The Attack on Consensuality: Why Gays Matter So Much To The Xtian Right

[Plaid Adder]

I was looking back at this old piece I wrote up on Rick Santorum:

http://www.plaidder.com/crit.htm

and it occurred to me that I haven't seen this point really hammered home anywhere, so I'm doing it again:

In the interview that got Santorum into so much trouble for being a homophobic bigot--which, don't get me wrong, he absolutely is--he also reveals something very interesting about the RW agenda which is a lot bigger than me and my fellow gays. He attacks the whole idea of using consensuality as the test for whether or not a sexual practice is or should be legal. His argument is that if we decriminalize homosexuality, then we have to decriminalize everything else because once we get away from Judeo-Christian sexual values, we're wandering in a wonderland of moral anarchy.

In fact, as more rational and fairminded people realize, those of us who do not turn to the Bible or Shari'a law for our ethical guidance have our own set of guidelines for sexual morality based on the principles of the Constitution. The test that most liberals use to establish whether a sexual practice is permissible or justifiable is consensuality. From the basic idea of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we get to the idea that part of "liberty" involves choosing when, how, and with whom you are going to share your body. Laws relating to sexual morality should protect that right. This is why, despite what Santorum appears or pretends to believe, decriminalizing homosexuality does not inevitably open the floodgates for incest, child abuse, and bestiality. The principle of consensuality protects those who are in one way or another incapable of giving their free, full, informed consent to a sexual encounter. This category includes children, employees being sexually harrassed by their bosses, and yes, Rick, it would also include whatever barnyard animals you are concerned about.

The whole RW assault on equal rights for same-sex couples or GBLT Americans is an attempt to preven the government from basing law about sexuality on consensuality, and instead force it to base that kind of law on right-wing Christian morality.

So that's what's really at stake in something like the FMA, and that's why ultimately it's bigger than me and my partner.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Not Me]

1. Very well put, P.A.

Howard Dean got a similar comment in today in his debate with Nader; he was arguing against referendum, and referring to the marriage debate, cited that the will of the majority...wherever it is rooted, should not dictate the rights of the minority.

[Sandpiper]

2. The worst thing in history for human sexuality

Has been Judeo-Christian religion.

They more or less introduced the idea that sex is something to uptight about and that the human body is something to be ashamed of.

The pagan Greek and Roman empires didn't bat an eyelash over same sex relationships, or sex in general.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trof]

4. I like yer attitude, newbie.

And welcome to DU.
:hi:
I'm so poor at world history, but was it Norway where many of the non-jewish citizens wore the Star of David armband?
Maybe we could do the same?

[Hoping4Change]

5. You must travel in pagan circles.

I don't think everybody is gay nor do i think it a sin. You are in your own dreamland to imagine that everyone has had "a gay sex act performed on them or by them.

The greatest evil is that people pretend to be straight and get married to the opposite sex when they at some level loathe the opposite sex.

[Hoping4Change]

6. dupe

[MissAnnThrope]

7. Not To Mention...

... One of the attacks the religious right makes are the number of rest stop bathrooms used as gay cruising grounds. Most of the "gays" that hit those places are "happily" married men, as in married to women. So much for traditional family values.

[Az]

8. The battle has always been Moral Relativism vs Moral Absolutism

The further we chip away at the cruelties of the dogmatic positions the greater the resistance becomes. Basic things like womens rights and race issues (although still not finished) were easier to fight for because they were within the normal expectation of most people's experience.

But as we explore our morality concerning more removed issues they become less demonstrable or experential to those not directly affected by them. The closeted issues such as homosexuality and atheism are not in their face day to day. They cannot tell who is what without them outing themself. So the matters do not strike a chord with the average person.

So as we press into these territories with our progressive moral relativism the ability to carry the argument by means of emotional weight dwindles. When countered with doctrinal rejections of the moral advances the resistance can become formidible.

[TWiley]

9. Republicans believe in "Moral" legislation.

Democrats, on the other hand, believe that morality, whenever possible, is the providence of the individual.

The deadbeat dad of the republican party was plato, and he also believed in a hierarchy of races, and hierarchy within a race. This ill notion has also become an anchor of the republi-KKK-klan party. It worked in greece because the greek peasants were allowed to enslave anyone, but nobody could enslave them unless the greek derived pleasure from it. The lower greek class felt like they had a leg up on others, and were grateful. Those at the bottom were too weak to revolt.

This political tactic is used to sell the idea of a very small and powerful ruling class today but first, the concept of discrimination must be sold.

Most are married and have kids, so "families first!" The majority goes along. Most people are heterosexual, so "Homosexuals are undeserving abhorrent sinners". The majority blindly goes along.

Soon even white, heterosexual, married with kids, conservative, christian fundamentalist, member of the NRA with 3 flag stickers on the pickup cannot get a job. oh wait, you have red hair .... too bad.

While I am a heterosexual, I deeply believe that if one group looses its rights, then we all are in danger of loosing our rights. State sanctioned discrimination cannot be tolerated against any group.

To endorse such a vile action, is a republican thing.

[morgan2]

10. also right wing people tend to believe one can not

rape their wives. If sex is about consent, then they're cant force themselves upon their wives. Over turning their medevil idea that a wives job is to please her husband.

[BillZBubb]

11. It's all about conformity.

If you have a group of people allowed to do certain things most of the group doesn't do, there is a real danger other people may also fail to toe the line in other areas. Pretty soon, you have individualism running rampant. The right prefers sheep. As Jack Nicholson's character said in "Easy Rider", they fear true freedom more than anything.

[shoelace414]

12. it comes down to Empathy

"I'm not going to have sex with a man, so nobody should"