Lifestyle Choices Apply only To Sexual Behavior

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bonnie, Feb 15, 2005.

  1. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Lifestyle Choices Apply Only To Sexual Behavior
    By Doug Patton (02/15/05)

    Years ago, after watching a science fiction movie called “Gattaca,” I remember my wife commenting that it was not realistic to think that the film’s characters would be allowed the great sexual freedom depicted while all their other activities were being so closely monitored and restricted. I disagreed. That is exactly the direction we are headed, I told her.

    I have thought for some time that Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” is much closer to reality than George Orwell’s “1984.” I believe the last years of the 20th century and the first few of the 21st have proven me right.

    In “1984,” Winston Smith and his lover, Julia, are forced to meet in clandestine places for fear of discovery by “Big Brother” – the euphemistic term given the repressive, all-intrusive government of “Oceana,” one of the world’s three gargantuan superpowers – which forbids such relationships. No such repression exists in today’s world outside of the 7th century mentality of fanatical Third World Islam.

    In Huxley’s novel, however, procreation has become a function of test tubes, and genetic manipulation has become the order of the day. “Motherhood” has become a dirty word and human beings are viewed as creatable, malleable and disposable. Meanwhile, the recreational misuse of sex and drugs is freely and openly encouraged. That is where we find ourselves today.

    As proof, I offer up the strange cultural dichotomy at work in government and in corporate America. Sexual pleasure has been elevated to a “right,” while other personal freedoms are being eradicated. The silly idea of covering Viagra and other sex-enhancing recreational drugs in the already bloated Medicare prescription drug program is proof that this issue is out of control. Moreover, at a time when some very dangerous personal behaviors are being encouraged and lauded as “lifestyle choices,” others are now deemed worthy of statutory penalty or even cause for dismissal from one’s employment.

    No greater example of this phenomenon exists than the current governmental and corporate attitudes toward homosexual promiscuity and cigarette smoking.
    In recent years, federal, state and local entities have been clamoring to create laws that forbid “discrimination” against individuals who engage in homosexual acts. The most blatant of these actions was the 2003 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court known as “Lawrence vs. Texas,” wherein the court struck down the state’s anti-sodomy laws, thereby creating an individual constitutional “right” to engage in homosexual behavior. This decision has ushered in an onslaught of brazen attempts in various parts of the country – most notably in San Francisco and New York – to challenge the very definition of marriage.

    Meanwhile, governmental authorities have made cigarette smoking increasingly difficult, even as these same bodies collect revenue from the very addicted smokers they are ostracizing.

    But the most blatant hypocrisy in this area is in corporate America. Today, companies large and small are rushing to offer spousal insurance benefits to homosexual couples while telling smokers in their employ that they must quit or face dismissal from their jobs because they are jeopardizing their health and driving up the cost of health insurance. All this, despite the fact that the link between homosexual behavior and AIDS has been well established for more than two decades.

    Now, from New York City, comes news of a promiscuous homosexual carrying a virulent new strain of HIV. This new form of the deadly virus is resistant to all known drug therapies and progresses to full-blown AIDS in a matter of months.

    Those of you in leadership positions in government and in corporate America should consider this new AIDS case very carefully. While you are threatening to hard-working family men and women with pink slips because they smoke a cigarette in the privacy of their own homes, you may be insuring the “domestic partner” of this man with the new strain of AIDS. Or perhaps you are giving benefits to the “significant other” of one of the hundreds of men he has no doubt infected. Put your actuaries to work calculating what that will do to your insurance rates.




    Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor at the federal, state and local levels.


    http://www.americandaily.com/article/6819
     
  2. CivilLiberty
    Offline

    CivilLiberty Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    821
    Thanks Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Hollywood
    Ratings:
    +50
    Jeeze Bonnie, sometimes you post interesting articles, then you post ones from this jackass.

    Huh? What "sexual freedom" in Gattaca? There WAS no sexual freedom there. What the hell is this guy talking about?!?!

    Both BNW and 1984 have their parallels in the modern world, in separate ways. Neither is 100% accurate, both are phobic, and both comment on dystopias where normal human values are set aside.


    This guy needs to RE READ THE BOOK. In 1984, the proletariat are ENCOURAGED to be promiscuous. In fact the government provides ample porn to encourage promiscuous sex amongst the citizens.

    It is the PARTY WORKERS that serve the government that are prohibited from these relationships. And there IS a direct simile to modern culture: The Catholic Priesthood.



    Indeed, Huxley was also prophetic. And his book also paints a dystopia involving the reordering of human society. Here focused more on individual self interest where Orwell was focused on the specter of totalitarian governments.

    We can see both Huxlyisms and Orwellian ideas at work today. In some ways they are not counter to each other, but complimentary in their support of the development of a dystopian world.

    In the meantime this Doug Patton is nothing more than another intolerant bigot.



    Andy
     
  3. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    All of that aside, he makes some good points in the area of there being a double standard in lifestyle choices when it comes sexuality but not something legal like smoking.

    Yes by all means lets push seatbelt laws, but when it comes to the possibility of sexually transmitted disease, well hey what ever???

    And don't say it's matter of insurance costs being different......
     
  4. CivilLiberty
    Offline

    CivilLiberty Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    821
    Thanks Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Hollywood
    Ratings:
    +50

    I don't support seatbelt laws (nanny state/revenue hunting).

    As far as "legal like smoking" what does that have to do with anything?

    Tobacco is more addictive than heroin, and kills more people per capita per user than alcohol, heroine, & cocaine combined times 5.

    Second hand smoke is not as lethal as "they" would have you believe, but I shouldn't have to breath it anymore than we should have to be imperiled by drunk people driving on public roads.

    And yea, I'm a former smoker.


    A
     
  5. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616

    Former smokers are often the most sanctimonious of the non-smokers. (I am not saying that this is you).

    Anyway, where is it that you are forced to breathe cigarette smoke?
     
  6. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Im not a smoker former or otherwise, and I have no problem with people smoking if they choose to. It is legal right now.

    Frankly I don't think governement should have much input in much of our daily lives whether it be seat belt laws or sexual proclivity, but let's make sure there is consistency in freedom of choice.
     
  7. CivilLiberty
    Offline

    CivilLiberty Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    821
    Thanks Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Hollywood
    Ratings:
    +50

    Since I live in California, pretty much no where now, though there are still a few places. The door to my office at WB opens to the patio, and if I leave it open, all the smokers' smoke fills my room. Ick.

    I *do* allow my girlfriends that smoke to smoke in my workshop at home, since there is ample ventilation there...


    A
     
  8. CivilLiberty
    Offline

    CivilLiberty Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    821
    Thanks Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Hollywood
    Ratings:
    +50

    I agree here 100%.

    A
     

Share This Page