[in defense of "swinging"...]
"any liberal worthy of the name takes a strong stand for the freedom to live a life we choose, not one chosen for us" -- Loren A. King, Dept. Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University
Ah yes, the freedom to live a life "we choose". It's all about "us". "We choose" to abort our unwanted children, "we choose" single-parenting, "we choose" easy-divorce, "we choose" to bring a child into a home with an over-supply of mothers but deficient in a father (or vica-versa). Where's the harm? Each choice violates child-centred rights designed to protect a child's natural right, barring tragedy, to be born and raised in a stable family consisting of the child's father and mother.
Canadian society used to be organized around the rights of children. We used to have an institution, rooted in moral restraint, that recognized and safeguarded this right -- it was called marriage.
Liberals like Loren don't want a life "chosen for us". Fine, but kids don't get that choice -- inevitably, they are stuck with the choices we make affecting them. The question is not, "what choices will we make for ourselves?" It is, "what choices will we make for our kids?"
A child's presumptive right to be born and know the love of both a father and mother was recognized and safeguarded by the institution of marriage. Child-centred rights have been eclipsed in liberal minds by the infinitely higher value now placed on adult rights to abortion, easy-divorce, single-parenting, and same-sex marriage.
Swinging, when children are involved, is unquestionably abusive because of the dreadful immorality and the mangled view of marriage and human fidelity it presents to the children involved. There was a day when it would have been seen and called for what it is -- wickedness. It might be instructive to read the Supreme Court ruling to see how many pages were spent considering the potential moral harm to the children of "swingers".
Where's the harm -- is there any doubt?
No comments:
Post a Comment