“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy. Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, without self-control, fierce, despisers of those that are good. Traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.” 2Tim 3:1-4
Is morality a construct of organized religion, cultural, individual to every person, or an absolute standard? C.S. Lewis wrote that “If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia defines morality as antecedent to ethics, denoting those concrete activities of which ethics is the science. It may be defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting. So it is safe to say that the foundation of Christian morality is the understanding of moral acts. Some acts, apart from the intention or reason for doing them, are always wrong because they go against a fundamental or basic human good that ought never to be compromised.
Personally, I think that time has come. Consensual incest is now legal in China, France, Israel, the Ivory Coast, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain and Turkey, according to a report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany.
In December 2010, David Epstein, a 46-year-old Columbia University professor of American politics and voting rights, was charged with one count of incest for what was allegedly a consensual three-year sexual relationship with his adult daughter. Typical of the left, his attorney, Matthew Galluzzo, questioned why Epstein’s ‘affair” was a big deal. While you and I may think of Epsein’s daughter as a victim, Galluzzo described her as an “accomplice.” After all, “it’s ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.”
In an interview with the Huffington Post, Galluzzo questioned if prosecuting incest was “intellectually consistent” with the repeal of anti-sodomy laws that resulted from Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. “What goes on between consenting adults in private should not be legislated. That is not the proper domain of our law.” Is he right? Have we lost so much of our values that incest is no longer immoral? Senator Mark Kirk, a Democrat from Illinois said that “life comes down to who you love and who loves you back — government has no place in the middle.” Does that include incest, animals, multiple spouses, children?
If love and commitment is all the justification you need – where do we draw the line?
Cord Jefferson a west coast editor for Gawker, went so far as to suggests that we could be a more “just and healing society were we to consider pedophilia a sexual orientation, rather than simply a crime, because, after all, like homosexuals they are born with this orientation.” Since no one has found that “gay gene,” one has to ask if this is just another plan for excusing debauchery.
There has been an organization in play within the pedophilia and pederasty movement for years that agrees with people like Jefferson. The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) has been actively working for years to abolish the age of consensual laws that criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors as well as for the release of all those “innocent” men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.
Of course, coercion to NAMBLA and coercion to normal-sane-rational human beings is two different things and while, as yet, I haven’t seen pedophiles demonstrating in the U.S. for the right to marry children, it is only a matter of time. And then we will be asked if we, as a society, have the right to discriminate against pedophiles based on their sexual identity, whether it be in making sex with children a crime, or denying them the right to marry a child. And as our Muslim population continues to grow this could come sooner than later as it is already entrenched in their religion to have sex slaves and child brides.
The law is a moral teacher. For thousands of years, traditional morality viewed healthy sexual relations as being exclusively between a husband and wife within the bounds of marriage. Until recently, our nation’s laws have recognized and affirmed that view. However, persistent and aggressive efforts by advocates of homosexual behavior have sought to elevate homosexuality as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality by creating special legal protection for “sexual orientation.”
Legal protection on categories like “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression” are of a different nature than the traditional protected classes, because these categories are vaguely defined, subjectively determined, and changeable. Even scholars who regularly study sexual orientation cannot agree on a definition for it. Some believe that sexual orientation is determined by a person’s self-identification; while others think it is established by sexual behavior, and then there are those who say it is dictated by mere sexual attraction.
The concepts of “gender identity” and “gender expression” as protected classes are even more troublesome than “sexual orientation.” Gender identity” is an internally conceived and objectively unverifiable characteristic. “Gender expression” is particularly far-reaching, for it includes not only a person’s internal conceptions of himself or herself, but also any steps that he or she might take to express externally those internal feelings.
Where do we draw the line? Or more importantly, now that the government has established gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation as a protected class, where can we legally draw the line?
“The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations. In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws.” Martin L. King, Jr., Rediscovering Lost Values