![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsLaurie Higgins has a charming little article, Republican skeletons in the closet, in which she excoriates the Republican nattersphere for refusing to look too closely at Republican politicians who are known or strongly rumored to be gay, and for reacting with outrage whenever one is "outed" in someway, claiming that it's an invasion of privacy.
Remember, these people don't believe in privacy, and are vehemently opposed to Griswold v. Connecticut's assumption that people have a right to privacy. Griswold v. Connecticut assured individuals of a right to privacy in the context of access to contraceptives.
Robert Bork pointed out that the assumption of a right to privacy in the context of Griswold means that one group has now been given a right to do something, and the right to do something is the same as the power to do something, and that "something" is have lots of sex without a commensurate risk of becoming a parent. Bork said the right of some people to have gratifying sex comes at a price: the loss to nosy busibodies to have a gratfying state-imposed moral order. "Every clash between a minority claiming freedom and a majority claiming power to regulate involves a choice between the gratification of the two groups... why is sexual gratification more worthy than moral gratification?" – Robert Bork, Indiana Law Journal, 1971. It's important to note that Bork repeated this claim at his confirmation hearing in 1984.
Higgins is all in a froth that "homosexuality matters. Volitional homosexual behavior is deviant, immoral behavior regardless of its etiology. That moral claim is not only a legitimate but also a necessary moral claim to make publicly." That's just a typical Christianist argument. It's boring.
What got me fascinated by Higgins was this paragraph:
The take-away here is that poly is winning: by framing it in the same context as homosexuality, as a legitimate civil arrangement, rather than depicting it in ways similar to swinging, the poly community has successfully put its detractors on the defensive.
Remember, these people don't believe in privacy, and are vehemently opposed to Griswold v. Connecticut's assumption that people have a right to privacy. Griswold v. Connecticut assured individuals of a right to privacy in the context of access to contraceptives.
Robert Bork pointed out that the assumption of a right to privacy in the context of Griswold means that one group has now been given a right to do something, and the right to do something is the same as the power to do something, and that "something" is have lots of sex without a commensurate risk of becoming a parent. Bork said the right of some people to have gratifying sex comes at a price: the loss to nosy busibodies to have a gratfying state-imposed moral order. "Every clash between a minority claiming freedom and a majority claiming power to regulate involves a choice between the gratification of the two groups... why is sexual gratification more worthy than moral gratification?" – Robert Bork, Indiana Law Journal, 1971. It's important to note that Bork repeated this claim at his confirmation hearing in 1984.
Higgins is all in a froth that "homosexuality matters. Volitional homosexual behavior is deviant, immoral behavior regardless of its etiology. That moral claim is not only a legitimate but also a necessary moral claim to make publicly." That's just a typical Christianist argument. It's boring.
What got me fascinated by Higgins was this paragraph:
Same-sex desire and volitional homosexual acts are analogous to polyamorous desire and volitional polyamorous acts, all of which are legitimate conditions for moral assessment and moral disapproval. Most voters would want to know if a candidate embraced polyamory; most voters would reject a candidate for his affirmation of polyamory and his engagement in polyamorous behavior; and those who rejected such a candidate would not be vilified for their political decision or called poly-haters and polyphobes.That raised my eyebrows: it's the first time I've heard anyone from the Christianist side of the table actually use the term "polyamory" without sneer quotes. It's as if Higgins is unaware that the term is less than twenty years old and is still contentious even within the Polyamory community.
The take-away here is that poly is winning: by framing it in the same context as homosexuality, as a legitimate civil arrangement, rather than depicting it in ways similar to swinging, the poly community has successfully put its detractors on the defensive.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 05:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 05:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 06:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 06:27 pm (UTC)'course, it occurs to me you've already done that... :)
Personally? I don't think it would suck if (modulo the various forms of child abuse) the lower-case-c-ians just kept up what they were doing, as an example of how NOT to do it. Their numbers are already headed in the right direction....
I'm just hoping that their stranglehold on the GOP loosens soon. We *need* a proper Loyal Opposition, and we don't have one. Right now it's a serious charlie foxtrot, and I don't mean pleasurable.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-24 11:34 am (UTC)This is a point that the liberal media needs to get. The fact of the matter is, not only do they not believe in privacy, but they are using *your* belief in privacy to get what *they* want, which is for you to shut up. The media needs to get this point into their thick skulls, because not only is it a great idea to call their bluff, but to call them to the mat over privacy.
If I were a reporter, I would personally eviscerate the first politician that tried to shut me up that way. I believe it would be my *job* to make politicians break into a cold sweat at the very mention of my name. I never really got to watch his show much (I was 11 when he retired), but I understand this was Jack Webster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Webster)'s claim to fame, and the political class was better and stronger for it (My dad once said that we need someone like him in the press, because he'd brought down politicians that were twice those that we had at the time). He is also quoted as saying "Go ahead and sue me, I *need* the publicity" which is the best paradox the press possesses.