Now I’d like to discuss a tradition that’s as old as time itself, one that has helped bring order to our society and given its participants the stability vital to the nuclear family. This practice has been the same for generations, and changing it now could endanger not just our values, but our way of life. I’m referring, of course, to cage fighting.
What more fundamental right to do two people of the same sex have than to be sealed into a padded enclosure so that one can beat the other unconscious? Oh sure, no system is perfect, and people are going to get hurt or even killed, but there’s no denying the precedent. This is how people have been legally allowed to injure each other for thousands of years in every culture on Earth! And even if there wasn’t this longstanding tradition of smashing another person’s face in, it’s not for us to judge when consenting adults engage in behavior, even if that behavior includes obscene public violence in front of impressionable youngsters.
Now, I hear what you’re asking. “Isn’t this terribly dangerous, not just for the two people involved, but for their families who get saddled with caring for the injured and the rest of us, helpless spectators of a grotesque blood sport?” The answer is easy: This is what nature intended! To have us resolve our differences, real or imagined, through codified aggression in front of thousands of fans.
Of course, there have to be limits! I’m personally very uncomfortable with the laws in Missouri and Massachusetts that permit kids as young as six to engage in no-holds-barred, child-to-child combat. This doesn’t sit well with me, but I have to respect the fact that child cage-fighting law is primarily a states-rights issue. But I think we can all agree on some restrictions: it just doesn’t seem right to let a man fight a woman, or to let a woman fight a dog! That’s just unnatural, and it hurts more than the two participants; it hurts society.
Of course, this looks like it hurts quite a bit too:
What more fundamental right to do two people of the same sex have than to be sealed into a padded enclosure so that one can beat the other unconscious? Oh sure, no system is perfect, and people are going to get hurt or even killed, but there’s no denying the precedent. This is how people have been legally allowed to injure each other for thousands of years in every culture on Earth! And even if there wasn’t this longstanding tradition of smashing another person’s face in, it’s not for us to judge when consenting adults engage in behavior, even if that behavior includes obscene public violence in front of impressionable youngsters.
Now, I hear what you’re asking. “Isn’t this terribly dangerous, not just for the two people involved, but for their families who get saddled with caring for the injured and the rest of us, helpless spectators of a grotesque blood sport?” The answer is easy: This is what nature intended! To have us resolve our differences, real or imagined, through codified aggression in front of thousands of fans.
Of course, there have to be limits! I’m personally very uncomfortable with the laws in Missouri and Massachusetts that permit kids as young as six to engage in no-holds-barred, child-to-child combat. This doesn’t sit well with me, but I have to respect the fact that child cage-fighting law is primarily a states-rights issue. But I think we can all agree on some restrictions: it just doesn’t seem right to let a man fight a woman, or to let a woman fight a dog! That’s just unnatural, and it hurts more than the two participants; it hurts society.
Of course, this looks like it hurts quite a bit too:
Cage Fighting: Results in thousands of injuries a year, linked to numerous deaths, and legal before gay marriage.
Very important to remember that time-honored tradition part. I mean, surely our founders would've recognized this sort of behavior as crucial to a quality system of government. I would imagine this is exactly how Jefferson and Madison resolved their differences.
ReplyDeleteAnd if there's something mildly homo-erotic about the whole thing, what of it?