From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 6 12:29:25 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A2537B404 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F9E43F93 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:29:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org) Received: from 12-234-22-23.client.attbi.com ([12.234.22.23]) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003050619292405100jlkide>; Tue, 6 May 2003 19:29:24 +0000 Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 12:29:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: Colin Percival In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20030506182557.07db3820@popserver.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <20030506121650.K51947@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz> References: <5.0.2.1.1.20030506182557.07db3820@popserver.sfu.ca> Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Senator Santorum X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 19:29:25 -0000 On Tue, 6 May 2003, Colin Percival wrote: > At 10:23 06/05/2003 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > >"And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex > >within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to > >polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. > >You have the right to anything." > > > >The annoying thing about what he said from the standpoint of the gay > >rights folks is that he's right. It really is a slippery legal slope. > > Not quite. Bigamy and polygamy aren't questions of sex; they're > questions of marriage. They are also crimes in the US, which is the point he's making. Actually, you're supporting my argument, even if you don't realize it. :) If we decide that removing the laws against sodomy is ok because you have the right to do whatever you want behind closed doors, then the laws against the other things he mentioned should be removed too, for the same reason (see below for one important qualification). Then, once those laws are removed, laws against a lot of other consensual crimes should be removed too. That's the slippery slope. Note once again for the record, I'm not commenting on whether or not any of this is a good thing. I'm merely pointing out that there IS a slippery slope argument to be made here, and that Sentator Santorum is being demonized unjustly (and inaccurately). > As for incest and adultery... personally I don't see where the problem > lies with incest, providing that no (genetically impaired) children are > born of it, ... and providing that all parties involved are "adults" in the sense that they are capable of giving informed consent to the acts in question. That of course is an entirely different topic of discussion. > and I can't think of any civilized state where adultery is illegal. The limitations of your knowledge are not my responsibility. :) To take a trivial example, the Uniform Code of Military Justice in the US has penalties for adultery, although I'm not enough of an expert to make the distinction of whether it proclaims it "illegal," which is an oft-misused term. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection