If the whole world decides that it is right for a man to steal a loaf of bread if he is hungry does that make stealing right? No. It may make stealing legal, but it does not make it right. They may make stealing legal (as they have done for bankers) but it not only has not made stealing right, it has also not made making stealing legal right.
Consequently, the debate is not about the morality of the actions, but the rights of individuals to do whatever they want. No one actually debates whether homosexual actions are right or wrong. Very few polite members of the intelligentsia explore the question of whether it is moral or immoral for two men to have anal intercourse. They do not discuss the morality of fellatio or the other range of homosexual activities. If they investigated these practices they might find them not only distasteful, un natural and unhealthy, but morally repugnant.
Why do we not debate the actions in themselves? One of the reason is that we are uncomfortable discussing such topics in polite company. Perhaps we should be less polite and more truthful. We are also afraid to discuss the actual topic because to do so might “offend” homosexuals, never for a moment imagining that their behaviors might be offensive. We also avoid discussing the actions themselves because we are afraid of being branded as “judgmental”. It should be obvious that being judgmental is exactly what we are being asked to do: we are being asked to judge homosexual marriage to be honorable and equal to real marriage. Furthermore, those who are bullying society to make this change are being so judgmental that they have asked state and supreme court judges to be judgmental. They are not content for their activities to be private matters of choice. They must be approved by society. They must be judged at the highest level to be licit.
As I said, this post is not really about homosexual marriage. That is just one example of my meaning.
Beneath all of this is the underlying tyranny of relativism. We dare not “judge” other actions because we have been taught that there is no such thing as right or wrong. We have been taught to believer that it is right to be wrong, or at least that we should have the right to be wrong, and not only have the right to be wrong, but to impose that right to be wrong on everyone else. In other words, you must not only allow me to be wrong, but you must say that my wrong is not only my right, but that my wrong is right.
If the preceding paragraph made you think twice and read thrice, then I have achieved my purpose, for the world of moral relativism is a world of double think and double talk where nothing means anything and anything can mean nothing. Morality is reduced to “you say po-TAY- to and I say po-TAH-to. Let’s call the whole thing off.” And it is “off” way off, and not only way off, but way out, and if way out, then let us hope it is on it’s way out, for a world of moral relativism is dangerous. Deadly dangerous.
It is deadly dangerous because when there are not moral absolutes the state decides what is right and wrong, and when the state decides what is wrong, the rulers of that state will invariably decide that what is right is what is best for them, and what is best for them is that which consolidates their wealth and their power. When the state decides what is right and wrong, and has the power to enforce what they decide is right and wrong, they will do so.
Furthermore, when moral relativism reigns it is not long before chaos and anarchy prevail. (It’s a logical consequence–if there is no right and wrong you may do as you wish) and when anarchy and chaos prevail the state has the reason and the obligation to establish order, and among an anarchic population that order can only be established by force.
That’s why the old man in the white coat in Rome called it “the dictatorship of relativism.”