Proving yet again that (1) nobody can whine at quite the earsplitting volume as our friends on the Right, and that (2) nothing foxes them quite so profoundly as the concept of "consent," comes this remarkable, pig-snivelling, resentful oink from John Nolte over at Big Dead Bloatbart:
No Media Outrage After Sotomayor 'Compares' Homosexuality to Incest
If you want proof of how vicious the mainstream media is when it comes to punishing black conservatives for daring to be black and conservative, look no further than the media's coordinated attack against the openly conservative Dr. Ben Carson for making the exact same kind of argument about same-sex marriage as Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor did on the exact same day.
You see, Doctor Carson said this:
Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a well-established fundamental pillar of society, and no group -- be they gays, be they NAMBLA [North American Man/Boy Love Association], be they people who believe in bestiality -- no matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition. So it's not something that's against gays; it's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definition of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.
And then noted Plantation Overseers Wolf Blitzer and Andrea Mitchell asked him about it on the teevee -- which was exactly as bad Jim Crow-level discrimination all over again. Though Nolte, bless his charred little heart, invokes a Key Knucklehead Kodicil:
Mitchell and Blitzer are not racists, but they do need to take a step back and realize that, in their zeal to aid and abet the left, they are wielding the same kind of double standards and show-trials of humiliation we saw in the segregated South.
The "not racist" exemption is there because, as is known, the cruelest form or racism that has ever existed occurs when a white person is called a racist. And a civil-rights expert of Nolte's class would never stoop so low, as he is a Gentleman of Honor, suh, and thus precisely as sensitive to such insults as, I don't know, Preston S. Brooks.
But anyhow Nolte says he has PROOF! that the Liberal Mainstream Media are the Real Racists, even if none of the whilte people in it are racists themselves, and Nolte jim-crows this PROOF! to the mountaintops! PREACH IT!
If you want proof that what NBC News and CNN engaged in yesterday was nothing more than an ideological witch hunt against a racial apostate, where was the outrage from this very same media on Tuesday after Justice Sotomayor raised the exact same kind of slippery-slope argument Carson did, herself citing illegal and immoral examples?
Because Sotomayor said:
Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and the child, assuming they are of age -- I can -- I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting the a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?
According to Nolte,
I do not believe Sotomayor compared homosexuality to anything. What she did is what Dr. Carson did: she played devil's advocate about the slippery-slope of what might come next if we open the Pandora's box of changing the definition of marriage. And to make that argument, like Dr. Carson, she used illegal and immoral relationships (not homosexuality) as slippery slope concerns should the definition of marriage be held to include gay marriage.
... which is stupid.
Whether or not Nolte is being wilfully stupid or just plain stupid is immaterial.
Because, you know, consent is a thing, as Sotomayor stresses, with the "assuming they are of age" phrase. Children, as in NAMBLA, are not of age, and beasts, as in beastiality, cannot agree to sex with a person.
This is not a difficult distinction, and so no, Carson and Sotomayor were not saying the same thing. Even "the horror of incest" (Nolte's phrase) between, as specified, among consenting adults does not compare to child rape or squirrel molesting.
Also, too, if you have no moral problem with a particular group of people, you are unlikely to suggest that granting them equal legal rights will lead to unrestricted sex with children. No, really.