“Your children are in deep trouble given your bizzare views. So given your criterea, I guess your ex “Holly” was justified in engaing in beastiality and other infidelities. I guess the the children victimized by pedophile priests are in the wrong and need to put up with having their persons violated by these perverts. I guess you want one big Soddom and Gommorah to prevail. I see through you and other perverts like you and that is this: You want a life of unrestrained immorality with no accountability or consequences. That is what you promote and I’m sure that is what you teach your children…”
Those are a lot of completely unfounded assumptions based on what I actually wrote, the gist of which is that any non-coercive sex acts between consenting adults in private are and should be the business of those adults involved and no one else. Period. I identified dishonesty as the real immoral factor in sexual (or non-sexual) relationships. He reference to Holly is my first wife who cheated on me, and given his take on it, it is obvious that he either didn’t really read what I wrote or, more likely, he saw the words “sex” and “freedom” together and immediately made his assumptions based on his religiously influenced sense of sexual morality.
This is exactly the sort of thing I was speaking out against in the original entry. There is a persistent belief in this society that it is perfectly OK to meddle in other people’s sex lives. We still have laws on the books in most states that outlaws certain sex acts, even between married couples, such as oral sex and anal sex. My point is that society only has a vested interest in the actions of people if, and only if, those actions cause harm to the the persons involved or to others. This is assuming, of course, that they aren’t engaging in these sexual acts in a public place or where they can easily be seen by the public. But that isn’t a sexual issue, that is a disturbing the peace issue.
Some people, like my friend, seem to have a neurotic attitude toward sex. They obviously have the urge and desire, but they are told over and over aging by their priests and ministers that sex is dirty and evil and a sin. My friend is a staunch Catholic, so sex for him, even between married couples, unless for procreation, could be a sin, depending on whose interpretation he listens to. So it is not surprising at all that he would find my stance on sexual freedom to be degenerate. That being so, just because he is deluded into believing this way doesn’t mean that he has the right to tell others how they can conduct their sex lives. Of course, in this case, he just made his displeasure of my beliefs known, and wasn’t directly telling me how to live my life, but this serves as an example of how these type of people think. There are plenty of people like him out there who are more than willing, and feel justified in, telling other people what do to and not to do regarding their private sex lives.
I am against anything that infringes upon the rights of others without clear evidence of public harm. It is said that you can’t legislate morality, and I believe that this is basically true. I also believe that the inverse is true as well; you can’t legislate immorality either.