Skip to main content

Freedom For Bathhouses? Really?

 Well, I guess at least Minneapolis can say ICE stopped killing people long enough for their politicians to return to being utterly frivolous. A Councilman Chavez—fine, I think his name was Jason, leave me alone—wants us to apologize for our “bigoted” past in shutting down bathhouses in the early years of the AIDS crisis. OK, Camera 3.

Pick 1: Either Reagan was insensitive for ignoring a disease that especially ravaged the homosexual community; or 2. We naively pretend that the whole disease and countless others—I’m sorry, “infection”—hit all of us equally. A digression, before I continue: I’m actually glad we were at least a little naive and sentimental about it, because it did kill a lot of people who were conventional but “sexually prolific.”

Anyway, public health can’t afford to be politically correct, man. A doctor should be able to say, “I am not the Inquisition or the police, but this is risky behavior, and if you want to live longer, think about not doing it.”

And listen, I am square and judgy enough to tell men who like women not to stick their penises in anuses, too.

And if you want to know, I don’t think we should legalize prostitution everywhere. I’m sorry; “sex work.” Why? Because just like gambling, bad stuff happens wherever it’s around. I loved Pretty Woman, too. But that’s a movie, right? Like, not real. And let me be precise: when you legalize something, you get more of it. Why? Because a plurality of people are bloody stupid. Everyone thinks they are smart and capable of making the wise decision all the time, but it’s not true. The shaping function of law is for stupid people, who would have no functioning morality at all, were it not handed to them.

Culture, mores, and laws are distinct, but interrelated. They just are. And if you’re asking me, I am natively much more inclined to believe we forgot wisdom in the past, rather than transcended our “bigoted” ancestors. (OK, bigotry did still definitely happen.) 

Sidebar: If I am being honest, I would rather have my bloody soda (with public money) than bathhouses. Funny that: it takes one of Donald Trump’s idiot lackeys—still a Democrat, by the way—for liberals to complain about the “nanny state.” Even so, I would still rather live in my nanny state than yours. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...