Nutjob of the Moment
A couple of days ago, the following was published on timesunion.com
It's not.
Furthermore, I am not even going to justify that statement, other than to say that if "fornication" and extramarital sexual activity are to be restricted or even frowned upon, the people advocating that sort of anti-freedom position need to come up with some pretty damn good reasons. Have they? No, they never have.
They whine about various surmountable problems like diseases (as if sexually transmitted diseases are somehow inherantly worse than other diseases) and teenage pregnancy (while simultaneously doing everything they can to deny birth control to teenagers), or engage in dramatic handwringing about how marriage is supposedly the "foundation of society" [1], while never bothering to come up with one single, valid reason why they should have the right to judge or regulate the sexual activities of other people.
I guess the most significant conclusion that can be reached from that letter is that, as soon as somebody starts complaining about "fornication", that's a sure signal that their words should be accorded as much significance as flat-earthers, or dipwads who insist that π should be legally defined as 3.2.
-----
[1] This "foundation of society" bullshit is actually pretty interesting to investigate. I quote directly from the Wisconsin State Statutes [765.001]: "Marriage is the institution that is the foundation of the family and of society. Its stability is basic to morality and civilization, and of vital interest to society and the state. The consequences of the marriage contract are more significant to society than those of other contracts, and the public interest must be taken into account always."
As well, quoting from Chapter 944.01: "The state recognizes that it has a duty to encourage high moral standards. Although the state does not regulate the private sexual activity of consenting adults, the state does not condone or encourage any form of sexual conduct outside the institution of marriage. Marriage is the foundation of family and society. Its stability is basic to morality and civilization, and of vital interest to society and this state." Note how it claims to not regulate the private sexual activity of consenting adults, and then proceeds to do precisely that. Adultry, for instance, is defined as a class one felony [944.16]. I'm not saying that adultry is a good thing, but a felony? Breach of contract would be more like it (and, actually, the way things work nowadays, that is effectively what it is: sufficient grounds for divorce, but I haven't heard of anyone being imprisoned for cheating on their spouse in my lifetime).
Granted, some of the acts which are outlawed are neither private (pretty much any sex act is illegal if it's done in public), nor between consenting adults (sex with animals is outlawed), and these actually seem to constitute the bulk of this chapter of the statutes. I guess this is the benefit of living in a state with a history of progressivism (and the subject of sex with animals is, truthfully, too big to be addressed in a footnote). There are states, however, where stuff like anal sex, sale of sex toys, or any type of homosexual act are prohibited. It took a decision of the Supreme Court (Lawrence v. Texas, in the very recent year of 2003) to overrule some of these absurd statutes. Attempts to overturn them at the legislative level have been unsuccessful, as far as I know.
Better birth control doesn't mean fewer abortionsIn particular, I wanted to focus on the phrase, "has caused an explosion of fornication and extramarital sexual activity." The writer says this as if it was a bad thing.
First published: Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Cynthia Tucker's Nov. 26 column contains totally unsupported statements that continue to foster the illusion that better access to contraception would mean fewer abortions and unplanned pregnancies.
An honest look at the statistical evidence clearly shows that readily available birth control has caused an explosion of fornication and extramarital sexual activity. This is shown by the more than tenfold increase of the incidence of most sexually transmitted diseases after contraceptives were legalized by Supreme Court edict in 1965. Likewise, the number of abortions increased dramatically after that decision.
It is irresponsible to claim that the number of abortions can be reduced by means of contraception. This is propaganda promoted by abortion providers who stand to gain financially. It is too bad that Tucker's common sense is so flawed.
WENDELL NEUGEBAUER
Ballston Spa
It's not.
Furthermore, I am not even going to justify that statement, other than to say that if "fornication" and extramarital sexual activity are to be restricted or even frowned upon, the people advocating that sort of anti-freedom position need to come up with some pretty damn good reasons. Have they? No, they never have.
They whine about various surmountable problems like diseases (as if sexually transmitted diseases are somehow inherantly worse than other diseases) and teenage pregnancy (while simultaneously doing everything they can to deny birth control to teenagers), or engage in dramatic handwringing about how marriage is supposedly the "foundation of society" [1], while never bothering to come up with one single, valid reason why they should have the right to judge or regulate the sexual activities of other people.
I guess the most significant conclusion that can be reached from that letter is that, as soon as somebody starts complaining about "fornication", that's a sure signal that their words should be accorded as much significance as flat-earthers, or dipwads who insist that π should be legally defined as 3.2.
-----
[1] This "foundation of society" bullshit is actually pretty interesting to investigate. I quote directly from the Wisconsin State Statutes [765.001]: "Marriage is the institution that is the foundation of the family and of society. Its stability is basic to morality and civilization, and of vital interest to society and the state. The consequences of the marriage contract are more significant to society than those of other contracts, and the public interest must be taken into account always."
As well, quoting from Chapter 944.01: "The state recognizes that it has a duty to encourage high moral standards. Although the state does not regulate the private sexual activity of consenting adults, the state does not condone or encourage any form of sexual conduct outside the institution of marriage. Marriage is the foundation of family and society. Its stability is basic to morality and civilization, and of vital interest to society and this state." Note how it claims to not regulate the private sexual activity of consenting adults, and then proceeds to do precisely that. Adultry, for instance, is defined as a class one felony [944.16]. I'm not saying that adultry is a good thing, but a felony? Breach of contract would be more like it (and, actually, the way things work nowadays, that is effectively what it is: sufficient grounds for divorce, but I haven't heard of anyone being imprisoned for cheating on their spouse in my lifetime).
Granted, some of the acts which are outlawed are neither private (pretty much any sex act is illegal if it's done in public), nor between consenting adults (sex with animals is outlawed), and these actually seem to constitute the bulk of this chapter of the statutes. I guess this is the benefit of living in a state with a history of progressivism (and the subject of sex with animals is, truthfully, too big to be addressed in a footnote). There are states, however, where stuff like anal sex, sale of sex toys, or any type of homosexual act are prohibited. It took a decision of the Supreme Court (Lawrence v. Texas, in the very recent year of 2003) to overrule some of these absurd statutes. Attempts to overturn them at the legislative level have been unsuccessful, as far as I know.
posted by cke at 10:59 AM
1 Comments:
Whack job of the moment, indeed.
Good call on identifying the Ballston Spa resident Mr Neugebauer as a whack job. For years his vehicle's bumper had a right-to-life sticker right next to an NRA sticker. Most of us transliterated the combined meaning as something like "Protect the unborn now so we can shoot them later for trespassing."
Mr Neugebauer is unfortunately a single-issue whack job of the lowest common denominator. Ask him something about the VA Tech massacre and all you'll get back is a response about abortion. Although I think he also got involved, as did many other proud SUV owners (LOL) with some kind of anti global warming petition.
Post a Comment
<< Home