Eagle Forum Legislative Alerts

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Playboy complains about dehumanization

Hugh Hefner has expanded the Playboy Philosophy with this magazine editorial:
In 1965 Indiana police arrested Charles Cotner and charged him with an “abominable and detestable crime against nature.” ...

The forces that put Charles Cotner in jail are the same forces at work right now. If you want a perfect example, take a look at the controversy that continues to dog the rights of gay men and women to marry. The fight for gay marriage is, in reality, a fight for all of our rights. Without it, we will turn back the sexual revolution and return to an earlier, puritanical time. ...

I thought of Charles Cotner and wondered how much time we have left before we lose all the advances of the sexual revolution. ...

Today, in every instance of sexual rights falling under attack, you’ll find legislation forced into place by people who practice discrimination disguised as religious freedom. Their goal is to dehumanize everyone’s sexuality and reduce us to using sex for the sole purpose of perpetuating our species. To that end, they will criminalize your entire sex life. ...
Really? No gay marriage and we will "return to an earlier, puritanical time"? There is no chance of that. Today, most 14-year-old kids have watched hard-cord porn movies on the internet and sexual promiscuity is celebrated. Just what "advances of the sexual revolution" are in danger of being lost?

I thought that it was the Playboy Philosophy whose "goal is to dehumanize everyone’s sexuality". The first online comment says, "By the end of this article I found my self going, YES! and cheering, then I realized I was alone in my room." Okay, I get it. Funny. Playboy promotes impersonal fantasizing, not humanizing.

I never heard of anyone seeking legislation to "criminalize your entire sex life" or to "reduce us to using sex for the sole purpose of perpetuating our species." No one is practicing discrimination disguised as religious freedom.

In spite of Hefner's hypocritical paranoid nuttiness, his editorial has been strongly praised on the Left. The Daily Kos writes:
You may not be a fan of Playboy, but you gotta love what Hugh Hefner has written. ... I'm usually curious about the story behind a story,...

Cotner thought he was going to hire his own attorney, so when he was arraigned he refused a court-appointed attorney. His wife had told him that she was dropping the charges before his second appearance, and asked the court, "My wife changed it didn't she? She said she was going to drop the charge." The judge answered Cotner by saying, "Well, your wife hasn't any right to change anything. The State of Indiana is the Plaintiff and not your wife." Suddenly an argument between a husband and wife in the privacy of their own home, had turned into a criminal case against the husband with the full weight of the State of Indiana against him.
Hefner helped obtain Cotner's release by arguing that the state should not be interfering in private marital relations.

But the movement to require the state to interfere with private marital relations is coming almost entirely from the Left, not the Right.

Phyllis Schlafly's current column tells the story of a modern Charles Cotner in liberal San Francisco:
Mirkarimi’s wife, Eliana Lopez, never made any complaint and she publicly defended her husband. She is an intelligent adult, a former Venezuelan telenovela star, who is perfectly able to make her own decisions.

At Mirkarimi’s arraignment, Lopez declined to paint herself as a domestic violence victim. She told the judge, “This is unbelievable. I don’t have any complaint against my husband.”

Lopez added, “This country is trying to pull my family apart. This is the real violence, I believe.” She made a written statement saying that the episode was “completely taken out of context.”

Outside the court, Lopez told reporters that “this country has not allowed me to work on my marriage in a healthy way. I feel like … everybody is using my family, myself, in a political game just to destroy Ross. … This country is destroying my family.”
Mirkarimi did not commit any crimes against nature like Cotner, but the state is trying to destroy him and his marriage. The whole premise behind VAWA and other domestic violence laws is that wives and girlfriends should not be allowed to drop the charges, and state do-gooders should intervene and bust up the relationships. Pres. Barack Obama and the Democrats are a big supporters of these laws, and the only opposition come from Republicans and Eagle Forum.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Keep comments short. Long comments will be deleted.