The greediest blog on the net.
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.
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