Morals Matter

Repost from Tuesday, October 28, 2008

As the election looms in the not-so-distant future, I see a new wave of attacks coming at those of us who hold conservative viewpoints. Whether the issue is abortion, gay marriage, redistribution of wealth, or any other number of issues, our morals and ideals are under attack.

There is a sickness in America, a dangerous infection that threatens to eat us from the inside-out. We are starting to see symptoms of it now, but many will not realize the true danger until it is much too late. 

This disease is known as moral relativism. 

Moral relativism argues that “moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.” Such a proposition is extremely dangerous for a society, especially when this moral relativism is disguised as “compassion” or “multiculturalism”. Believing that there is no ultimate and objective moral truth will lead to the downfall of society. Under such a belief, any action can be justified. 

It is ALREADY being used to justify the atrocity of abortion. Those who call themselves “pro-choice” say “Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one!” This statement is absolutely ridiculous. Can you imagine someone driving around with a bumper sticker that said “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own one!” Abortion is not something that is wrong for people who hold a certain religious view, abortion is wrong for ALL PEOPLE, in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. 

Many fear the influence of a politician’s religion on their policies. The most frequent objection of those who fear the presence of believers in government is, “What right do you have to impose your morals on us?” Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council tells them, “The same right you have to impose your lack of morals on us.”

It is our duty to stand up for our morals in public life. As Archbishop Charles Chaput says,

“People who take God seriously will not remain silent about their faith. They will often disagree about doctrine or policy, but they won’t be quiet. They can’t be. They’ll act on what they believe, sometimes at the cost of their reputations and careers. Obviously the common good demands a respect for other people with different beliefs and a willingness to compromise whenever possible. But for Catholics, the common good can never mean muting themselves in public debate on foundational issues of human dignity. Christian faith is always personal but never private. This is why any notion of tolerance that tries to reduce faith to private idiosyncrasy, or a set of opinions that we can indulge at home but need to be quiet about in public, will always fail.”

All law involves a moral decision and imposes some sort of value onto those affected. Whether this value comes from religion or from secularism, it is still imposing on the governed. The question is this; do we want the morals of our leaders to be firm and rooted in the idea that there is a Law above our laws and a Truth our own reason. Or do we want a leader whose morals are as shifting as the sands, who “understands” that people come from different circumstances, and we should therefore try to accommodate everyone. 

I know which one I would choose. Sadly, it seems that many others do not.

Homosexual "Marriage" Is Truly a Slippery Slope

Repost from Tuesday, September 30, 2008:

The election is in 34 days, and will be the first I have had the opportunity to participate in. In addition to the usual voting for president and congressional candidates, as a native Californian, I will be voting on Proposition 8 on November 4th. 

More specifically, I will be voting YES on Proposition 8 on November 4th. For those who aren’t sure what a YES vote on this proposition means, I will be voting to ensure that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

There are numerous reasons for my position on homosexual “marriage”. A good number of them stem from my religious faith and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Others are rather secular reasons that do not have their basis in religion.

Now, let me tell you, being a college student opposed to homosexual “marriage” (let alone other pillars of liberal faith like abortion), is quite an experience. This is true even in a university that is located in a very conservative area, such as Clemson University. 

I have run up against probably every basic argument in favor of allowing homosexual “marriage” during the past year. The one I have found to be most favored by liberals is this, “Why shouldn’t two people who love each other be allowed to get married”.

For reasons unknown to me, this argument is supposed to be persuasive. While love is obviously a very important aspect of a successful marriage, the purpose of the institution of marriage is not to give benefits to two lovers. The primary purpose for legal benefits to married couples is because the married couple is both the traditional and ideal way in which a child is raised.

I have found that the favored argument of liberals is also quite easy to turn around and turn them into bumbling idiots. 

“Well, if the only requirement for marriage is for people to love each other, then why can’t a man who loves two different women be allowed to marry them both? What about a man and his sister? Or his mother or daughter?”

While it is very easy for a liberal to come out in support of the homosexual community, most will find the idea of polygamy and incest repulsive. (Of course, you will always have those crazed folk who will listen to your point and say, “You know what? That doesn’t sound like such a bad idea now that I think of it.”)

The fear of homosexual “marriage” leading to polygamy and incest is not unreasonable. This is because of what this redefined view of marriage really means.

Liberals start by stating that it is not a mother and father that are important for a child. Instead, they believe that all a child needs is two parents. Well then, if the only important thing is the number of parents, why not three parents? Four? The man loves all of his wives, why shouldn’t he be able to marry them all?

If you remove the aspect of procreation from marriage, then why not allow relatives to marry? The secular argument against incest is that the child is more likely to be born with birth defects. Well, if the couple is able to prevent from having a child (through artificial birth control or abortion), then what’s the problem? I could argue that a father loves his daughter as much if not more than non-related individuals love each other. So why not allow them to marry?

Marriage is a vital institution. It is the basic building block that holds up our society. By redefining this sacred tradition to allow for homosexuals we open the door to many other attacks, until marriage means nothing more than legal benefits.