Liberalism, Homosexuality and other Sexual Behaviour
Written by Tim Heydon
Two Recent Court Cases
Two recent court cases raise an interesting question. Given the liberal consensus about freedom and sex, why were they ever brought?
The first involved a 32-year old Californian woman who had sex with her 16-year old son. The Daily Mail (22nd June) reported that the two had not seen each other for 15 years. When they were reunited, they felt a mutual attraction and engaged in sex activity.
The second concerns a Gloucester man who the Independent of 28th June reported was found guilty of having sex with his ex-wife’s female bull mastiff.
Disgust is the Basis of the Law
The fundamental reason why these acts remain illegal notwithstanding the prevailing sexual free-for-all is, however else it is dressed up, quite simply that people find the idea of them disgusting. It is natural to be repelled by the idea of having sex with animals. Why? Because humans are no different from other animals who instinctively breed only with their own kind.
Homosexual Acts were also illegal because of Public Disgust
Homosexual acts were once illegal in this country for the same fundamental reason as bestiality, incest and other sexual perversions still are – disgust. And it is disgust that has always been at the root of religious objections to it.
Why Sheep Shagger and ‘Wanker are Insults
The repulsion we feel about the idea of having sexual activity with a dog or any other animal or anything else except another human of the opposite sex who is willing and capable of it has arisen in the human animal as part of an evolutionary strategy ‘designed’ to prevent us wasting our energies in sexually useless behaviour, ie behaviour which may not or cannot result in viable offspring.
Why Mother Fucker is an Insult
The same applies to having sex with your father or mother. This rarely occurs in normal family circumstances because of the process called ‘reverse imprinting’. Evolution has produced this reaction of repulsion at the very idea in order to avoid inbreeding with all the birth defects it can produce. Of course, the fact that it only arises within the limits of a stable social arrangement best achieved by the traditional family is one excellent confirmation (among many others) of the necessity of this institution.
Classical Liberalism and Sexual Aberrations
Now classical liberalism has it that personal freedom should be untrammelled save only if others are hurt by one’s behaviour. So if this is accepted, in what way are others directly hurt by the sexual perversions noted above behaviour of the individuals concerned?
The answer, of course is: not at all. Private sexual behaviour like this hurts no one except the individuals concerned, not even the dog which quite possibly enjoyed the experience.
It could reasonably be argued that it is the possibility of congenitally deformed offspring which represents ‘hurting others’ in the case of incest. However, the advent of widely available contraceptive devices has scotched such arguments. If Homosexual Acts are now Legal, why not the other Perversions also?
The question arises; why, if Homosexual acts are now legal are other sexual perversions still illegal? There can be no real answer to that. Homosexuality became legal because of vocal opposition to its criminalisation by the homosexual lobby.
In an era of growing individualism and leftist demands for ‘equality’, public disgust and religious objections alone were not thought sufficient reason to criminalise behaviour which (it was argued) hurt no one. And the same reasoning must apply to these other sexual activities, even in the absence of lobbies for them.
The Logical Conclusion of Liberalism and Sex
Classical liberalism though takes the view that if indulging in homosexuality, bestiality, incest and so forth inflicts hurt on others then according its teaching this is what must be avoided. And these activities do cause distress. The hurt includes the repulsion most people feel who witness it.
Classical liberalism generally also teaches the utilitarian rule or some variation thereof that what is desirable is the greatest happiness of the greatest number. According to this rule it is the distress of the majority which must take precedence over the distress those who are exclusively homosexual and those others who are aberrant sexually (totalling probably just a few per cent of the population), no doubt feel witnessing heterosexual behaviour.
Given the above, a reasonable outcome of the necessity to two freedoms – the freedom to indulge in whatever sexual activities turn you on and the freedom to be free of having to witness those that are repulsive, is that sexual aberrations should be tolerated if carried on in private.
Freedom also demands that those who disapprove of exhibitions of aberrant sexual behaviour should be free to conduct themselves accordingly within the limits of the ordinary law.
The Oppression of Left-Liberalism. Equal Treatment for the vilest Perversions
While classical liberalism seems now to be the key to a civilised approach to sexual behaviour and has much to be said for it in other areas of life, left-liberalism’s insistence that ‘equality’ trumps freedom seems to lead to another conclusion.
Given that liberalism leads to toleration of such activities as incest and bestiality, there is no good reason why left-liberalism should not eventually demand that sex with a bull mastiff or one’s mother or father be given the equal treatment that it already demands we show to homosexuals.
And in time it will be, if left-liberalism is allowed to take its course. This is what happens when a totalitarian ideology tries to treat human nature either as non existent or as something that can and should be dismissed or ‘perfected’ as ‘uncivilised’ and unworthy of rational beings. Once a principle is conceded, in this case that ‘equality’ trumps majority attitudes about sexual activity, what is to stop the slide into this abyss?
True tyranny is the Oppression by a Minority of a Majority
It is the inevitable Left-liberal demand that we treat all the sexual behaviours mentioned above as well as homosexual behaviour with equal esteem both privately and publically that is so offensive and oppressive.
Like so much else in Cultural Marxism, it spits in the face of nature and whilst championing the freedoms of minorities tramples all over those of the majority, using a rigged political system and its domination of the media and other institutions to do so.
This is tyranny in its true sense; tyranny by minority.
But you cannot legislate human nature out of existence. Sure, some aspects of it must be controlled, but generally speaking the further you get from what is natural, the unhappier and unhealthier society is likely to be. And as the Roman poet Horace said; ‘Naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret’
‘You may drive out nature with a pitchfork, yet she’ll be constantly running back’.