|
|
July 12, 2012 · By David Mann · 0 Comments
Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Imagine if a small child got his hands on a fast car and discovered that he could figure out how to make it move. He had no knowledge of the rules of the road, or even any interest in learning those rules, but only wanted the chance to take this awesome toy wherever he wanted and go as fast as he could. If someone were to deny him any further access to the car, he would consider them the greatest party-pooper there ever was, and would likely fight them tooth-and-nail. But would they be wrong to keep the car from him? Of course not — no matter how displeased he was with them, it would be the right thing for them to do. They would be keeping him from doing devastating harm to himself and others.
So when will the child be allowed to drive a car? When he is old and mature enough to operate it safely and responsibly. He may have fun driving it, but the fun aspect must never be given priority over safety.
Some things by their very nature are meant for mature people only; they are designed to be the exclusive domain of those who will use them with proper responsibility. One of these is driving; another is sex. There is a reason sex-related things often come with the label “adult” (though many such things ironically display some very juvenile thinking).
Whenever sex ends up in the hands of those who have no intention of using it as it is designed to be used, there is damage done. And while the damage may not be as immediately visible as that which would be done if a child went crazy on the road with a sports car, it can be devastating nonetheless.
No one who cared about a child would put him behind the wheel of a Ferrari and allow him to take it wherever he wanted, any way he wanted, and as fast as he wanted. The very idea is undeniably insane. But something just as insane is done whenever young people are not only allowed but encouraged to experiment with sexuality — to treat it not as something valuable, powerful and worthy of protection, but as a cheap amusement.
Why would anyone want to promote irresponsible sexuality in young people anyway? Abortion providers, obviously, do it to drum up business. Most, though, seem to do it because they want there to be no moral limits on sexual behavior, and want to influence the next generation to think likewise. What such people ignore and deny is that sex has definite and very serious purposes: the creation of new people, and the deep bonding of the man and woman who will be raising those new people together. Even where the reproductive aspect is absent, though, the crucial bonding aspect is very much present.
It seems absurd that the purpose of sex should even need to be pointed out to anyone, but apparently that’s the case. For example, abortion advocates often speak of pregnancy as if it were some incidental and undesirable result of sex — as if it should not be expected to occur except as some sort of unfortunate accident.
But the damage done when sex is used irresponsibly goes beyond unwanted pregnancies (both those resulting in unwanted children and those ending with the murder of the unborn child) and the other obvious consequence, disease. Something unquantifiable but definite happens to a person, especially a woman, when they bond sexually with someone who they don’t have the proper relationship with. Just ask a woman who has been promiscuous in the past but is now trying to have a normal, healthy relationship with her new husband. She has lost something that she cannot easily get back — something she wants to give to her husband but has already given away to someone else. In the process, she has also lost much of her self-respect.
It is because of both the reproductive and bonding aspects of sex that it needs to be confined to exclusive, committed, lifelong partners. It is also because of those that there is no good reason to have sex with a stranger, or even a casual romantic partner; the only reason at all, when it comes right down to it, is temporary amusement.
The use of a powerful thing like sex as a disposable toy has, for many people, become the rule rather than the exception. Many young men in our time have been taught to think of girls as mere sexual objects to be used and thrown away. This is like expecting to be able to take a valuable car for a joy ride, crash it, walk away, and move on to another one with no cost or consequences. In other words, it is insanity.
Responsible sex — i.e., that which is kept within a completely exclusive, normal lifelong relationship — may not look like a lot of fun to the immature. That’s largely because its rewards, especially in the long-term, lie well above and beyond what they’re capable of appreciating. Sex is a treasure meant for those who will treat it with the respect it deserves; it is not meant for those who only want to play with it.
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that Judge Lawrence L. Piersol dismissed a constitutional challenge to South Dakota’s method of execution brought by death row inmate Donald Moeller. Judge Piersol’s ruling follows a hearing on October 4, 2012, during which Moeller told the court “I want to pay what I owe. I believe the death penalty is just in this case.”
Perhaps those who believe that Big Bird, Elmo, Kermit and Miss Piggy need a taxpayer subsidy to help with early childhood education missed the “Tickle me Elmo” craze that generated millions of dollars, and they undoubtedly were unaware that Kermit and Miss Piggy went Hollywood a long time ago making millions in the process. Or, perhaps they haven’t flipped around to the hundreds of channels on their televisions and envisioned the bidding war to bring Big Bird to a privately funded station. As strange as it might seem, Big Bird just might be the perfect symbol for this election.
This year the U.S. is expected to spend $2.8 trillion on health care. The tab for Medicare alone will likely cost taxpayers $590 billion, with 25% of that sum going for patients in their last year of life. Given the anemic state of our economy and the huge strain on our medical resources, should government step in and decide how care is to be allocated among the sick and dying? Should Big Brother determine whose life is worth saving and whose is not by rationing health care?
In 1271, Marco Polo left Venice with his father and uncle, and traveled 5,600 miles east to meet Kublai Khan, grandson of Ghengis Khan, who was Emperor of China, Korea, North India, Persia, Russia and Hungary. Emperor Kublai Khan had requested 100 Christian teachers, but only two preaching friars were sent by Pope Gregory X, and they turned back in fear while crossing an area being attacked by Turkish Muslims. Marco Polo was employed by Kublai Khan as an envoy for 24 years.
“The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more. Now, that’s not my analysis; that’s the analysis of economists who have looked at this.” That was how Barack Obama described Mitt Romney’s tax plan to millions of potential voters at the Oct. 3 presidential debate. To be certain, as even the Tax Policy Center notes, Romney’s plan would lower everyone’s tax rate by 20 percent. So, where does the claim come from?
|
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964 |
Sorry, comments are closed on this post.