Greedy Blog

Tuesday, July 01, 2003



 
Whenever I feel down about my writing abilities, the DT Firing Line is there to pick me up. This is from a law student, no less:
The Firing Line "Incest, anyone?" printed June 30 argues that eliminating any one form of "non-traditional sex" means you must get rid of all the rest. I wonder if Mr. Burnham has ever participated in oral sex. That would mean he supports incest by his logic, because oral sex was once one of the forms of "non-traditional sex" often included in definitions of sodomy. You can't argue that making one thing legal necessitates the legality of everything else. "Traditional sex" says it's okay for consenting adults of different genders to make love. Don't you see how that necessitates incest be legal? The same logical tie you make to legalizing all sodomy (making sodomy between family members OK) applies to legalizing all "traditional sex," making sex between brothers and sisters OK. People have lived without a problem with traditional sex not including family relations for thousands of years, and I see no reason why they can't make the same distinction with same-sex relations.

Sodomy concerns to how sex is done. Incest governs with who. The two things don't have to overlap. There's no problem letting consenting adults have any sex they wish and leaving the incest laws on the books to prevent it within families. Making sodomy legal has no different impact on family relations than traditional sex being allowed. I see the argument as a scare tactic to defeat support for the new change. It's silly to confuse who and how. If society wishes families not to have incest, they can make it illegal. That will have no impact on sodomy laws.

Mark Duncan, UT law student

Besides the poor writing (mostly grammar, but also poor sentence flow) and lack of logic (not helped by poor sentence flow), I am shocked at the lack of legal reasoning the writer uses. "You can't argue that making one thing legal necessitates the legality of everything else." If putting a gerbil in your ass is legal, can't you argue that fucking your cat should be, too?
Obviously, he didn't read the case and makes faulty assumptions about what it probably says.

There is no question that adult incest and prostitution laws cannot stand up to the Supreme Court's test. Even bestiality is questionable. Santorum = Kreskin

Posted by Gel 7:47 PM Post a Comment

Real Friends' Blogs
Random Rantings
Fancy Dirt
Force Paintball

Locations of visitors to this page

Other Blogs
Instapundit
Baseball Musings
Patently-O
Tim Blair
Volokh
Mark Steyn
Chris Lynch
Donald Luskin
Neal Boortz

Links
UT School of Law
UA ChEE
Jim Rome

Powered by Blogger
Listed on Blogwise