This issue hinges on the question of whether we are a society governed by traditionally accepted moral principles or whether we are to accept the secular view that each person should decide what is moral or not based on their own viewpoint (moral relativism). The first concept allows us to formulate laws and codes of conduct that are simple and easy to understand and obey. The second makes for inconsistency and confusion resulting in a break down of society. Under moral relativism, Timothy McVeigh was justified in what he did because he felt it was his moral duty, the same with the 9/11 terrorists. A very slippery slope indeed.
For most Americans, the meaning of marriage is simply common sense. Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is at the heart of what most of us believe family should be. Even if we don’t all manage to live out that belief as perfectly as we would like, not everyone who opposes the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual couples has a detailed explanation for their position. Just because someone is divorced, for example, does not mean he or she does not believe in traditional marriage. Everyday folks understand that society needs strong ideals to bring out the...
- ISIS has shocked America back to its senses Noah Rothman 18 mins ago
- Surprise coming in MA gubernatorial race? Ed Morrissey 58 mins ago
- America has no strategy, but ISIS does: Biological terrorism Noah Rothman 1 hour ago
- More non-existent voter fraud tuns up in Virginia Jazz Shaw 2 hours ago
- AFP Defending the Dream Summit: Day 1 Ed Morrissey 2 hours ago
- Quotes of the day Allahpundit 12 hours ago