mind?'
No, simply the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is (i) merely a story and (ii) as much about group sex, unsolicited demand for sex, and inhospitality, as it is about homosexuality. It is also about genocide of entire cities of individuals, including presumably all the children who live there, by a supposedly perfect being. Go figure...
For the matter, Lot's righteous daughters promptly drug their father and engage in incestuous relation with him to continue the bloodlines. Evidently, judeo-christian ethics are fine with this little storyline?
While i take the point that religious viewpoints shape opinion in an intellectual sense that cannot be reduced simple to an emotional reaction such as disgust, it is clear that the illogical basis of such viewpoints would be more readily appreciated were it not for underlying emotional bias. So perhaps there is a need for a second thesis here to explain how illogical religious viewpoints are not discarded when the result interferes with an underlying feeling of disgust towards a group.
Also, be clear - Leviticus deals with a sexual act, 'lying with..' understood as penetration, and NOT with a sexuality, which is a deep attribute of character that may be expressed in myriad ways.
Leviticus also deals with the act of eating lobsters, and is equally condemnatory of that. Go figure...
Mary| 10.4.11 @ 10:02AM
Your ignorance of the issues is appalling. This reads like a 10th grader's assignment to write a pursuasive argument. You have nothing to back up your arguments except some vague moral authority and the age-old "marriage is sacred" (at a time when 40-50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce).