A Hmmmmmm...

I was reading where Kim Du Toit feels that changing moral values leads to no morals and the end of society. He makes a good case, but...

There's always a but.

His case hinges on the disposal of one value leading to the disposal of the next and so on. He cites Ptolemy Egypt and Imperial Rome and compares them to modern gay marriage and co-habitation.

Like I said before, he makes a good case. But I differ with him. The values he is mourning in todays society are all derived from the WASP ideal. I have offered my admiration for that ideal before myself, but unlike he, I don't feel that the things he is talking about lead to the downfall of America.

My moral philosophy is "Do as you will, harm none." Most of the WASP framework fits into that ideal, so I tend not to conflict with it much. But I feel that we can have a whole lot of sex with a whole lot of different people and not hurt anyone. Letting two men have sex doesn't advocate theft, murder, arson, rape or child molestation.

I have substituted a different set of morals that retains a large chunk of the WASP one. I believe Kim's mistake is in assuming that morals are an all or nothing proposition. And to an extent, he is right. If I am a Christian, then the entire package is a take it or leave it deal. You can't covet your neighbor's wife and steal and still be a Christian. But you can believe in the sanctity of marriage and think stealing is wrong without being Christian.

The danger, of course, of substituting one set of moral values for another in a society is accidently omitting the one thing that was keeping things tied together.

I fear that Congress is doing far more to unglue American society than the changing moral values brought by accepting that homosexuals can have meaningful relationships as strong as marriages.