Wednesday, November 16, 2005

The Sexual Revolution Comes to Fruition

A "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy. For example, observing that today was a degree warmer than yesterday cannot be used to prove that next year the temperature will be 365 degrees hotter than it is today. The term "slippery slope" is often misused in concluding that there is a trend based on recent history. In the case of global warming, a "slippery slope" type argument is used to make Chicken Little type proclamations. Although global warming is demonstrated to be occurring, there is no demonstrable link between excess carbon and other elements in the atmosphere and the overall warming trend of planet earth. There is evidence to suggest that this is a normal cycle. There is also evidence to suggest that it could get very bad. There is not enough evidence to suggest that we have anything to do with it. But I digress, this is another post...

There seems to be a "slippery slope" when it comes to sex. After all, we've been predicting that if we lose this battle legalizing homosexuality or that battle about sexual content on the air that the sexual immorality will increase. We have cited legalization of bestiality and polygamy most recently in the homosexual debate. As evidence that it is happening as predicted, there is a bill taking the teeth out of the law against bestiality and polyamorists are coming out of the closet. At the time, I considered the arguments that we were simply being alarmist and there was nothing to fear. However, we knew that there simply wasn't a shift in societal morality, but that there is an intentional effort to sway public opinion to discard morality that has been codified since Moses and Hammurabi. Evidence that this is intentional and not simply a natural progression of thought is in the recent case where parents were ruled to have no say in what their kids were exposed to in school.

In case you haven't heard this one, several families sued the school because their elementary age children were asked in a survey a series of sexually intimate questions. The survey was conducted without parental notification or consent. This means that the government can expose our children to anything a bureaucrat has an inclination to expose them to and the parents can't do the first thing about it. This is why my family homeschools.

This is not a "slippery slope", this is tyranical incrementalism.

I'll comment further on polyamorism, because it is slightly different than polygamy. Polygamy has always tended to have the same sociological accountability and marital commitment that monogamous marriage has. Polyamorism appears to be more of an "anything goes" situation with a pseudo-commitment stipulation and no accountability. Polyamorists have tempting arguments:

First, polyamorists say that they simply recognize human nature and that humans have the capacity to love multiple people. However, they also say that all they need to do is get past jealousy. If loving multiple people is human nature, then so is jealousy. Why deny human nature on the one hand if they are all about following their human nature on the other. This begs the question: is human nature AS IT IS TODAY what human nature is supposed to be? If so, then is it not human nature to occasionally murder other people in our own interest? By what means then do we judge what human nature we are to suppress and what human nature we are to follow? Understanding that humans are typically internally conflicted only muddies the water on this issue. There is a way to know how we are to be, but I'll get to that later. The point is, this argument for polyamorism is seriously flawed.

Second, polyamorists claim that they don't have indiscriminate sex, but that they only have sex inside of committed relationships. The fact that such "commitment" is whatever they claim it is at any given time indicates that no accountability exists for maintaining commitment. In other words, if I wanted to have indiscriminate sex and justify it, all I would have to do is claim that me and my sex partners are "committed" to one another. I could simply claim commitment and play the role in order to have sex with this person for awhile then that person... I don't have to mean it as long as I have everyone fooled. One reason for monogamous marriage is that we are protected from predators in this manner.

Another reason is that we protect our children from predators as well, and I would argue that this is a greater reason. Children need stability and if mommy and daddy have boyfriends and girlfriends, then they lack the stability of committed parents and are exposed to their parents' adult lovers who aren't committed to the needs of the children. On top of this, the parents are at risk of exposure to debilitating disease unnecessarily and this puts children at risk of being orphaned or having a parent who cannot tend to their needs because of their own illness.

Then there's the issue of love. What is love? It has been debated by teenagers and poets for centuries. Adults who fail to mature never learn what it is and stop caring after they have become jaded enough. Those who have subordinated themselves sacrificially to the needs of another learn what true love is and they live happily having given up rights to their own self-determination. Polyamorism focuses on one's own desires. While one may claim that they celebrate the love successes of each of their significant others, they do not live sacrificially for their needs, because to do so would be to deny their own desires. And that's why polyamorism will fail.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting article.

There should have been mention of the risks involved of one or both partners finding somebody else. You did not mention the physical and emotional attraction that is automatically created when one has sexual relations with another and how that can cloud up a relationship...

Also not the best situation for the children I would think...

Mon Sep 25, 01:06:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home