« I've never done this before, but... | Main | Don’t come around here no more »
don't you dare to leave me hanging on like a yo-yo
by mg at 03:34 PM on April 23, 2003
Some recent comments on Anna’s gay post, and the recent furor over Senator Santorum’s comment’s regarding consensual butt-sex, got me thinking about morality.
Santorum (isn’t that a great name for an evil villain?) said that if the Supreme Court ruled it okay for consensual adults to participate in homosexual activities, despite the fact that those behaviors are illegal in Texas (where the original case was tried), than any activity would be considered legal if performed in the privacy of our own homes.
From what I understand of the law, he is dead on in that comment. The case involved isn’t about whether homosexuality is “okay”, but whether the anti-sodomy laws in Texas are legal. But what’s got people really upset is that Santorum inadvertently compared homosexual sex to incest, polygamy, etc.
Personally, I think you homos should be allowed to do whatever the hell you want. But I think incest is bad. I’d wager to say that most people would agree with me. Hell, I’d go so far as to say the 100% of the country, outside those making residence in the Never-Neverland Ranch, would say that incest is immoral. And except for that crazy homeless dude who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart, most people would probably say that polygamy is immoral, too.
But not too many years ago there were a majority of people in this country who did think that homosexuality was wrong. There is a pretty strongly vocal minority who’d still say that. I don’t know Santorum’s leanings in this regard, I’m sure he’ll say he has plenty of gay friends, but a lot of people in this country do think homosexuality is immoral, and he just might be one of them.
This sort of raises the question - who decides when something has moved from being immoral, dark, and dirty, to being acceptable? Was it the meteoric success of Jim J. Bullock in the early 80s? Was it Whams string of number one hits? Did the love that dare not speak its name pass into normality when it became the subject of a comedy on Must See TV?
Why is homosexuality okay, but incest wrong?
Since we do now say that homosexuality is okay, but incest is wrong, why isn’t it believable that one day the moral leanings of the nation will say that incest is alright? I’m not saying I want those things to be deemed acceptable, but just think back a couple decades to what was, and wasn’t, generally acceptable. Even just a within my lifetime, interracial couples and homosexuality have become commonplace, two types of relationships that 50 years ago would have been met with legal or social retribution.
In another 30 years, what else that is considered taboo today will become acceptable? Pedophilia? Beastiality? Who makes that decision?
comments (18)
In many cases, it goes in a circle. Homos were commonplace at the dawn of civilization, then weren't, and now, are sorta acceptable again. There was a time when bestiality was very acceptable, Lockheed remembers. My fiancee is anglo-saxon white as it comes, and I truly don't like the idea of interracial couples or children,(I won't have children anyways, regardless, due to biological dysfunctions) yet, despite my views, it will be an asian/caucasian wedding, nonetheless. Something about love makes people change the rules, because it can be so powerful. Hey MG, did you get the Coraline book?
by LOCKHEED at April 23, 2003 4:02 PM
You dickwad. *I* make that decision.
by Jesus at April 23, 2003 4:22 PM
And I bet you were also the guy who decided it was okay for dudes to weart sandals, right?
PS: Lock, yes I did. Thank you. I'll be thanking peeps officially when I'm really back. Not just pretending I'm back. Not that I was actually away, just pretending that I was away. The End.
by mg at April 23, 2003 4:28 PM
You bring up some points I hadn't thought of MG. I think the morals of whatever social majority we have dictates what is ok and what isn't. I remember back when a show like Will and Grace would've never made it on the air. There were tongue in cheek, if you will, references to homosexuality, on TV, but it wasn't that in your face, if I remember correctly. I can't see a time when incest, pedophilia, or a few other practices will be accepted by a majority of society. Who knows though?
Jesus, could you make it so I can turn water into wine? I just think that would be hella cool.
by Ezy at April 23, 2003 4:51 PM
My strictly Mormon coworker drives me nuts with his cockeyed theory of morality, which goes something like this: AIDS is a "voluntary disease." And before long our lax society will not only sanction homosexuality, which he seems to beleive causes all HIV infections, but pedophilia and murder too. At first I thought he was kidding, but no.
by Anna at April 23, 2003 6:25 PM
"Why is homosexuality okay, but incest wrong?" Why is it ok to eat lettuce but not hemlock? After all, eating one plant inevitably leads to eating all plants, and plants are just differing increments on a smooth spectrum, right? Homosexuality, incest, and pedophilia are different behaviors requiring different moral treatments. Incest has direct biological consequences on potential offspring between close relatives - though 1st cousin pairings enjoy some acceptability. Both incest and pedophilia suffer from potential abuse of power relationships in which one member may not effectively enter into an equal social contract with the other - something which is much harder to prove between consenting un-related adults (though as we see from sexual harassment cases can still be an issue).
Anyway, while morality is often very subjective, it is easy place homosexuality in a class of behaviors close to heterosexuality, and very very far from pedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc. Just like we happily eat lettuce, and will continue to avoid hemlock.
by chris at April 23, 2003 8:04 PM
Pedophilia? Never, Because you have the victimizing of a child.
Beastiality? Maybe, but PETA would be against that and want to equate it with rape.
Incest? Not unless you can fix that inbred offspring problem. (Adopted siblings don’t count and will probably become more accepted, because Richie and Margot were so hot together.)
I think these are to the extreme, like saying that murder is taboo now but in 30 years …
Stuff that I think will be accepted or trendy in 30 would be bondage, robot love dolls or virtual sex.
Polygamy? I don’t know what to think about that. Isn’t “every mans’ dream” basically polygamy?
by MrBlank at April 23, 2003 8:34 PM
Yeah, but there were also people out there that thought homosexuality was a mental illness. They had evidence, dubious evidence by today's standards, but they could support their idea. You can use facts or evidence to support anything, really.
People use the whole birth defects thing to be against incest, but I remember reading that the chances weren't significantly high enough to support the kind of reaction people have. And, if the only arguement against incest if birth defects, what about homosexual incestual relationships?
People are against incest for moral reasons, which is why most people would cringe if two step-children, unrelated by blood, were to get together. But not too long ago, those moral arguements weren't there. People were enouraged to marry within their family.
As far as pedophilia, if the arguement is to prevent youngsters, I think it's fair to say most underaged have their sexual experiences with other teenagers. If someone has enough mental presence to make a decision about having sex with another minor, who is to say they can't also reasonably make the decision to have with someone abvove 18? The age of consent in South Dakota 16, but for their neighbors to uptop in North Dakota, it is 18. Is that couple miles across the border make any different? This is a legal and a moral issue, and one that can, and does change.
Traditionally, much closer blood-relations were encouraged to mate, and children were wed much earlier than today. It was okay for a 14 year-old to be married off by her family to one of her uncles, but today the parents would be looked at as monsters.
The more I think about it, the sillier my initial question was though. I read a quote just today, by Moby, about top 40 music. He said something along the lines that years down the line, we as a society will look back and wonder how we let 12 year old girls be the arbiters of taste with regards to pop music. I totally agree. Luckily, there is a wide range of music we are free to listen to outside of the top 40. Unfortunately, when it comes down to laws, like this Supreme Court case, we can't really choose to live in a world where sodomy is il/legal, much less one where it is im/moral (whichever your into).
by mg at April 23, 2003 9:02 PM
I don't think that polygamy is immoral, but that's a personal belief that I don't expect everyone else to share. I think that most relationships, regardless of how conventional or un- they may be can be perfectly acceptable for the people involved, so long as everyone is consenting and fully aware of the details.
That said, I'm not saying I support paedophelia or incest, although I do feel that it is acceptable for first cousins to marry if they so choose; many people are not brought up with their first cousins (for example, mine live in New Brunswick and I live in Ontario), so though they may be "family," if you're not directly raised with them, the feeling of "family" isn't necessarily as strong.
However, you won't be finding me marrying any of my first cousins, 'cause they're all girls. ;)
Finally, I fully believe that the government should stay far, far away from the bedrooms of consenting adults. If I want to be tied up and have my significant other pour warm honey on me before proceeding to flog him silly, so long as he's also willing, what's the problem?
The same goes for homosexuality; it's the business of no one but those involved as to what's going on, so why does the government need to dictate what's acceptable and what's not?
by Jen X at April 23, 2003 10:08 PM
Speaking of popular music... Kelly Clarkson's album debuted at #1, beating out the new 50 Cent CD/DVD at #2 and the Fleetwood Mac reunion studio recordings at #3. Yay! I love Kelly so much. She is the best! Kelly... Osama loves you!
by Osama at April 23, 2003 10:12 PM
What is amazing is that we're even able to have this calm discussion about these topics. God bless the internet, which we all take for granted.
by Anna at April 24, 2003 1:44 AM
MG, I've now had a chance to read the text of this Senator's remarks. Splitting hairs, he says he's fine with homosexuality but has a problem with homosexual acts. In other words, even legally married gay persons in Vermont should remain chaste. And while a legalized harem might be a dream come true for some, there's always a problem. Just ask Osama, whose primary wife Sabiha stomped off in disgust after he added a hot chippie half his age to the stable.
by Anna at April 24, 2003 7:43 AM
MG, you're usually much more logical than this. To add to what Chris said earlier, I'd like to point you to a Philadelphia Inquirer column that neatly takes apart Santorum's logic and, I think, yours as well:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/5697239.htm
And Anna, I'd like to just point out that what exists for gay couples in Vermont isn't marriage. They have civil unions, which grant pretty much the same rights as marriage, but the govt. there wouldn't go so far as actually calling it marriage. (God forbid!) There is nowhere in the U.S. where same-sex couples can be married. The only place in the world where same-sex marriage exists is the Netherlands. Just FYI.
by Chris (a different one) at April 24, 2003 9:49 AM
What, exactly, am I being illogical about? I think it is a fair question to ask when a behavior that has been previously deemed deviant becomes acceptable, and how that happens.
As for the Inquirer article saying the logic, not the actual words are the issue, well, I left the same comment saying that exact same thing on your site. I hope it is clear that I don't agree with Santorum, but I do think the slippery slope arguement in this case is a valid one. It is pretty obvious that opinions about sexual/romantic behavior have slid all over the place throughout history, and it is reasonable to assume they'll continue to fluctuate.
Santorum has a moral/religious objection to homosexuality, and I think that ignoring religous concerns in favor of social acceptance could be a mistake. We are working in Iraq to preserve their religious and cultural practices, but anything smacking of religion or striving toward a communal value system here is immediately attacked. Why?
The Inquirer article talks about adultery, which is apparently illegal. Is it really? I'd say that adultery is pretty much socially accepatable at this point. The article you point to says that homosexuality is good, but adultery is bad. Well, by who's standards? If adultery is still illegal, why is it? You can't say it's to preserve the importance of marriage, considering that half of marriages end in divorce, and I'm guessing a large chunk of those are a result of affairs. Are any of those people in jail?
But, again, my question isn't whether homosexuality is good/bad, or whether incest should be an acceptable practice, but how a society makes a decision about the morality of those practices, and when does that public opinion create a critical mass large enough to warrant a change to public policy.
by mg at April 24, 2003 10:11 AM
Sorry, hon - I shouldn't comment when I don't have time to more fully explain what I mean. The logic I thought you had wrong was the very "slippery slope" argument to which you refer, which that opinion piece I linked to also refutes.
Look at it this way: Yes, homosexuality used to be always considered wrong by almost everyone, and it is more accepted now. However, the "science" that said homosexuality was so bad to begin with was grounded in prejudice and never at all solid scientifically. Is the majority of thinking in social science is ever going to decide it's been wrong about pedophila all along - that it doesn't hurt kids and is just hunky-dory? I don't think that's EVER going to happen. That's where I think that whole slippery slope argument falls apart.
by Chris at April 24, 2003 2:16 PM
Maybe slippery slope isn't exactly the right way to explain things. I certainly don't think that this Texas case getting struck down will lead directly lead to people legally having sex with children, but it isn't that unreasonable to say that at some point in the future the current values regarding incest and pedophillia will change. We've got thousands of years of recorded history to support the idea that morality fluctuates, so what are the factors that cause societal beliefs to change? Legislation certainly plays a factor, and I don't think it is necessary to tangibly equate homosexuality with behaviors that are currently deemed deviant to say that a law regarding homosexual activities will probably have some eventual effect on the perceptions of other behaviors that have nothing to do with homosex.
by mg at April 24, 2003 2:42 PM
I have a rather simple definition of morality. Not CHRISTIAN morality of course, just social morality.
ANYTHING is moral as long as you don't hurt/bother other people.
Therefore ANY sexual act, ANY at all is just fine as long as both parts want to do what they do.
So you can't say bestiality would ever be right cause the 2nd part (I don't really wanna know what that would be) is certainly not really fascinated.
Same goes for children cause you DO hurt them when you do that.
If we are talking about grownups, well, ANYTHING, even incest or whatever should be just fine as long as the participants are fine with it!
well, it's what I think at least.
Anything more complicated than that I consider irrational.
by necropethamenos at April 25, 2003 9:46 AM
Hey MG, you should read Pat Buchanan's Death of the West. I swear he methodically debunks that "50% of marriages end in divorce" fallacy among many others. That is simpy untrue. Which isn't to say he isn't a nut case.
by Anna at April 27, 2003 8:13 PM