Is this a “hate crime”?

In all seriousness, I wonder if a prosecutor could call this a “hate crime” based on “sexual orientation” if the man pressing charges claimed to be homosexual?

A court’s been told a stripper accused of raping a man at a buck’s night told him it was “just a joke”, after he complained about being violated by a sex toy.

The alleged victim told the Victorian County Court that he he urged stripper Linda Maree Naggs not to put the pink strap-on dildo into his anus and was shocked when she did.

…The man said he went to the toilet and returned with a bloody tissue that he showed to Naggs.

…Naggs’ barrister has suggested the man placed himself in close proximity to the dildo for a reason.

Sound like a frivolous and gratuitously shocking question?   Think again.   When “sexual orientation” demands being taken seriously as an especially protected legal category, all kinds of ridiculous and disgusting legal arguments are inevitable, as the plain meaning of the law will require us to pretend that all – ALL – sexual perversions are dignified, including pedophilia and public genital exposure and bestiality.   Those, too, are all “sexual orientations”.

Another legal puzzle:    Will movie scenes like the following be considered “hate crimes”, or will it be a hate crime not to use them as instructional material in schools?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Ned Kelly's Pub and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Is this a “hate crime”?

  1. justrecently says:

    I suppose I’m not getting all the technicalities of the case described above, but what I seem to understand is that it involves homosexuality, and that it wouldn’t be that noteworthy if it didn’t. As for genital exposure or bestiality (means sex with dogs, right?), it is probably never asked for, while same-sex sex may not be enforced. I believe your argument is misguided, Ned.

  2. Adriana says:

    I would not call it a “hate crime”. Given that it was a gathering with a strong sexual content (the whole point of the gathering), that a sexual activity took place should not be surprising. It is like complaining that an extra strong alcoholic drink was served at a bar. The customer did not particularly like that specific concoction, but that was just a misunderstanding.

    I think that’s why the SM community insists on safewords and strict protocol.

  3. Ned Kelly says:

    The point is that “sexual orientation” is proved only by actions, not by objective criteria, and such actions can and often do include perversions and outright crimes such as child molesting. Therefore under “hate crime” statutes including “sexual orientation” as a protected class/activity, someone who becomes enraged at and punches a pedophile who molested his child is guilty of a “hate crime”.

  4. justrecently says:

    In case of a doubt, I prefer one law less, rather than one law more. But what is the outrageous aspect in the case of hate crimes? Someone who punches – or kills – a pedophile who molested his child will be prosecuted anyway – be it for a “hate crime”, or merely for punching someone, or merely for killing someone. The matter doesn’t really upset me, and I can’t see why it is upsetting you – but maybe I just don’t understand the general context of hate crime definitions.

  5. Ned Kelly says:

    “Hate crime” statues raise the level of offense and the level of punishment based upon the victim’s identity and the perpetrator’s personal attitude toward that identity. In other words they punish thoughts instead of actions.

    There are already laws against punching someone. Under those laws, all that matters is the act; the identity of the victim and the thoughts of the perpetrator are immaterial, except for the element of intention to commit the crime. But under hate crimes statutes, punching someone belonging to a designated protected class of person, combined with personal hostility toward that class of person, raises the level of offense to a higher level than it would ordinarily be. Ergo, it punishes thoughts, not actions.

  6. Ned Kelly says:

    I will add, until recently it has always been perfectly legal to hate someone. It’s only illegal to harm someone, regardless of your personal attitude toward them. Conversely it is illegal to punch someone even if you love them. Conflating personal emotions and opinions and attitudes with acts is what the Communists do.

  7. Ned Kelly says:

    And if they can criminalise attitudes combined with action, the next step will be to criminalise “incorrect attitudes”.

  8. justrecently says:

    I can see your point – though not from your post above. I don’t think that defining a concept of hate crimes is a good idea, so long as the personal dignity of any person (convicts included) is safeguarded anyway – this is actually a pretty old, though somewhat varying, concept of honor.
    That said, I believe I can see the motivation for establishing hate crimes, and though it looks wrong to me, I don’t see a sinister plot in it. Here are some points in its favor (though they can’t justify the concept). Neonazis over here usually find it hard to get into tune with a wider public, but stickers on many junction boxes or traffic signs along the road tell that “you can’t treat pedophilia – jail them forever”. A bumper sticker says “Stop animal experiments – use child abusers”. That’s no action, but it tells me nothing good about my country and its latest “healthy” trends. Any stance less tough on “beasts” is considered political corruption by these people. No question – children have a right to protection, as they are more vulnerable than any other members of society. But political correctness is only one danger for our freedom. Hate is another one. When reading how you are mixing homosexuality into a brew of pedophilia and ALL sexual perversions, and an alleged plot by sex beasts to undermine our liberties, my impression isn’t that you are simply venting a harmless spleen – I think that would be a euphemism. Nevertheless – it is your freedom of speech.
    Anger management is an individual matter, provided that it works. Besides, there is little evidence that public anger management could work any better.
    But we are having a continuous discussion about human rights and how the Chinese Communist Party violates them, right? Disliking homosexual practises of consenting, grown-up people is perfectly alright. But if I hated them, I hope I’d ask myself why I’m unable to respect them. And given the sad history of homosexuals until very recently, I can’t blame those among them who are fearful.

  9. Ned Kelly says:

    I have great respect for the homosexual Oscar Wilde. I just happen to think he was a sexual pervert, but otherwise I respect and admire him.

  10. justrecently says:

    Glad to read this. We all should.

  11. Ned Kelly says:

    “Glad to read this. We all should.”

    Yes we should, but WHY?

    WHY? Because Oscar Wilde was a homosexual and a symbol of why some homosexuals deserve respect? OR (as I prefer) because Oscar Wilde was a brilliant artist and it DOES NOT MATTER that he was homosexual?

    I prefer to IGNORE Oscar Wilde’s homosexuality. And that is very different from approving of it.

  12. justrecently says:

    I s’pose you know that I’m teaching the English language, don’t you? Anyway, I think our views are more similar than I used to think they are. But let’s not forget that
    - I’m an infidel (I believe in the politician Obama, but not in the Messiah, let alone in a parallel universe on the other side of the cupboard)
    - I’m closer to Israel than you are
    - and I’m sure there are some more controversial issues I haven’t kept track of recently.
    Peace:
    JR

  13. Ned Kelly says:

    “…a parallel universe on the other side of the cupboard”

    But that’s the opposite of what Jesus described. He said “the kingdom of God is within you”. And he didn’t rise from the dead in some other universe; he did it in Jerusalem in spring of 33 AD.

  14. justrecently says:

    Well, that may be the way Jesus sees it. I admire him, but I don’t agree with all of his ideas.

  15. Ned Kelly says:

    I’m just pointing out that although Christianity includes a belief in the supernatural, it’s the OPPOSITDE of a belief in a “parallel universe”. The whole point of miracles is that they happen here on Earth, not somewhere “out there”.

  16. anonymous says:

    The point is that “sexual orientation” is proved only by actions

    Heterosexuality is also sexual orientation.

    Using your logic, applying harsher punishments to people who victimize children is also “thought crime”. One case that could theoretically determine this is say, a criminal sexually assaulting an adult he perceives to be a child.

    Anyway, law should be used pragmatically for the sake of preventing damage to people and property, and if you’re going to go out of your way to rape someone because he or she is a child it’s no different from going out of your way to lynch a black man, rape a white woman or beat someone to death because he is perceived to be a homosexual. Law and punishment usually serve as deterrents, and if the existing laws are not enough to prevent a particular crime from happening a harsher penalty should be put into place for the sake of safeguarding people and property and just to avoid court costs and a waste of public or state resources.

    Again, using your logic, the crime of “treason” shouldn’t even exist in law. Of course, basing law off of logic rather than semantics, one quickly arrives at the conclusion that the state and its constituents have an extraordinary interest in preventing the sale of secrets or other acts of betrayal.

    Of course this will probably clash heavily with your perspective.

    the next step will be to criminalise “incorrect attitudes”.

    There are no legal or logical precedents that will allow the law to descend into something like this. There is no way to detect “incorrect attitudes” or properly enforce laws concerning them. Even if there were, “incorrect attitudes” can not be interpreted by anyone to be crimes themselves, except by nutjobs.

  17. Ned Kelly says:

    “Anonymous” wrote:

    “Heterosexuality is also sexual orientation.”

    Yes it is. And I am against taking sexual orientation into account in any criminal laws.

    “Using your logic, applying harsher punishments to people who victimize children is also “thought crime”.”

    That’s not my logic. Criminalising pedophilia is based on a policy of protecting the weaker from being violated by the stronger; the policy has absolutely nothing to do with the perpetrator’s OPINIONS about the victim, only what he DOES TO the victim. And presently there are laws against homosexuals being raped, too, regardless of what the rapist THINKS about homosexuals. All that matters in EITHER case is the deed and the intention to do the deed; the motivation is immaterial.

    “One case that could theoretically determine this is say, a criminal sexually assaulting an adult he perceives to be a child.”

    In such a case, under American/British/Australian criminal law at this time, the specific intention to molest a child would render the perpetrator guilty of intention to commit child molestation (IF his intention could be proved), but once again one’s specific intention to commit an act is NOT the same thing as his personal attitudes (eg, “hatred”), although the latter CAN be used as EVIDENCE of the former.
    In other words, the law ALREADY admits evidence of “hatred” as evidence of specific intention to commit a deed! But the law does not, and should not, criminalise “hatred” per se.

    “Anyway, law should be used pragmatically for the sake of preventing damage to people and property”

    If you believe this, then you must be a strict libertarian who believes the government should play absolutely no active role in regulating use of natural resources, or transportation, or promoting the “general welfare”, a phrase in the preamble of the US Constitution. You’re talking about “negative liberty”, which means ONLY the liberty to be left alone. This means you’re against “affirmative action”, and against the government having ANY involvement with racial or gender preferences, whatsoever. And I agree with that for the most part (except for the necessity of government environmental regulation of the commons), but I’m not sure that you do.

    “and if you’re going to go out of your way to rape someone…”

    …don’t ALL rapists go “out of their way” to rape?….

    “…because he or she is a child it’s no different from going out of your way to lynch a black man, rape a white woman or beat someone to death because he is perceived to be a homosexual.”

    That’s a sophistry which warrants deconstruction. It’s true that to go “out of your way” to commit a crime, means you’re committing a crime regardless of the identity of the victim. And all of the crimes you’ve listed in the above sentence, are, well, felonies – not identical felonies, because the crime of rape is a lesser crime than murder, although personally I think rape should be equal to murder – but they’re all major crimes. So what’s your point in lumping them all together? THEY ARE ALREADY LUMPED TOGETHER under the law! Murdering a homosexual is murder, REGARDLESS of whether the perpetrator “hates” homosexuals!

    Ah, but under “hate crimes” laws, if a homosexual murders another homosexual (as homosexuals sometimes do to each other), then he will be guilty of a LESSER offense than if a straight man did the same crime. Does that sound just, to you? If so, then why? What, do you think homosexuals should get some special benefit if they murder each other?

    “Law and punishment usually serve as deterrents…”

    First, “law” is not the same thing as “punishment”. The most effective legal systems are those in which punishment is seldom used, and seldom needs to be used…

    “… and if the existing laws are not enough to prevent a particular crime from happening a harsher penalty should be put into place….”

    Apparently you don’t agree with Confucius, who understood that punishment should be a LAST resort!

    “Again, using your logic, the crime of “treason” shouldn’t even exist in law.”

    Why not?

    “Of course, basing law off of logic rather than semantics, one quickly arrives at the conclusion that the state and its constituents have an extraordinary interest in preventing the sale of secrets or other acts of betrayal.”

    No, not an “extraordinary” interest, rather an ordinary one.

    (I wrote)” the next step will be to criminalise “incorrect attitudes”.

    (You replied): “There are no legal or logical precedents that will allow the law to descend into something like this.”

    There is already a precedent in America. During the McCarthy hearings in America in the 1950s, many Americans were DE FACTO criminalised and punished when they were asked about their attitudes toward Communism and/or their allegedly Communist friends, and their “incorrect” attitudes ruined their lives. And the fact that it didn’t happen in a Court of Law, does not mean that it was not a kind of law – or rather corruption of law – in practice. And the history of the major Communist and Fascist countries, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, proves that it’s a short step from informal corruption of law, toward turning “correct attitudes” into “laws” and enforcing them in courts.

    “There is no way to detect “incorrect attitudes” or properly enforce laws concerning them. Even if there were, “incorrect attitudes” can not be interpreted by anyone to be crimes themselves, except by nutjobs.”

    Yes, but that didn’t stop the Nazis and the Russian Communists from pretending to do so in their courts. And if one believes, as I do, that Human Nature is the same all over the world, it IS possible for Western “democracies” to turn the same way as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, who outlawed “incorrect attitudes”.

  18. justrecently says:

    Ned: I wondered if our exchange of opinions re Jesus would be the end of this thread.

  19. Ned Kelly says:

    JR, why would or should exchanges of opinions about Jesus ever end? As debate about Jesus has been going on for 2,000 years, I don’t see any reason to cite Jesus as a reason to end any discussions at all.

    To my mind, Jesus OPENS discussions! Because Jesus is so – and I mean this literally – Jesus is so “essentially contestable”!

  20. Ned Kelly says:

    PS, and my religion of Catholicism says that too, that Jesus is “essentially contestable” in a cosmic way.

    But I know that might be hard for most non-Catholics (and some poorly-educated Catholics too) to understand. My very brief explanation is: As Catholicism posits absolute Free Will, all Humans are free to contest and/or to oppose the belief that Jesus is their God.

    They are free to reject that proposition, and there are many logical reasons for them to argue against it. Not good reasons, but logical ones. (Because what is “logical” is NOT ALWAYS “good”, which is NOT the same thing as saying that what is good can be illogical. Good is always logical, but logic is not always good. This is Aristotle 101.)

    In other words, as a primary condition, all logic comes from God, BUT given the secondary condition of free will (if one believes in free will), NOT ALL logic is in accord with God, because sometimes logic can be based upon untrue premises, and Humans have free will to believe in untrue premises…

    …such as the untrue premise that Man is categorically no different from any other forms of life. To my mind, Mozart is sufficient evidence to refute that lie.

    And just for now, I will conclude with the observation that “you cannot derive OUGHT from IS!” In other words, if you truly believe that all life, including Human life, is conditioned by and subject to no higher order other than raw Darwinian evolution of chemicals and “survival of the fittest”, then you repudiate and deny and transcendent morality whatsoever, other than the law of the jungle. There is no way around this moral challenge; either you acknowledge some kind of TRANSCENDENT moral code BEYOND genetic survival of the fittest, or else you accept the law of the jungle. “Tertium non datur”.

  21. justrecently says:

    I’m not trying to rule out that there may be something transcendental, because trying to do that would be, umm, illogical. I just don’t believe in it. To be a non-believer doesn’t make a man immoral. But it may explain why I’m a social democrat, while you could count as a libertarian.

  22. Ned Kelly says:

    JR, my Friend, you wrote:

    “I’m not trying to rule out that there may be something transcendental, because trying to do that would be, umm, illogical. I just don’t believe in it.”

    So now please specify, WHAT do you not believe in?

    Two logical choices based on what you wrote. Either:

    1. You CHOOSE to rule out anything transcendental, OR,

    2. You categorically do not believe in anything transcendental.

    Which one is it, JR? Do you say that you CHOOSE to rule out anything transcendental? OR do you say it is ESSENTIALLY ILLOGICAL to believe in anything transcendental?

    Please choose either one or the other. “Tertium non datur”. And right now I’m enjoying the fact that I’m half-German and thus I have a deadly logical German mind! :-)

  23. Ned Kelly says:

    PS, if you do not believe in any categorical transcendent Good, then you must not believe in Logic or Science as absolute Goods…

    …which leads to Hitler and Lenin and Mao, in the long run. Because if there is no transcendent Good, then we’re stuck with the Law of the Jungle, the law of the Strong over the weak, AND THERE IS NO LOGICAL OR SCIENTIFIC WAY TO REFUTE THIS!

  24. Ned Kelly says:

    PS, but HERE is the TRUTH, transcending the law of the jungle, transcending the bestial law of the strong overpowering the weak:

  25. anonymous says:

    That’s not my logic. Criminalising pedophilia is based on a policy of protecting the weaker from being violated by the stronger

    Yes but in this case the target is chosen specifically because they are under a certain age. In fact there are laws that even penalize consensual sex between adults and the legally arbitrated definition of “minor”. In that case “chronological age” it is based even less in biology than gender or sexual orientation. Note that a single day’s worth of time can mean the difference between several years in prison or acquittal.

    And presently there are laws against homosexuals being raped

    I don’t think there are laws specifically about homosexuals being raped. It’s just male rape. If in the odd case a man was raped because he was perceived to be homosexual, it would be different from someone being raped and also incidentally being homosexual. The law is fairly unforgiving towards child molesters though, so there are no parallels to this in law.

    but once again one’s specific intention to commit an act is NOT the same thing as his personal attitudes (eg, “hatred”)

    I’d say this is an issue of semantics. To me, “hate crimes” covers crimes that happen just because some guy hates a stranger for no apparent reason and is compelled to kill just for the sake of religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. For the case of attempting to molest based on perceived “age”, increasing the sentence based on the man’s inclinations would serve to protect children. Pedophilia laws exist to do just that.

    If you believe this, then you must be a strict libertarian who believes the government should play absolutely no active role in regulating use of natural resources, or transportation, or promoting the “general welfare”, a phrase in the preamble of the US Constitution.

    Hmm, in the past I might say so, but sometimes people acting in their self-interest (no matter how “enlightened”) just creates a giant mess.

    …don’t ALL rapists go “out of their way” to rape?… That’s a sophistry which warrants deconstruction

    Yes, but for example say a man kills his wife after walking in on her cheating, you can’t really say that he’d have just picked someone else to murder otherwise. Of course in this case it’s irrelevant to the law, but intent and motive is important. To a lot of killers their intent is just to kill ‘x’ group of people not to kill in general. They would probably not kill otherwise.

    Murdering a homosexual is murder, REGARDLESS of whether the perpetrator “hates” homosexuals!

    It’s not that the perp hates homosexuals. He killed someone *because* he was homosexual. Someone could theoretically “love” blacks and kill black people just because they’re black, and only kill because he has access to black people. That would make him more dangerous and deranged than the average murderer. But until that happens using “hate” isn’t too off the mark.

    then he will be guilty of a LESSER offense than if a straight man did the same crime.

    That is not true. If a straight man kills a homosexual for a reason unrelated to his homosexuality it’s not a “hate crime”. If a homosexual kills another homosexual and does it because he hates homosexuals, that’s a “hate crime” I guess. A lot of closet cases kill gay men, that doesn’t change anything.

    The most effective legal systems are those in which punishment is seldom used, and seldom needs to be used…

    Effective for what? Moral grandstanding, or existing only in books of legal theory? Sad to say most legal systems do quite a fair bit of punishment.

    Apparently you don’t agree with Confucius, who understood that punishment should be a LAST resort!

    It often is the last resort, many criminals have had a lifetime of opportunities to shape up. Creating a fairer society where there are fewer criminals takes political will and a lot of resources, which many people are unfortunately lacking.

    Yes, but that didn’t stop the Nazis and the Russian Communists from pretending to do so in their courts.

    They were Grade A nutjobs. If America is going to descend into genocidal totalitarianism it won’t be because congress wants to give you a slightly harsher penalty for killing homosexuals. You are going from point A to point Z in Historiography. Hitler came into power because he was essentially voted in by populists, implementing his brand of “thought crime” legislation was done after Germany was already turned into an authoritarian state.

  26. anonymous says:

    “If in the odd case a man was raped because he was perceived to be homosexual, it would be different from someone being raped and also incidentally being homosexual.”

    I should clarify that these would be different cases entirely. Statistically speaking two cases is not significant, and only in that light can the crime be diminished, it is meaningful when a crime only occurs because the target is perceived to be a homosexual.

    Another example. Lets say firing someone because he is Muslim. It wouldn’t be accurate to say he would have lost his job otherwise if it is proven that his religion was the reason behind it.

  27. anonymous says:

    Because if there is no transcendent Good, then we’re stuck with the Law of the Jungle, the law of the Strong over the weak, AND THERE IS NO LOGICAL OR SCIENTIFIC WAY TO REFUTE THIS!

    I’d say transcendent good is genetically hardwired, and it’s logical to encourage it’s expression.

  28. Ned Kelly says:

    Richard Peking Duck, is that you?

    I ask only because I know of no one else in the Anglophone China-blogopshere who is so articulate yet such a willfully dishonest apologist for the Cult of Death.

  29. Ned Kelly says:

    PS, re,

    “I’d say transcendent good is genetically hardwired…”

    That is one of the most superstitious, UN-EMPIRICAL statements ever uttered in the entire history of Mankind.

    Now let us all bow down and worship DNA, and crucify all heretics who refuse to comply. Meanwhile we have rationalised to ourselves that sexual perversion is not only tolerable, but GOOD, because it’s genetically determined! (Insert a thousand “sarcasm” emoticons here.)

  30. Ned Kelly says:

    Oh, and by the same reasoning, MURDER is a transcendent good TOO, because it’s “genetically hard-wired!”

  31. justrecently says:

    Re #August 10, 9:27 p.m.
    So now please specify, WHAT do you not believe in?
    Two logical choices based on what you wrote. Either:
    1. You CHOOSE to rule out anything transcendental, OR,
    2. You categorically do not believe in anything transcendental.

    Neither! :))
    I think we had this discussion before, at least partly, so I’m not sure if I’m repeating myself in someplace.
    Certainly, when thinking about matters like these, I give it some thought – but my thought is based on thoughts I made before, and things that grew on me. When someone explained his views to me in the past, I might store them, and they might make sense years later, in a certain light. But the point is that I’m making “choices” (mind the quotation marks”) among things that come to me from outside. I haven’t invented the world in my four decades of life. I’ve only been more or less receptive.
    When someone passes a ball to me and I luckily score, does that mean that I chose to score? I don’t think so. It only means that I took note of into which direction to play. And it means that I learned long, long before that you have to mind the right direction when playing.
    Do I choose to play according to those rules? And why? For my teammates’ or friends’ recognition? Or because the need for cooperation is genetically hardwired within me and most other people? For fun, because there is no fun if there is no goal?
    Another (simplified, I’m sure) example, if your parents are hardcore Christians, you have at least three “choices”: to be like them, or to have your revenge by becoming an angry atheist, or to have your revenge by becoming even more hardcore than them. Is adaptation or revenge genetically hardwired? I don’t know. Motives are complex. But I see little reason to doubt that in either of the two situations above, it is really “choice”. Especially in case of soccer, but probably also when “choosing” a view of the world, it is a more sophisticated way of binding ones shoelaces. One does it without thinking about how to do it (after having learned), and one does it because not doing it will make you fall and hurt yourself (and avoiding that is probably real genetical hardwire.
    _____

    Re # August 10, 9:35 p.m.
    PS, if you do not believe in any categorical transcendent Good, then you must not believe in Logic or Science as absolute Goods…
    I believe in no absolute God. As I said, I don’t believe in God. I can only perceive the world – and so long as I’m not falling and hurting myself, my perception seems to be working. If I begin to keep falling, I need to examine my perception. And when it works again, I still can’t tell if my perception is correct. It only works for me again.
    _____

    On a different note, methinks that anonymous isn’t reading your comments closely.

  32. Pingback: Willful stupidity « Under the Jacaranda Tree

  33. Ned Kelly says:

    JR, that’s a coherent and honest answer! What I respect about you is that you’re not split-minded; you don’t pretend to believe in two absolutely contrary things. (This is not the same thing as acknowledging paradoxes.)

    What I do NOT respect, is someone who says in one breath, “there is no evidence of any transcendent good” but then in the next breath appeals to transcendent principles such as the idea that the weak ought not to be exterminated. THAT idea, that WEAK humans have any kind of ESSENTIAL dignity, can never be proved through any scientific method. But I do believe that some humans can “know” it intuitively even without religious instruction.

  34. Ned Kelly says:

    PS, if “genetic hardwiring” can account for Mozart’s music or Shakespeare’s plays, then the hardwiring is merely a tool used by something – or rather someone – essentially free and freely creative.

    But I think a time will come, in the relatively near future (like the next 500 years or so), when intelligent humans will look back on the conventional beliefs of the 21st century with condescending amusement. In year 2509 or so, scientists will look back at the 21st century and say, “What superstitious fools they were, to believe that consciousness is determined by DNA chemicals!”

  35. anonymous says:

    Cult of Death

    You lost me there, what is this exactly?

    Now let us all bow down and worship DNA, and crucify all heretics who refuse to comply. Meanwhile we have rationalised to ourselves that sexual perversion is not only tolerable, but GOOD, because it’s genetically determined! (Insert a thousand “sarcasm” emoticons here.)?

    Genes allow for the expression of a wide variety of things, good or bad. Note that I didn’t say natural equals good, I’m saying that the capacity for good exists at a fundamental level. Even if people forget their religions and philosophies, it’s not unlikely that at least some of them will recreate a moral society.

    And it can be said that morality in a sense is “survival of the fittest”, just not intuitively on an individual scale. Intelligence and social structure certainly helped humanity elevate itself beyond the status of beasts.

    There’s not so much black and white here.

  36. Ned Kelly says:

    Dude, you’re making a bootstrap argument.

    You’ve devoted a lot of energy to rationalising yourself that your habit of anal sex is somehow beautiful and noble. As for “cult of death”, that’s precisely what you’re in denial about.

  37. justrecently says:

    1) Dunno if love is noble – but I’m sure it’s beautiful.
    2) Anal sex is quite common among heterosexual couples, too.
    3) I believe that your dispute (Ned and anonymous) is very theoretical.

  38. justrecently says:

    Thinking about it, love might be beautiful and noble.

  39. Ned Kelly says:

    If heterosexuals engage in anal sex, that’s a perversion too, although I don’t care what they do in private as long as they don’t frighten the horses or demand public approval.

    On the other hand, although some heterosexuals perform anal sex, NO homosexuals perform reproductive sex with each other, ever. Thus the sexual element of relationships between practicing homosexuals is CATEGORICALLY different from that between heterosexuals. Again, I’m actually FOR civil unions between homosexuals. I’m only against their demands for legally ENFORCEABLE public recognition of homosexuality as categorically identical to heterosexuality.

  40. C.A. Yeung says:

    If heterosexuals engage in anal sex, that’s a perversion too

    Just for the record, Ned does not represent my opinion on this issue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s