Without Morality Based Laws ” Sexual Rights ” Become Foundation of Society

February 12, 2014

Moralityby Nathan A. Cherry

Years ago when conservative voices sounded the alarm that the redefinition of marriage would lead to legalizing immoral and dangerous behaviors, we were laughed at. Proponents of marriage redefinition said we were “fear-mongering” or resorting to alarmist scare tactics. Those voices are no longer decrying the warnings as even pro-homosexual groups are seeking to distance themselves from the polygamist, polyamory, and pedophilia group’s now seeking “sexual rights.”

The very same arguments used twenty and thirty years ago by homosexuals to first decriminalize sodomy, then to gain legal recognition and protections, and finally to gain marriage rights, are now being employed by numerous other groups seeking the same outcome. Arguments such as “I was born this way,” and “who I have sex with doesn’t hurt anyone,” and “I should be free to love whomever I want” are routinely cited as evidence for the legalization of polygamy, polyamory, and pedophilia.

I’ve said it before and will continue to say that if the government redefines marriage for homosexuals it will have to continue redefining marriage for every other group or be guilty of the same discrimination it now accuses traditional marriage supporters of. If the government redefines marriage once it will have no legal or moral ground to defend against continued redefinition.

One of the most frightening groups seeking legalization and rights is pedophiles. Advocates groups like NAMBLA and B4U-ACT are currently lobbying to have pedophilia decriminalized and recognized as a sexual orientation.

In a recent article, Dr. James Cantor, a clinical psychologist, says that pedophilia has to do with “brain wiring” and is like a sexual orientation rather than a brain disorder. If Dr. Cantor is right then pedophilia is just another sexual orientation that should be legalized, normalized, and accepted, even celebrated. That is the sentiments of a growing numbers of medical professionals seeking to remove any stigma attached to pedophilia.

To support these efforts Dr. Cantor, through his research says he believes certain markers identify the pedophile. These markers are:

“…pedophiles are shorter, on average, and are three times more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous. Their IQs are about 10 to 15 points lower, and they are more prone to childhood head injuries, a characteristic Cantor attributes to an inborn clumsiness. Cantor finds that pedophiles are overwhelmingly men, about one-third of whom prefer boys, about one-third prefer girls and one-third are attracted to both.”

Cantor goes on to affirm his belief that pedophilia is a sexual orientation rather than a disorder or choice by stating “We will be able to make much more contact with these people (pedophiles) when we indicate to them that we know they didn’t choose this…”

But Cantor falsely states that “Nobody has ever developed a therapy that’s capable of changing somebody’s sexual interests.”

This statement is insulting to the thousands of former homosexuals that, through various means including reparative therapy and biblical counseling, now live happy lives as heterosexuals. Whether one agrees with such therapy or not to discount the fact that there exist people who were once homosexual but are now not, is intellectually dishonest, absurd, and insulting.

Then again, the effort to redefine marriage leaves no room to doubt that our society is moving away from laws based on absolute morality and is moving towards moral fluidity. Again, if the government redefines marriage for homosexuals what possible moral or legal ground would it have to refuse to redefine marriage for polygamists, polyamorists, or even pedophiles?

If morality is not absolute, based on something higher than society, culture, or opinion, it is only reasonable to assume that at some point laws will be based purely on the views of the people making the laws. The end result will be a shift in laws toward greater immorality rather than a shift towards morality. We can expect, then, not a redefinition of marriage, but a complete eradication of marriage altogether. As long as marriage exists, even in the minds and hearts of individuals, the perceived bigotry and discrimination the government likes to imagine will continue. The solution, then, according to the government and marriage redefinition allies, is to erase any meaning associated with marriage and family.

Current cases taking place support this unspoken goal as we see more evidence of a complete destruction of marriage. The case of Kody Brown and his polygamist family in Utah is one such example. In this case a federal judge determined that the government should not prosecute men who are married but decide to live with other women. In other words, the federal judge opened the door to legalized adultery, polygamy, and polyamory.

One has to wonder if this decision carries the implication and eventual reality that it will be legally impossible to sue a spouse for adultery and seek damages for such actions. Then again the murky waters of law without morality are getting deeper by the second.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent to the disastrous Lawrence v. Texas ruling predicted this very scenario when he blasted the court for their decision. Scalia said the court decision “decrees the end of all morals legislation,” including laws banning “fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity.”

Scalia’s right, and again this goes back to my assertion that if marriage is redefined once it must necessarily be redefined again for lack of moral or legal ground to refuse further redefinition. I would challenge anyone to produce any moral or legal ground that presents adequate cause to refuse marriage redefinition for polygamists, polyamorists, or even pedophiles if marriage is redefined for homosexuals. If the arguments of “sexual orientation,” “it doesn’t harm anyone,” “we’re consenting adults,” and “I should be free to love whomever I want” are adequate enough to redefine centuries of tradition and law, what argument could be made against legalizing anything else deemed a “sexual orientation”?

What lies ahead is nothing short of uncertain. Laws are changing rapidly and it seems as though the culture is being overwhelmed by pressure to accept anything and everything claimed as a “right” or opinion by another person. People in general seem unable to think rationally, logically, or morally through arguments intentionally filled with emotional narrative. The result is hyped in the media as “broad support” for changing laws and accepting immorality. A more truthful reality is that many people are simply scared to speak up for fear of losing their job or being prosecuted for “hate crimes.”

Unfortunately, I believe Dr. Judith Reisman is right in her summary of where we stand as a culture. She said:

“Our laws are no longer based on Judeo-Christian morality, but on Kinsey’s immoral ‘morality’: an adulterous, fornicating, aborting, pornography-addicted, masturbating, impotent, sadistic, masochistic, bisexual, homosexual, exhibitionist, voyeuristic, and child-sexual-abusive world,”

Without a return to morality based laws we can expect to see greater harm to the traditional family and anyone that supports the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of raising their biological children.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tags: , , ,

Amanda Buckler
Amanda Buckler

This article is so true and so sad. The world is degrading into immorality.

However, I have a problem with one word in the last paragraph. It says marriage is defined as "the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of raising their biological children." Why would anyone feel the need to put the word "biological" in there? Is adoption immoral too? Should we leave orphans and abused children to fend for themselves?

Yes, marriage is the union of one man and one woman, but no, it's not for raising biological children. It's for raising all their children, whether they are biological or adopted. There could be some marriages where one parent already had a child in a previous relationship. This child should not be excluded. It is not necessarily the parent's fault the first relationship ended. Even if it was, the parent can change, grow as a person, and they should not give up their child.

Every child being raised by a couple are their children whether they are biological or not. None of them should be excluded from this picture.

ConservativeFifty Affiliates