One of the curiosities of our modern political (mis)alignment is the association with the rhetoric of liberty by those who, essentially, have no idea what the word means.
'Freedom' is more than the right to wear a sloppy red t-shirt sporting a bald eagle and a badly-printed copy of the Constitution that you found on the clearance rack at Wal-Mart. It is, rather, the absence of imposed inhibitions: negative liberty is the only liberty worthy of the name. And, I'd argue, the Jeffersonians were wrong when they held this freedom to be universal and inalienable, else we must grapple with our lack of freedom to voluntarily surrender freedom: freedom cannot be... compelled.
Consequently, we must accept that, in order to be free, one must free one's self. And the only way to do this is through self-creation.
All this is really simply a convoluted way of saying that freedom is rooted in individual actions and individual wills, not in some spurious, glazy-eyed patriotism. As such, the freedom to act is the first and fundamental freedom. And this by necessity includes the freedom to act sexually, as such activity is profoundly self-definitive.
This is one reason that the conservative argument that homosexuality is a 'choice' makes little sense to me, and liberal protestations to the contrary make even less: what of it? I hardly see that we should be less 'permissive' of it (assuming we have the right to not be so permissive) if it were a choice: for liberty requires choice. The execise of freedom is the exercise of choice.
I'm pretty sure our sexuality IS a choice, and like all other choices, it should be subject to what is good for others rather than me. A free society cannot remain free without this type of self-control.
JMHO
Indeed, it should not matter if it's a choice, but we like to say it's not just to point out what devils the right wing is and to infuriate them. It's funny how conservatives suddenly espouse a 'greater good' line of thinking, not to mention government intrusion into the bedroom, when it comes to sexuality. The saddest part is that it impacts society so trivially, if at all, that a small percent are homo, yet they cling to absurdities like "the species will go extinct." If we had such power, SSM would've been legal 100 years ago.
I've heard this sort of argument advanced before in other contexts - it's essentially a modernization of the Greek philosophy of temperance - but it's always seemed incongruous to me for a few reasons:
In the first, the Greek ethos, at least, was one of moderation, not abstinence. Aristophanes, for instance, depicted both drunkards and teetotalers as objects of ridicule in his plays, and the general attitudes towards sex in classical life were very much the same: both overindulgence and abstinence alike suggested a tendency towards the radical, which was to be avoided at all costs.
Christianity and its secular derivatives (liberalism, socialism, conservatism) all encourage a tendency towards the extreme. Classical religion and society were incomparably superior in this regard: "harming none" - which is hardly unique to the Christian religion - included the individual first, and then the community. And the Greeks in particular took care to avoid what they called inversion, a particular mental state that encompassed hostility to a robust sex and social life and which the Romans would later associate with early Christian ascetics.
In other words: abstinence is not temperance, and it is not self-control. Genuine self-control is knowing one's limits and acting within them - but not avoiding them. The man who does not indulge whatsoever, to the contrary, knows that he has no self-control. This is the opposite of the Roman virtu, the happy moderation of the classical world.
Did I make the suggestion that there was any danger of that? No. Instead you felt the need to jump in and defend your social conservative political buddies because, hey, what else is a right-wing libertarian to do but that which he is used to - continue to apologize for his political handlers?
Libertarians are social conservatives now, huh? Okay then, fellow "social conservative"...how do you really feel?
No. Right-wing libertarians are, however, content to serve as their lackeys in exchange for a seat at the table (see also: Rothbard, Murray, and his sickening pandering to Pat Buchanan in the late eighties.)
Any way back to the point of this thread, it seems odd to me that conservatives are conservative on most things but not this. Government get out of people's way, but make rules about homos. Seems silly to me. Then the progressives are conservative on it? Its like Alice in Wonderland.
So, what exactly is a "sexual conservative"? :lol:
Someone who only has sex with their opposite sex spouse, in a bed, in the dark, in the missionary position, strictly for reproduction purposes?
Someone who only has sex with their opposite sex spouse, in a bed, in the dark, in the missionary position, strictly for reproduction purposes?
Someone who only has sex with their opposite sex spouse, in a bed, in the dark, in the missionary position, strictly for reproduction purposes?
Wait..what is "sex"? :thinkingSo you've met my ex?
'Conservative' does not inherently mean 'small government': e.g. Bismarck, a conservative Statist who initiated the first public healthcare system in European history.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?