# The LW deserves to win the "Culture War" all the way, once and for all **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 16, 2008, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265 "2008-10-16T20:52:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2008, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/81 "2008-10-18T20:01:56Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Again, totally disagree. If a parent feels the need to have religious education for their kids they have the right to either home school or send their kids to a private religious school. Too bad no one tolds the California State Supreme Court that. With the most left-wing state court deciding to outlaw home schooling and private schools available only to the wealthy (in most cases), we can’t cop out from the debate in that manner. It is as **kolga** said in her response to me. Children are forced by law to attend public schools. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2008, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/82 "2008-10-18T20:18:30Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Too bad no one tolds the California State Supreme Court that. With the most left-wing state court deciding to outlaw home schooling and private schools available only to the wealthy (in most cases), we can’t cop out from the debate in that manner. It is as **kolga** said in her response to me. Children are forced by law to attend public schools. You haven’t answered the question about why you’d want the public schools to instill your values for you. Wouldn’t that be best done by you? It’s ironic to me, considering the derision usually poured upon teachers’ ability to teach actual academic subjects, that people would then turn around and want to entrust us with this task. I’m sure you don’t want me imparting my personal values, and you’d be hard pressed to get anyone to agree on whose religion and values I should be teaching. No, teaching about religion in any way other than strictly academic/objective surveys of world religions as relevant to history or literature should be the province of parents, not public school teachers. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2008, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/83 "2008-10-18T20:23:31Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Too bad no one tolds the California State Supreme Court that. With the most left-wing state court deciding to outlaw home schooling and private schools available only to the wealthy (in most cases), we can’t cop out from the debate in that manner. It is as **kolga** said in her response to me. Children are forced by law to attend public schools. Cite that the California State Supreme Court was involved in any such decision? Indeed, cite that anyone has actually been barred from homeschooling their children? I assume [this](http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20080808-0938-bn08home.html) is what you are referring to, but it doesn’t actually say quite what you are making it out to. And while I think it would be a bad thing if students were forced to attend public school, I don’t think the fact that public schools fail to provide religious education enters into it, any more than the fact that public schools fail to provide grocery services or computer repair. That’s not what public school is for, but public school is also not standing in the way of your access to them. You can go elsewhere for any of those things. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2008, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/84 "2008-10-18T20:32:35Z")
That is to say, no one’s proposing to bar children from attending religious education programs elsewhere in addition to the education they receive in public school (children are free to spend their extracurricular time on whatever activities they like). Taxpayers just won’t foot the bill for it. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2008, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/85 "2008-10-18T20:40:51Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Children are forced by law to attend public schools. Did they outlaw private schools also? ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2008, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/86 "2008-10-18T20:46:40Z")
No, but private schools cost money, to an extent that some can’t afford them. Of course, the only reason public schools generally don’t cost money is because they are subsidized by taxes. Presumably, the argument to be made is that there is good reason to require taxpayers to subsidize science education, math education, English education, etc., but there is no legitimate reason to force them to subsidize religious education, though students remain free to obtain such education on their own. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/87 "2008-10-19T04:37:48Z")
Y’know, I just can’t cede reasonableness to the right on the abortion issue. I just don’t think it’s there. They want to force women to bear children against their will. It’s a tough decision to have to make, and the right wants to make it for them. I’m sorry, there’s not one jot, tittle or iota of reasonableness there. The RW is completely in the wrong here, as completely in the wrong as they are on the subject of creationism and gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/88 "2008-10-19T04:59:26Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > They want to force women to bear children against their will. Yeah, but so do I, in certain circumstances. Namely, if a pregnant woman reaches, say, the third trimester carrying a viable, healthy fetus, and then changes her mind about wanting to continue the pregnancy, I do not agree that she should be allowed to have an abortion, unless her life or health is threatened. On the other hand, I completely oppose any restrictions on any woman’s right to choose an abortion for any reason whatever throughout, say, the first trimester. I think that human personhood is something that develops gradually in prenatal development; an embryo is not a person but a newborn baby is, and I don’t think that transition to personhood happened all at once at the moment of birth. Therefore, I think it’s fair to argue that the fetus gradually develops human rights which at some point outweigh the mother’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. The difference between my view and that of “pro-life” people is that they think the transition to personhood happens all at once at the moment of conception. I think that’s kind of silly, but then they probably think my view is silly. And if you think both views are silly, then where do you draw the line determining when it stops being okay to kill a developing human being? At the onset of labor? When the infant exits the birth canal? At the start of toilet training? When? All restrictions on abortion are to some extent arbitrary and depend on intrinsically subjective notions about personhood and rights. All of them end up forcing at least some women to bear children at least briefly against their will. But if we have no restrictions on abortion at all, then how do we draw the line in such a way as to exclude the killing of actual babies? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/89 "2008-10-19T13:00:57Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > The difference between my view and that of “pro-life” people is that they think the transition to personhood happens all at once at the moment of conception. I think that’s kind of silly, but then they probably think my view is silly. And if you think both views are silly, then where do you draw the line determining when it stops being okay to kill a developing human being? At the most, you draw it where it’s POSSIBLE for the “developing human being” to be an actual person - which is nowhere near conception. The third trimester is a conservative to put the line; and science understands the brain and mind better, it’ll probably be moved much farther along. The fact is, the “pro-lifer” view is NOT equally valid. They can call a fertilized cell a person; but either it **isn’t** a person, or you’ve just redefined “person” as something that isn’t deserving of a right to live. Insisting that a mindless bit of flesh is the equal of a full fledged human being won’t make it true. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/90 "2008-10-19T16:51:25Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yeah, but so do I, in certain circumstances. Namely, if a pregnant woman reaches, say, the third trimester carrying a viable, healthy fetus, and then changes her mind about wanting to continue the pregnancy, I do not agree that she should be allowed to have an abortion, unless her life or health is threatened. **Kimstu** , you’re smarter than that. We need laws specifically prohibiting whimsical third trimester abortions about as much as we need laws specifically prohibiting indoor cooking with a flamethrower. [1.1% of abortions occur after the 20th week of pregnancy.](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html) Late-term abortion is a bugaboo. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/91 "2008-10-19T17:28:00Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Many parents want their kids to be raised in a fully secular environment. When we insert religion into the public schools, we make that impossible. No it does not. I said that I supported voluntary religious education classes. If you wanted your child raised in a fully secular environment, you just wouldn’t enroll your children in those classes. Simples as that. > [@](#): > > The facilities for religious education already exist in abundance. Churches, synagogues, mosques are everywhere, and are more than happy to assist parents in these matters. This argument is akin to saying, “Why should schools teach history, when museums already exist is abundance?” or, “Why should schools teach reading; libraries are happy to assist parents in these matters?” Schools are the central venues of formal education, and as such they form most a child’s understanding of what education is. Relegating religious education to venues outside of school naturally implies that religious education is a second-class type of education, less important than knowing the capital of Ghana and the quadratic education. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/92 "2008-10-19T17:32:22Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > No it does not. I said that I supported voluntary religious education classes. If you wanted your child raised in a fully secular environment, you just wouldn’t enroll your children in those classes. Simples as that. Which religions will be taught? All of them? Clearly not possible, so who decides? Who will pay for those teachers? Education is rife with unfunded mandates as it is. > [@](#): > > Relegating religious education to venues outside of school naturally implies that religious education is a second-class type of education, less important than knowing the capital of Ghana and the quadratic education. No, it implies that religion is a private, family issue and is best imparted by family members and organizations designed to serve that purpose. Conservatives don’t want teachers teaching sex ed in schools because it relates to their values, but DO want them to teach religion? Doesn’t that seem contradictory to you? ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/93 "2008-10-19T17:33:45Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > This argument is akin to saying, “Why should schools teach history, when museums already exist is abundance?” or, “Why should schools teach reading; libraries are happy to assist parents in these matters?” No, it’s not. Everyone needs to know history, and how to read. Not everyone needs religious education. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/94 "2008-10-19T17:41:30Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > So your position is a simple “majority rules”? Do you believe that you would still feel that way if you were not a part of the majority? On these issues, yes. There’s a name for the type of government that responds to what the majority of the voters desire. It’s called “democracy”. Liberals may note that our party is called “The Democratic Party”. Democracy, democratic. I don’t think the similarity between the two words is entirely a coincidence. > [@](#): > > Actually, we all do. We live in our homes. That is \*our \*space. The rest of the world is a space that we have to share with \*other \*people. Not all of them agree with you, and sometimes you won’t get your way. Life’s tough like that. And sometimes I will get my way. As a guideline, it should happen whenever my way is the way of 51% or more of the voters. > [@](#): > > I’m fine with a porn shop next door, but I don’t want a cross in my local park. Why does your right to free speech supersede my right to a cross-free park, but mine doesn’t supersede your right to a porn-free neighborhood? Okay, I give up. Why do you think that my right to free speech supersedes your right to a cross-free park, but yours doesn’t supersede my right to a porn-free neighborhood? Moreover, why do you–if I understand it correctly–think that the voters should not have any say in either issue. Look, we liberals are not property rights extremists. If we were, we’d be voting for Bob Barr rather than Barack Obama. We understand that the idea of living on our own property and ignoring what happens elsewhere in untenable. If companies pollute the waterways, that’s everybody’s problem, even if it doesn’t happen on our property. Greenhouse gas emissions are everybody’s problem, even if it doesn’t happen on our property. Extreme poverty, warrantless wiretapping, torture, fifty million uninsured Americans,… Those are everybody’s problem, even if they don’t happen on our property. Who decides whether garbage gets dumped in our rivers? It’s the people, not a handful of corporate executives. So who should decide whether garbage gets dumped in our arts and culture? It’s the people, not a handful of corporate executives. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/95 "2008-10-19T17:55:27Z")
“Democracy” does not mean “mob rule”. I don’t know about this “we liberals” you’re throwing around here, because \*this \*liberal believes that one of the primary purposes of law and government is to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/96 "2008-10-19T18:20:34Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Let me get this straight: the government regulating things that could potentially kill people is not okay. But if the material in question causes boners instead of tumors, then you have no problem with the government stepping in and telling people how to live their lives? > > How on Earth do you reconcile those two positions? Easily. My position on pornography laws has nothing to do personal decisions. I’m okay with people using it in their own homes, and I would vote against any attempt to ban it in order to protect people from themselves. My position comes from it’s effect on others and the community at large. A porn shop or strip club, placed publicly where people can’t avoid seeing it, degrades morality, destroys a sense of community, informs women that many men view them as nothing more than sex toys, and exposes children to sexual material before they’re ready to deal with it. By contrast, a restraunt’s choice of cooking oils affects no one except the people who choose to eat there. Hence it is not a community issue. As for the “could potentially kill people”, I don’t care. Everybody dies eventually. Why should the government take on itself the right to stretch everybody’s life to the maximum possible length? Individuals should get to choose what tradeoffs they make. If I’m willing to enjoy good food and lose a few years in exchange, that’s my business. (I am okay with reasonable restrictions, such as banning lead is gasoline. But I oppose anything that seriously restricts people’s enjoyment of life.) Furthermore, unhealthy food and alcohol and cigarettes are not merely physical pleasures. They can serve a positive purpose, by helping people feel comfortable and get along with each other. In _What is Wrong with the World_, Chesterton suggests that they’re almost a necessity for a successful social event. Can you imagine a party with no food, no drinks, and no smoking? Hence restrictions on those things are restrictions of community life. By contrast, pornography makes no positive contribution to society. Individuals typically use it alone and get a few seconds of physical pleasure followed by a long period of guilt, shame, or loneliness. (And sometimes a need to change underpants.) ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/97 "2008-10-19T18:26:49Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > A porn shop or strip club, placed publicly where people can’t avoid seeing it, degrades morality, destroys a sense of community, informs women that many men view them as nothing more than sex toys, and exposes children to sexual material before they’re ready to deal with it. Do you have a cite for this claim? As I mentioned before, there is a sex shop right in the midst of our downtown shopping area, and it has never caused a problem. It’s quite discreet, but everyone knows what it is. It’s just another business among many. I don’t see how the mere presence of a store that says “Adult Books and Video” destroys a sense of community or degrades morality. Don’t like porn? Don’t go inside. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/98 "2008-10-19T18:45:13Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > My position on pornography laws has nothing to do personal decisions. I’m okay with people using it in their own homes, and I would vote against any attempt to ban it in order to protect people from themselves. So it’s okay for people to _have_ it, but it’s not okay for people to _get_ it? > [@](#): > > My position comes from it’s effect on others and the community at large. A porn shop or strip club, placed publicly where people can’t avoid seeing it, degrades morality, destroys a sense of community, informs women that many men view them as nothing more than sex toys, and exposes children to sexual material before they’re ready to deal with it. How does a porn shop degrade morality? I’ve walked past many a porn shop. I’ve patronized more than a few. I have not, by that experience, been turned into a thief, a liar, a cheat, or anything else that could remotely be considered “immoral,” unless your definition of immoral includes a massive guilt complex about your sexuality. Mine, I am happy to say, does not. I’m not sure how to respond to the idea that a porn shop destroys a “sense of community,” because I’m not sure what that even means. The blather about porn degrading women is the standard heteronormative bullshit you always get from right-wing morality crusaders. The last porn store I was in didn’t have any women at all in it. Is that still degrading to women, or should I take away the message that some men view me as nothing more than a sex toy? Also, where can I find these men? I mean, yeah, some men do view women as objects. Women don’t need to see a porn store to know this, they just have to know a sufficiently large sample of men. And that sample is not going to be found solely in the confines of a smut shop. There are as many feminists in porn stores as there are misogynists in church. Lastly, we have the traditional wail of “what about the children?” Well, what about them? How does the knowledge that there’s such a thing as sex harm a child in any conceivable manner? I’ve truly never understood this one. A child walks past a store that has it’s windows blocked out, and a neon sign that says, “Live Nude Girls.” There’s maybe a picture of a scantily clad woman involved. And the catastrophic effect of this vision on the child is what, exactly? > [@](#): > > As for the “could potentially kill people”, I don’t care. Everybody dies eventually. Why should the government take on itself the right to stretch everybody’s life to the maximum possible length? Individuals should get to choose what tradeoffs they make. If I’m willing to enjoy good food and lose a few years in exchange, that’s my business. Because, at the very least, the negative effects of bad food and drugs are scientifically provable. The negative effects of pornography are purely ideological. You’re opposed to banning stuff that you know can kill people, but are all fired up about banning stuff that you think should make them feel bad. That’s patently absurd, and a violent misuse of the purposes of government. > [@](#): > > (I am okay with reasonable restrictions, such as banning lead is gasoline. But I oppose anything that seriously restricts people’s enjoyment of life.) Unless said enjoyment is in any way related to their genitals, apparently. Because banning strip clubs would be a pretty serious restriction on _my_ enjoyment of life. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, unhealthy food and alcohol and cigarettes are not merely physical pleasures. They can serve a positive purpose, by helping people feel comfortable and get along with each other. In _What is Wrong with the World_, Chesterton suggests that they’re almost a necessity for a successful social event. Can you imagine a party with no food, no drinks, and no smoking? Hence restrictions on those things are restrictions of community life. > > By contrast, pornography makes no positive contribution to society. Individuals typically use it alone and get a few seconds of physical pleasure followed by a long period of guilt, shame, or loneliness. (And sometimes a need to change underpants.) That last paragraph is truly one of the saddest things I’ve read here. The guilt, shame, and loneliness isn’t caused by the porn, **ITR**. It’s caused by your own deeply unhealthy relationship with your own sexuality. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/99 "2008-10-19T18:48:59Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > This argument is akin to saying, “Why should schools teach history, when museums already exist is abundance?” or, “Why should schools teach reading; libraries are happy to assist parents in these matters?” Schools are the central venues of formal education, and as such they form most a child’s understanding of what education is. Relegating religious education to venues outside of school naturally implies that religious education is a second-class type of education, less important than knowing the capital of Ghana and the quadratic education. Hate to break it to you, but having optional religious classes is _also_ implying that religious education is less important than the mandatory classes like math, science, history, and so forth. If religious instruction is really as important as all the rest, you ought to be agitating for compulsory religious education in all schools. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2008, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265/100 "2008-10-19T19:56:49Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > The blather about porn degrading women is the standard heteronormative bullshit you always get from right-wing morality crusaders. Sorry, that should be _left_ wing blather, not right wing. The right wing has it’s own brand of anti-sex blather, adequately encapsulated in the rest of your arguments. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lw-deserves-to-win-the-culture-war-all-the-way-once-and-for-all/468265.md?page=6)