I don't usually spent time refuting articles that are so patently stupid and insulting, but this morning's silly screed from Rick
After reading the comments, I was heartened to realize that people of great intelligence and fine writing skills agree with me.
Rick starts off his peon to self-gratification with this startling claim in which I have emphasized the pertinent sentence leading to hundreds of more words in an attempt to back up the goofy claim.
The social conservatives in the Republican Party have a problem with sex and it is going to cost the party dearly in November.
I don’t mean they have a problem with contraception, although many do (conservative men, anyway). Nor am I saying that opposition to pornography is politically problematic, or the criticism of using sex in marketing will lose them votes, or denouncing the prevalence of sex and sexual imagery in music, TV, film, and art is necessarily wrong.
All of the above are used by social conservatives to mask the real problem: their outdated, even primitive, critique of human sexuality that denies both the science and the cultural importance of sex and the sex act.
Anytime someone wants to sound really super smart, they throw out buzzwords like "science" and "cultural importance". Never mind that he doesn't bother to offer up any science or cultural importance data. What "science" is he referring to? I have no idea, and I doubt he does either.
After all, the sort of "if it feels good, do it" approach to sex that Mr. Moran thinks exemplifies what should be the attitude shared by truly educated deep thinkers, has worked so well the past 50 years. Look at the fruits of this progressive approach to sex:
- single mothers left to raise children in poverty
- children having sex at earlier and earlier ages - the town I live in is rife with 14 year old mothers.
- millions of aborted babies
- rampant STD's
- multiple divorce
Which is just another way to bring up the old canard of "you can't legislate morality." Guess what, Mr. Moran? All laws are passed to legislate morality.But why bring what by any definition is a personal moral judgment into the political arena? Why insist that our politicians address what can only be described as an issue for which government is not equipped to deal, let alone has any business discussing in the context of a presidential campaign?
Mr. Moran is free to live his life in any manner he desires. He can have as much sex or as little as he wants. He is even free to write drivel and call it "science." What he is not free to do is make me pay for his view of "morality", which is the total absence of morality regarding sex.
His view burdens society with illegitimate children, disease, divorce, abortion, and ruined lives, all of which costs taxpayers money. Go ahead, Mr. Moran and your ilk; trumpet the cause of "free and plentiful" sex. Just don't ask me to pay for it because then it's no longer "free" - it's just plentiful.
From: Fuzzy Logic:
Hack Wilson has a marvelous rant In Defense of Rick Santorum. Like Hack, I'm sick to death of hearing the mindless hysteria about how Santorum will . . . what? Establish a theocracy? Force people to marry, make sex outside marriage illegal? Engage in "social engineering"?
Let's take that last point and run with it. Exactly what law, act, amendment, government program, or executive order is not, on some level, "social engineering"? The Civil Rights Act? The ObamaCare monstrosity? Welfare? Social Security? MediCare? Food Stamps? The myriad tax laws that reward certain behaviors / lifestyle choices and penalize others? The women's suffrage amendment? The prohibition amendment (and the amendment repealing prohibition)? Heck, what part of the Bill of Rights isn't "social engineering"? Our right to bear arms? Our right to freely express our religion? Our right to free speech? READ THE REST