Do you find the current moral climate in America confusing? On the one hand, anyone who doesn’t agree with free sex, accept the legitimacy of homosexual relationships, and approve of every gender identity that anyone can think up, is considered by society at large to be immoral. On the other hand, anyone who actually acts out on these things is likely to create situations where all kinds of evil happens. People can be hauled into court, fired from their job, or publicly humiliated for sexual assault or harassment because they act as if free sex is really free. People who live a homosexual lifestyle are statistically way more likely to commit suicide, die early from natural causes or disease, or develop some kind of mental illness. Allowing transgenders to access whatever bathroom suits their fancy has resulted in crimes of voyeurism and even sexual assault. Evil results regardless of whether one deems immoral behavior as moral or immoral. So where does all of this come from? Why is there so much confusion?
At this point, let’s just call a spade a spade. Naturalistic philosophy dominates virtually every institution in society, and that domination creates an environment where immorality is considered moral. Naturalism is the belief that the only thing that exists is the natural universe – there is no God, and no such thing as objective morality. With that as a starting point, where does moral thinking come from in the first place? It can’t come from God, since God is not even acknowledged to exist. That only leaves individuals to come up with their own moral codes.
And therein lies the problem – people can’t agree on what ought to be moral and what ought to be immoral – so you get people duking it out in order to champion their own preferences. On top of that, the desires of one person’s morality often leads to implications that turn out immoral in other areas (see the examples above). Particularly when it comes to sexual morality, Naturalists want their cake and eat it, too. They want to indulge their sexual pleasures in any way they like, without having to deal with the consequences that their approach to sexuality inevitably leads to.
In naturalistic thought, sex is nothing more than a natural biological function. Thus, in and of itself, there is nothing (ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) immoral associated with it. Any kind of immorality that gets associated with sexual practice has nothing to do with sex itself, only with how the interaction plays out with other people. But that begs the question, “Why should the concerns of other people even be a consideration regarding morality?” It can’t be because there is anything inherently immoral about sex, it can only be because it somehow negatively affects the smooth operation of society. But even that is subject to local situational circumstances. For instance, rape may cause disruption in society in some cases (in which case it would be considered immoral), but not in others (in which case it would not be deemed immoral).
Now, of course, most Naturalists will take issue with me on this because that accusation offends their personal sensibilities. But I challenge anyone to give me some objective reason, based on naturalistic philosophy, why rape should be considered objectively bad or wrong. The fact is, they can’t, because objective morality, for them, simply does not exist. All morality is necessarily subjective and relative.
The truth is, objectively real moral principles do exist. They exist because God created mankind to be a particular kind of creature based on an expression of reality that is objectively real – and part of that reality applies to our sexuality. Human sexuality is not merely a natural biological function as Naturalists insist. It includes that, but human beings are not merely biological creatures. We are spiritual persons who have the capacity to act purposefully in relation to a moral reality that is objectively real.
So, does immorality exist any more? Well, yes it does; and those who choose to believe and act contrary to the objectively real moral law that God instituted in the universe, do not actually break his law. Rather, they simply put themselves in a position to break themselves on that moral law. At some point, reality always wins.