Neocons trump up an apocalyptic "War on Terror" designed to enable incumbent interests to centralize control and loot resources -- not to mention, distract attention from environmental disaster the remediative politics of which profoundly threaten their position -- and that rhetorically claims to defend "Democracy" while dismantling the rule of law and civil liberties on which democracy actually depends, all the while activating deep ugly irrational racism to set the tyrannical machineries in motion.
Biocons trump up an apocalyptic "War on Nature" designed to enable incumbent interests to maintain control over diversifying networked multiculture, and that rhetorically claims to defend "Dignity" while dismantling the scene of legible informed nonduressed consent on which dignity actually depends, all the while activating deep ugly irrational sexism and homophobia to set the tyrannical machineries in motion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I admit I haven't been following this whole exchange, and the question never occurred to me before reading your succinct summary... But how is homosexuality justified as unnatural in the biocon world if NOT an appeal to a judeo-christian god? I know I've seen the cherry-picking of evolutionary studies that supports the sexism, but I've never noticed an argument other than an appeal to religion when it comes to the "argument" against the Gay.
The John Howard brand of bioconservatism doesn't declaim the unnaturalness of homosexuality per se, but of "same-sex conception" through means of "genetic engineering". It is indeed true that such an argument leads him to advocate a Nature-based normative view of heterosexuality in terms of procreation, but I don't think he finds the pleasurable act of both (or any) kind of sexuality inherently unnatural.
Then again, if I read him correctly, for his appraisal of heterosexual conception as the only "natural" template to hold, he has to argue against the "wanted" conception of human being as such, even through essentially heterosexual means. Natural spontaneity or randomness seems to be the encompassing moral canvas against which all deviations necessitate Teh ban.
I admit I find it hard to follow his logic past a certain point. Or rather, I don't see why his template of procreation should inform general legislation. But that's a beef to be had with many a conservative.
I stopped following his, er, logic when all the stuff came up about sperms and eggs being somehow sentient and capable of mutually "deciding" to join together and become a person. On the scale of How Babies Are Made stories, that one rates right up there near "the stork brings them".
Seriously? That was an argument he actually made? I'm suddenly glad I haven't had the chance to read these exchanges in full!
A guy at a conference last week gave an argument sort of like that - the audience ripped him apart. I almost felt bad for him - it's got to be a weird world when you believe eggs and sperm have teleologies on their own and are "meant" to be united.
Boggling.
Post a Comment