This essay should provide some context for our usual evolution vs. creationism discussions. Those who have an irrational revulsion for science — especially the theory of evolution — are very often the same people who are obsessed with what we call the Carnality Issues. These issues are usually included within contemporary political terms such as family values and social conservatism.
This isn’t a complete list of the Carnality Issues, but it should give you a good idea of what we’re talking about: pornography, homosexuality, pre-marital relations, contraception, same-sex marriage, sex education, and abortion (the early-term type). We often think of anti-carnality activists as the in-your-underwear faction, because that describes the focus of their concerns. They’re obsessed with regulating the “proper” use of human genitalia.
The politics of creationists — the anti-evolution activists — are very often entwined with the politics of the anti-carnality, in-your-underwear activists. That is why, when opposing creationism, we often find ourselves being accused (wrongly) of having exotic sympathies regarding the Carnality Issues. To avoid being misunderstood in such a bizarre political environment, it’s necessary, at least this once, to discuss all these issues together — perhaps alienating everyone thereby, but we’re used to that.
Please bear in mind that the opponents of both creationism and the Carnality Issues, although seeming to be the sensible people, are often crazy in other ways. This may offend some of our faithful readers, but there’s a lot of indefensible dogma in some of their issues, such as socialism, welfare statism, fanatical environmentalism, income redistributionism, compulsory unionism, economic protectionism, confiscatory tax rates, military defeatism, isolationism, political tribalism, refusal to build nuclear power plants, etc. So don’t imagine that all the nut-cases are lumped together in the anti-evolution, in-your-underwear camp. There are abundant examples of lunacy on both sides. It’s no wonder that we’ve become a Curmudgeon.
So where do we fit in regarding the Carnality Issues? We are very conservative, stuffy, and judgmental. In fact, we’re hopelessly conventional and boring in such matters. Nevertheless, although the thought of what some people do in this arena makes us want to throw up, we believe that it’s wrong to legislate about voluntary adult behavior. Think of it as being cautiously — perhaps even reluctantly — libertarian in that area. We’re not done thinking about this, but it may be that we’re calling for separation of carnality and state.
We know — the in-your-underwear crowd will find this shocking. If we take those issues off the table, they feel that we’ve taken away their entire political platform. Maybe so, but if that’s all they care about, our opinion is that they don’t belong in politics.
As we explained here: Intro, and here: Our Politics, we don’t care what you think or do, or how peculiar you are. It’s none of our business, as long as you don’t injure others. Injuring yourself is your problem, not ours.
Regarding the Carnality Issues, we advocate only these rules, which should, like all laws, apply to everyone: Keep it private; keep it voluntary; don’t involve children; and pay your own expenses — including your medical bills.
That’s not so difficult, is it? You may lie awake at night, wondering what your neighbors are doing behind closed doors, but our advice is to stop worrying about it. And if you can’t stop, at least don’t go out campaigning for the establishment of a municipal sex patrol. Some day they may come for you.
Oh, we have one more rule: Don’t compel others to subsidize you, do business with you, hire you, rent to you, or have anything to do with you. Be free, but accept the consequences of your actions. That’s the price we demand for our tolerance. Don’t forget: It’s not just about you. We’re free too, and if we don’t want to associate with you, that’s our right.
Some of you are still wondering — Are we proposing this libertarian regime in order to gain some freedom for our own conduct? No, not at all. Our conduct is rather exemplary (he modestly said). We propose this because we can’t stand the politics of these issues. It makes hypocrites of half our politicians, and fools of all.
Okay, we’ve said what we had to say. Now where does that leave us? Our point is simply this — when we oppose creationism, it’s strictly because of the science involved. We have no interest as to what’s happening in your underwear, and we’d appreciate it if you’d stay out of ours.
Copyright © 2008. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
As you know, I disagree with you on a number of accounts, but I appreciate your openness and your expression of rationality, something found missing in most potentially politically charged conversations.
As for what’s in your underwear, that’s one ikky noodly appendage I want nothing to do with, even if you can do the elephant.
“I want nothing to do with …”
Yeah, right.
“Don’t compel others to subsidize you, do business with you, hire you, rent to you, or have anything to do with you.”
Where do you draw the line on the middle three (business, hire, rent)? Or do you? If there are no restraints on denying someone food, shelter, or work because you don’t like their ideology, you can quickly deprive an unpopular citizen of their life.
Your idea is workable in a society where everyone is self-sufficient, but in real U.S. society, doesn’t this essentially allow the exile of anyone of whom the community disapproves? Maybe you’re good with that, but IMO that would be an ironic (and disapponting) outcome for a nation founded by people who didn’t want to be persecuted by the larger community for their religious beliefs.
“Your idea is workable in a society where everyone is self-sufficient, but …”
Unpopular people have lots of options. They can start their own business, or get hired by sympathetic people, rent apartments in buildings managed by friends, etc. Even former terrorists have successful careers in the US.
“Even former terrorists have successful careers in the US.”
Well, terrorists really don’t have the same problem of opportunity that many are born into because of their heritage, their problems are self made.
Your ideas make sense in a culture where everyone born starts out with the same opportunities which simply isn’t true of ours.
In many cases, small concessions to ‘a helping hand up’ are attempts to equal the playing field, not hand out advantages.
Was the US not set up to make sure everybody was born with the same opportunities and minorities are not subject to the oppression of the majority?
Speak English? Who me?
“Was the US not set up to make sure everybody was born with the same opportunities …”
Sure. No problem. If someone is having difficulties, you can be as charitable as you like. There’s no shortage of that. I wrote: “Don’t compel others to subsidize you …”
Surely, it’s obvious that the use of force contradicts the concept of charity.
Hey, Curmy, you left out interspecies sex, you know, one comes to mind, Miss Piggy……
A man needs to have some vices!
Great essay.
Government (in a free society) isn’t in the “Political Correctness Opinion Enforcement” business — its function is to protect the equal rights of citizens from forcible/fraudulent violation.
And while government should not act in an unjustifiably discriminatory or prejudicial manner against citizens based on a person’s “Quirky Carnality,” it has no business regulating such behavior on the part of private citizens any more than it has any business regulating “Quirky Carnality” in the first place.
If Left Handed Lesbians with a Lisp have a right to organize a club or business whose membership/employment is exclusive to same, it logically follows that other private citizens and businesses have an equal right to exclude them from their homes, businesses, accommodations, and employment. The Right of Free Association means nothing if it does not include the Right to Not Associate.
In short, tolerance demands reciprocity.
Longie, your insensitivity is showing. That’s what we like about you.
Curmudgeon: “Unpopular people have lots of options. They can start their own business, or get hired by sympathetic people, rent apartments in buildings managed by friends, etc. Even former terrorists have successful careers in the US.”
So, you’d be okay with all ISP’s banning you from internet access or writing on the web because you are conservative?
See, that sort of “freedom” sounds more like China to me.
eric says:
eric, freedom is a two-way street. Not only are you free, but so am I. If you want nothing to do with me, that’s up do you. It would be tyrannical if you were forced to put up with me. And vice versa.
As for ISPs banning me, if that’s their voluntary decision, okay. But there’d be a market for opinions like mine that some imaginative ISP would exploit, so I’d find a way. If not, I could start my own ISP and then I’d exploit that market.
Are you going to lay your own cable too? Build your own cell towers? Telecommunications markets are very limited markets; 3-4 companies probably control your local area. This is not a lot of competition should they decide they don’t like you.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. There are times when the free choice of the community will be to restrict the free choice of the individual. We recognize this as obvious in law enforcement and civil order, but its also true economically. Like in law enforcement, I have no conceptual problem with rules that limit when and where the community can put restrictions on the free choice of the individual. (Though like anyone, I may have a problem with specific rules.)
I think there need to be social norms. Do they need the sanction of government. Well… it’s a tough call, I think.
For example, should an adult brother and sister be allowed to have sex, or get married? Well, they’re not hurting you; and if you’re worried about birth defects, then why don’t you require ALL couples to be checked for potential birth defects before you allow them to marry? It’s because incest is icky, that’s why. Do you want to try to live in the kind of society where children can think of their siblings as potential mates? Do you think the family unit can survive sexual jealousy?
One day I saw a little girl, about eight or nine, wearing low cut jeans with a thong sticking out.
She was out with her father.
Okay, did this break my leg or pick my pocket? No. So why did I want to tar and feather the parents who bought her thong?
Because it is icky to sexualize little girls. Do I want the government regulating thongs? No, of course not. But we already tried NOT letting the government regulate thongs and look what happened.
Sometimes getting the government involved can push the social norms in they way they ought to go.
Most of the time I’m not inclined to listen to the social conservatives, but I am glad they are there.
Gabriel Hanna says: “I think there need to be social norms. Do they need the sanction of government. Well… it’s a tough call, I think.”
If it were easy, like traffic lights, there would be no debates and we’d be thinking about other things.