Many may ask the question of 'Where did family values in our country go?'
In light of the of the Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage many may be asking the question how did we get here? This is not about the issue of fire and brimstone on the gay lifestyle rather about the denigration of morality in our country.
The problem we have is the compromise of the morals we have established from generation to generation. The things we find acceptable today some may find extremely course 20 to 50 years ago.
To understand this a little more you must look at the history of our country, especially over the past 65 years.
Here are some things in media that have brought such controversy with the morals of our society.
- In the late 1950's and early 1960's anything to do with sex, any sexual terms or talking about pregnancy were topics not to be discussed publicly and certainly not in media of any sort. As a result the producers of the "I Love Lucy" show decided that they wanted to increase their ratings and found that the only way to do so was to push the edge of two topics......sharing the same bed and pregnancy. During that time period it was not acceptable to share the same bed with someone of the opposite sex unless it were for procreation, even for married couples. During the time period most couples would sleep in two separate twin sized beds. In the show the producer decided to take a norm and change things for what was to come with the pregnancy of Lucille Ball and Dessie Arnez and the expectation of their first child. The only way they could keep the show going without the lack of acceptance of the pregnancy of scorn to the character of Lucy and Dessie was to introduce the bedroom seen followed up with the episode called "Lucy goes to the Hospital." Both episodes started controversy and talk yet opened to door to a new social norm.
- In the early 60's a Methodist born man came to the scene which changed the way society would look on to sex forever. After finding out that his first wife cheated on him while he was in the military, Hugh Hefner found himself engaged with multiple partners at the request of his wife who hoped it would even the playing field for the guilt she had and reconcile their relationship. Instead of reconciling the relationship it dissolved the relationship creating the largest empire of magazines about sex. It had opened up a new door and new conversation spurring on the "sexual revolution." It was through the sexual revolution that the promotion of sex outside of marriage, public nudity, homosexuality and the integration of multiple partners started and was the beginning of the acceptance of a new era.
- As the demonization of smoking was in full force starting in the '80's, a new product was to take a new debut. In the early 80's the AIDS epidemic had started to come to light. Many in the medical field attributed AIDS & HIV to homosexuality, which later was learned as a result of a few issues. As a result 'safe sex' was being promoted, but during the Reagan and Bush eras the promotion of sexual contraceptives were banned from mainstream TV. In the early '90's William Jefferson Clinton became president of the United States. One of his promises was to promote 'safe sex.' It was not as a result of Mr. Clinton being president that contraceptives or ed medications were made, as they existed before his presidency, rather the public commercialization of contraceptives and ed medications. Throughout the years of Bill Clinton as president the promotion of the 'safe sex' campaign was carried out by both Mr. Clinton and his wife Hillary (barring his escapades with Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinski). Mrs. Clinton made appearances in China talking against population control and promoting contraceptives in lieu.
Just this past June the in 2015 the US Supreme Court ruled in a decision of 6-3 about the Definition of Marriage whereto the majority stated that no state has the right to define that marriage is between one man and one woman rather the consent of one person to another regardless of sex. It is a ruling which requires all states to accept, regardless of the vote of the people or the laws of the state may dictate. It was a law that opens the door to several questions. The first being,due to the generalization of the ruling, what constitutes to consent of one person to another? Does that restrict age or multiple partners? Does the ruling give way to one person marrying another who has dementia or who has a medical issue where they can be taken advantage of for monetary gain.
The greatest concern about the ruling from the Supreme Court is less about homosexuality and more the issue of the voice of the people being lost. Greater still is the apathy of the elected politicians who have looked at a ruling from a court only to say "well we did all we can do and need to move on to the next item" ignoring the people they represent and have no moral compass in order to just throw in the towel.
Over the past 6, almost 7 decades, we have come a long way. We have given ground inch by inch that over a matter of time we have lost the very principles we once stood for. Over time we are just a hazy reflection of our past as the things that once made us blush or shamed for the purpose of getting us to do right has now become the status quo removing the urgency for a moral standard.
Many people love to bring up the story of Sodom and Gomorra yet many have no understanding why the two cities were truly destroyed. Many assume it was because of homosexuality using it as the opposition for the ruling by the Supreme Court. To understand the true meaning of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra you must understand what was going on before it's destruction.
About 4000 years ago Lot, nephew of Abraham, ventured out to find a new place to live with his uncle. As a result of the live stock and families of both parties resources became scarce and they decided to split up. As a young man the appeal of a plush and thriving city became the choice of Lot. Now the family was a God fearing family but as a result of the provisions Lot took part in, Lot began to assimilate and found himself compromising his morals and beliefs. Some scholars believe that Lot was a politician in the city and instead of making a positive influence he turned a blind eye to those things which were immoral and unacceptable (Genesis 11-19). It is hard to say how long Lot resided there but it is known that before he left with Abraham to the time he left Sodom he had become married, had children and his children were married.
Just prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra an angel of the Lord came to Abraham telling him that He was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorra, where Lot resided. Abraham pleaded with God that if he could find 50 godly men all of the way down to 1 godly man that God would save the city, God agreed yet none where found including Lot. It shows that if Lot had not compromised his morals, his influence could have saved others in the process. As a result of the lack of morals,which included homosexuality, and Lot's willingness to send his own daughters over to be used sexually God destroyed Sodom and Gomorra.
The question remains are we too like Lot where we have compromised our moral base giving up what we stand for only to find our country lacking each day at a greater basis our character and the very things we once stood for and were founded on? Are we the ones to turn a blind eye or use the excuse to give up the fight for what we believe in and the moral compass for future generations? Are we willing to give excuse or reason our morals away as result of someones claimed rights?
Remember we all have rights as we all have responsibilities. With every right comes the sacrifice of someone else's liberty. With the sacrifice of someone's liberty comes the compromise of another's morals. With the compromise of someone's morals comes the denigration of the family. And with the denigration of the family comes the loss of tomorrow's generation.
CAL
