Wherein I Criticize Conservatives a Little More

Back in Project August, I wrote a post criticizing conservatives. That got a reply from the author of the blog post I used that day as the prompt. I am now going to reply to his reply.

Go read my post. Then read the reply at Old Right Musings. Then come back here and read this post.

To begin with, the author at Old Right Musings wondered if he and I have met. No, we have not. Old Right Musings shows up in my wordpress reader from time to time. (And for the record, I is an he.)

LO [Liberate One] hasn’t heard Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, Reid and others moralize about “paying our fair share”?

Sure I have. But if we are going to say conservatives do not try or want to tell anyone what to do in the bedroom, then liberals talking about money is not the same as telling people what to do with their wallets. Of course, I contend many conservatives do care what happens in the bedroom just as many liberals do care about how other people spend money.

Anyway, then he says he is not talking literally about what happens in the bedroom, and then in reply to my comment that conservatives will argue to keep prostitution illegal he says:

Not everything about prostitution occurs in the bedroom , does it? I don’t think anyone ought to go to jail for it, but it certainly needs to be kept away from children and some sort of precautions against the spread of STDs need to be taken, as they are now in the porn industry.

I can concede that many conservatives would probably, if asked, hold that prostitution ought to remain illegal. I think on balance, however, most would hold public concerns such as those I mentioned higher than the notion that the state should punish people for doing something they personally find distasteful. I could be wrong. I think the public concerns are legitimate even if I think the behavior ought to be decriminalized.

If we are not talking “in the bedroom” literally, then we are talking about things sexual, and prostitution is that. But kudos to him for agreeing prostitution should not be illegal.

Next I said something about anti-sodomy laws, and he replied:

Well, I’d like a list of conservative politicians who want to bring those laws back or try to enforce them.

While I seem to have misplaced my copy of the list of  “Outlaw Sodomy Now” supporters (that’s a joke, people), I will direct the reader to an interview with none other than former (and possibly future) presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to talk about “man on dog” with a United States senator, it’s sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that’s sort of where we are in today’s world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we’re seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don’t agree with it?

SANTORUM: I’ve been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don’t agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right. But I don’t agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

Apparently, Rick Santorum is more than willing to bring back anti-sodomy laws. That is only one conservative politician, granted, but given the kind of support he got from Republican voters during the 2012 presidential campaign, I would be willing to state that he is not the only conservative who thinks this way about anti-sodomy laws.

Later on in my post I said, “The conservative opposition to homosexual marriage is generally about not wanting to allow homosexuals to have sex within the bounds of a marriage.” To which he replied:

I simply don’t believe that is true. I don’t believe it based on the many public and private statements of conservatives known to me on this topic. Since LO didn’t provide any support for his statement, I’ll leave my own statement at that for now. Conservative opposition to “gay marriage” is about preventing the public recognition of something that does not have the right to such recognition.

If a civil union that grants all the privileges of marriage is okay, but calling that civil union a marriage is somehow morally or socially abhorrent, then what is the real point of contention? I have a hard time buying that the issue is simply over the word marriage. I know a lot of people keep going on about traditional marriage, but let us be honest here. What we practice in our 21st century Western society is not really what marriage has traditionally been. One man and one woman, except for all the times when it was one man and several women. Or one wealthy man and dozens of wives and concubines. And let us not forget, the romantic idea of marriage—wherein a man and woman meet of their own accord and fall in love and then marry—is something that really has only slowly become “traditional” within the past three or four hundred years. So please, can we not pretend that what marriage is has not changed over time?

And if civil unions that are marriages in all but name are okay, then the privileges the law grants married people and people in civil unions cannot be the problem. What is the problem then? I contend the issue is homosexual acts within a marriage. The main objection to homosexual marriage seems to be calling it marriage. Put another way, the issue is applying the word marriage to a legal union of two people who will engage in homosexual acts under the label of marriage. So the real objection, then, as best I can tell, is to homosexuals having homosexual sex within the bounds of a marriage.

If the only objection is to legal privileges, then tell me your argument for why married heterosexual couples who intend to deliberately never have children should also be denied the legal privileges they will most certainly get by virtue of being married.

Either way, this is still about sexual matters, i.e. what happens in the bedroom.

Oh, and you doesn’t has to call me “LO”. You may call me Xajow, O Wise One, or Sir. And on good days I may also respond to “arrogant libertarian jerk”. But Xajow will do most of the time.

One Response to “Wherein I Criticize Conservatives a Little More”

  1. Sir, His last post says he shut down his blog for professional reasons, his post is no longer available.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: