[Peace-discuss] Re: petition period has begun for next year's D and R primaries

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

>We should do the same regarding, e.g., drug-taking,
>war-mongering, or capitalist acts among consenting adults -- all three of
which
>I would generally oppose but not want to ban as crimes.

Hmmm!  But Carl, what acts would you want to consider banning as crimes?
Are you suggesting that there are only crimes that people should oppose but
not ban; and if so then what makes them crimes as opposed to matters of
preference and etiquette? Moreover, are you suggesting that there are acts
that are not nor should not be considered as crimes that society should ban?
Would you agree that the making and conduct of war and murder are acts that
one should oppose and ban whether or not they are viewed as being criminal?
Maybe we should oppose and ban the prolonging of life through the use of
medical interventions or humanitarian actions and let Social Darwinism
prevail without any reference to criminality.

Of course if we follow your recommendation about any proposed laws requiring
public consideration and debate, which I do not oppose or disagree with, one
is left with the problem of defining the parameters of such consideration
and debate.  Should we engage in considering and debating the possibility of
considering and debating the issues before we actually debate the issues;
and at what point do we close the debate and consideration so as to actually
undertake action with respect to the proposed actions or laws?  Who and how
should these parameters be determined?  Is it to be a never-ending debate
and discussion with no resolution and resultant actions?

-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
Estabrook
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:40 PM
To: John W.
Cc: E. Wayne Johnson; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: petition period has begun for next year's D
and R primaries

So if "measures that would tend to contain and extinguish homosexuality
rather
than encourage it" are proposed, presumably as laws, they should be
considered
publicly and debated.  We should do the same regarding, e.g., drug-taking,
war-mongering, or capitalist acts among consenting adults -- all three of
which
I would generally oppose but not want to ban as crimes.


John W. wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:06 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu 
> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
> 
> Amongst those for whom identity politics have replaced class politics --
> i.e., diversity (politics as etiquette) is all the more tenaciously
insisted
> upon as a substitute for economic equality as a real political goal --
> voicing such opinions about homosexuality becomes a "hate crime," the
worst 
> delict in the liberal decalogue.
> 
> American society today seems to have a Victorian prudishness about the
actual
>  consideration of sexual morality, which is quite different from
relegating
> the matter to the rather minor importance it deserves.
> 
> But as a political matter we attribute far too much importance to it,
> ignoring e.g. the wisdom of Gore Vidal from long ago,
> 
> "Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than
there
> is such a thing as a heterosexual person. The words are adjectives
describing
>  sexual acts, not people ... The reason no one has yet been able to come
up
> with a good word to describe the homosexualist (sometimes known as gay,
fag,
> queer, etc.) is because he does not exist. The human race is divided into 
> male and female. Many human beings enjoy sexual relations with their own
sex,
>  many don't; many respond to both. This plurality is the fact of our
nature
> and not worth fretting about."  --"Sex Is Politics" (1979)
> 
> 
> 
> Except that Wayne, and others like him, do not believe that sexual
plurality
> is a "fact of our nature".  Wayne  believes - as I once did - that
> homosexuality is a human choice and an abomination to God, and further
that
> society should "contain and extinguish" homosexuality or homosexual acts,
as
> he states below.  With Wayne it's not a private matter between consenting
> adults and their God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
> 
> 
> It's not clear to me what sort of standards for etiquette and language
exist 
> for blogs and the internet.
> 
> Certainly the FCC ban on Carlin's "7 Words" doesnt apply, and one probably

> can't write for the Rolling Stone or Wonkette without being well-versed in

> punctuating ones remarks with a profusion of explicit calumnious
metaphoric.
> 
> What bothers me most is the hypocrisy implicit in calling the expressed
> admonitions of a group "homophobic", "wacko", and "hate-mongering".   Some
of
>  the so-called left liberals are the most likely to engage in intensely 
> disparaging and often obscene remarks about those who oppose their 
> immorality.  Isn't it "hate-mongering" to call someone a "hate-monger"?
Isn't
> it Wack to call someone a wacko?
> 
> If I lived in Ms. Pulido's district, I would be likely to vote for her,
> knowing that she understands the dangers of homosexuality and is therefore

> more likely to favour measures that would tend to contain and extinguish 
> homosexuality rather than encourage it.
> 
> I would guess that those who engage in homosexual behaviour and those who 
> actively condone and promote homosexual behaviour would have a similar 
> response to any opposition to their ideas regardless of what descriptive 
> colloquialism is employed.
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss