Americans need to get over their “moralityphobia.”
mo·ral·i·ty·pho·bi·a (n.)
- 1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong, despite the awareness and reassurance that the distinction is not dangerous.
- 2. A squeamishness or discomfort that compels one to avoid any discussion of what is right and wrong.
- 3. A strong dislike or aversion to a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
Did “traditional values” in this country emanate from a source greater than ourselves? You can only believe one of two things: mankind has either authored morality by itself or we have received some guidance.
Knowing history as I do — I’m betting that we’re as capable of coming up with a working moral code on our own as we are of instituting the laws of chemistry or physics or gravity.
Mine is hardly a revolutionary approach. Our Founding Fathers did the same in the Declaration of Independence when they cited a higher authority — “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” They referenced a “Creator.” Shocking, isn’t it?
The subject of “morality” is as enormous as the level of ignorance there is surrounding it. And we’ll never make progress if people are afraid of talking about issues in terms of right and wrong.
My favorite bit of ignorance is the oft-cited “you can’t legislate morality!” All laws actually reflect the majority’s view of “the good,” and thus their morality.
Obviously most governmental questions — like which roads to repave first — don’t rise to the level of those of life and death or crime and punishment which directly impact the social fabric. But plenty of issues do. Homosexuality is one that does.
There is no better issue that illustrates the confusion regarding morality than the subject of “homosexual rights.” Most regular people would rather not have to talk about issues surrounding sexual behavior choices. But that is what has been forced upon us, and frankly, it’s offensive.
A person has the right to discriminate when it comes to moral issues. Look up the word “discriminate.” We all do it every day by the choices we make and the views we take. Making moral judgments is not immoral.
Some might ask, “are you trying to impose your morality on me?” Well, if you see that imposition attempt as bad you’ve just made a moral judgment and are thus are seeking to impose your morality on me. Get over it. Maintaining a civil society requires this kind of debate.
Government is about drawing lines. For example, we can’t say it’s against our religion or moral code to hire racial minorities. Polygamy is against the law. As a society we’ve drawn the line.
The discussion of “homosexual rights” is also about drawing lines — and it needs to take place in the right context. Sexual behavior and preference is clearly a moral issue. The more honest among the proponents of the “homosexual rights” agenda have admitted it.
One activist quoted in the Chicago Free Press said this:
“[The homosexual] movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.”
The bottom line is that if someone wants to be defined by how they like to have sex, and seeks to redefine marriage and traditional mores, we have every right to make a judgment about them.
We didn’t start this discussion, but we’re not afraid of it and you shouldn’t be either. Morality is good for you.
