According to The Drudge Report, the mainstream press is actively investigating charges that a woman who has recently fled the country did so because she was involved in a sexual relationship with John Kerry. According to the story, the other Democratic candidates know all about it, and it explains why Howard Dean has remained in the race despite his poor primary performances. Wesley Clark is reported as predicting that the Kerry campaign might well "implode" over this issue.
Of course, this is the Drudge Report we’re talking about here, so it’s best to take this with a grain of salt, but it’s obviously something worth following closely in the coming days.
Bill Clinton apparently convinced the American people that adultery is acceptable and that character does not count for a president. George Washington might disagree with that belief (e.g., his Farewell Address). Of course, in our society, as gay marriage is legitimized, what’s wrong with a little adultery between "consenting adults?"
President Bush has the character to oppose abortion, oppose gay marriage, support a ban on partial-birth abortions, and be open about his support of objective truths about morality. I hope that Kerry or any Democrat is as open about support for gay marriage, the right to "choose," and
other moral issues. There is certainly a vast cultural and moral fissure dividing this country. We’ll see if the American people are going to retain a sense of right and wrong or go the way of relativism.
So anyone who believes that gay marriages ought to be legal is a moral relativist?
Yes, actually I think so. If marriage is not the sacramental union of a man and woman who unite to raise children, then what is your definition of marriage? Do you think that it’s simply about love and sex between "consenting adults?" Why not allow marriage between a mother and her son? Why not allow polygamy? Why not allow marriages where adultery is allowed by each person?
In other words, denying that there is an objective rightness or wrongness about marriage and sex does in fact lead one to deny that there is an objective rightness or wrongness about morality - after all, why only apply an objective moral principle to one area logically? For example, murder can be judged by objective truths but not sexual acts. Actually, it sounds a lot like the NPR guest who has written a book about "Lust" in the Oxford/New York Public Library Series who said that lust is neither very deadly nor much of a sin. In fact, he said it was "necessary" for life and even good for us.
Might I suggest CS Lewis’s "Screwtape Letters" for an excellent book on the denial of evil itself (i.e., the objective rightness or wrongness of actions) as the best way to convince humans to sin, rather than wasting time tempting humans with some individual sins.
Mr. Williams responds to my question by telling me that we need objective standards of right and wrong. I agree. Where we disagree is in how we determine what those standards are. By his reasoning, might we not then legitimately assign moral weight to any choice, including such things as ice cream flavors? It seems that without some consideration of harm or consent we must either do that, or arbitrarily declare that some choices are imbued with moral weight and others are not.
Moreover, I deny that to make consent the standard by which we measure the legality of an act represents relativism. The issue of consent is itself a moral standard, asserting the right to self-ownership and the illegitimacy of aggression.