Porn mommies, gay marriage, politics and legislating morality.

Starting with the last item of the title, you can't legislate morality. You can't make people like one another via laws & regulations. There ARE items needing legal support (if rape weren't a crime would it be more prevalent?). Hey, lets take a look at that last one.

Rape is a crime throughout Western society. But how it's treated will depend in large part on the cultural back ground. I recall my time stationed in Italy. One of the things I heard was that teen girls would often refuse to date some guy without a chaperon or another couple going along for the ride. The reason was that if the man wanted some action and the girl said, "No" he could easily ruin her reputation by telling all and sundry what a little slut she really was and how she'd screwed him hog style, dog style, any old style (even YOUR style) while they were alone together. You can guess how that would hamper any legitimate complaints of date rape.

That problem isn't so prevalent in the USA, as a matter of fact many men might argue it's the reverse here (Duke lacrosse team, where are you now?). So in both countries you've got the idea that rape is a crime and should be harshly punished (when I was in Italy another thing we were all told was that Italians had no sense of humor regarding assault on women or children). But the whole idea of "burden of proof" is approached differently and it's because of the cultural mindset.

What put me in mind of this? Two recent stories; the first involved owners of an inn in Vermont who refused to host a wedding reception for a lesbian couple. Here's that story: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120823/NEWS07/308230025/Couple-settles-discrimination-lawsuit-Vermont-resort

The second story involves "porn-star mommies" and heres the link for that one: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/23/stormy-daniels-on-being-a-porn-star-mom.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

With a one-two punch like that so early this morning my mind is running in circles.

On the first story, I don't see where "equality" takes precedence over religious freedom. Yet that is exactly what the results of the press for tolerance in our society has led to. This doesn't just pertain to the GLBT community, it's across the board. It shifted into high gear back in 1968 with the Fair Housing Law. FWIW, I recall a classroom discussion with my highly "progressive" teacher about this. As a sophomore in high school I was ill equipped to defend my position and showed it. Yet I stated what has since become too common a scenario, i.e. playing the race card whether it was warranted or not and having the defendant judged guilty until proven innocent.

Yet the Fair Housing Law was enacted with noble intentions. Suffering discrimination on the basis of race is repugnant. However my own feelings are that when bigotry is exhibited in the public marketplace it will eventually work towards the detriment of the bigot. If you're willing to stand up for your beliefs, fine. Go for the gusto. There will be plenty of people who only care if their client's your money is green. Let a prejudice that goes against the cultural norm exhibit itself long enough and it will run into a lot of negative consequences. No legislation needed.

The presence of legislation only complicates things and attempts to legally level the playing field, while commendable in intent, will always end badly.

The second story is a bit closer to my eventual point of this post. It repeatedly cites the negative stereotypes of  adult sex workers (that's a broad description that could include prostitutes, actors in fetish or bestiality oriented porn films, etc.). The underlying mantra seems to be "Porn stars are people and they've got feelings too!"

Ah, noted.

The readiness with which this article and it's implied plea for tolerance and acceptance is presented illustrates how a cultural mindset works. Ten or fifteen years ago this would have been almost unheard of. But now, as our mores and values change, it becomes completely legitimate.

For the record, I don't condemn prostitutes, porn stars, round heeled & easy women. Those I've met sooner or later show to the world how pitiful they really are.

But the "lifestyle" is definitely worthy of condemnation. It's loaded with health risks for starters. If you don't think our culture uses that as a criteria for behavior, when was the last time smoking a cigarette was readily acceptable behavior? Why is tobacco use no longer seen as not worthy of condemnation? It's the health risks, plain and simple. Lung cancer is an ugly thing to behold, not to mention emphysema, cancer of the trachea, mouth etc.

So our MSM and entertainment elites have swung into action over the years, vilifying and condemning what is certainly a matter of personal "choice" as much as abortion is viewed as a personal "choice". We can see the results.

Yet in a perfect example of doublethink, while the cultural elites scream of how the exposure of children to positive portrayals of cigarette smoking is immoral and evil, the same elites will passionately defend onscreen depictions of sexual license or violence as a legitimate exercise of the 1st Amendment.

Hey, if my kid is more likely to smoke a cigar after seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger light up isn't she just as likely to consider pole dancing as a career choice after seeing "Showgirls"?

If those of us espousing conservative values want to alter the path our nation is on, we have to walk the walk. We have to wholeheartedly support those entertainment outlets that reflect and endorse our values. We have to avoid those that don't.

Now that sounds fairly obvious but when was the last time you saw an action flick for reasons of the morals expressed and endorsed? The wife and I saw RED the other night, was there anything culturally uplifting or enlightening? No. Damned. Way. We saw it for the "blow-em-up-big" action.

So yeah, I'm a damned hypocrite. Putting this down on paper forces me to think more at length on that. Pray for my wife, she already thinks I'm a Puritan.

But how often do we censor what we see while the kids are around, only to let it all hang out once they go to bed?

If we want the culture to change we have to put our values first and foremost in our lives. That means frequenting those businesses that support our beliefs. Going for legislation won't work, if a particular practice or vice is widely accepted you'll never get John & Joan Q. Public to observe the law. As an example of that, look at how well Prohibition worked.

Legislation dictating morality is the cart before the horse. For an example on how it's properly done, look to the laws for seat belt use. They were enacted AFTER the general public was suitably horrified at the idea of a toddler shooting through the windshield of a car and getting peeled like a banana in the process.

For another example, look at the laws against drunk drivers. The public at large had personal experience with sots on the highway, all that was needed was MADD to articulate the revulsion and disgust. The laws followed.

So if we want to see a decrease in abortion, homosexual lifestyles, euthanasia, etc. we have to present our arguments to the public. If they've any real merit we'll prevail. If not, we'll go the way of the dinosaur. It's that simple.

If we're truly in possession of faith in the rightness of our beliefs the idea of losing won't provide the slightest bit of fear. I think it's called having the faith of your convictions. It's counter cultural but that's basically where we're at these days, trying to swim upstream against the popular cultural currents.

While we're doing this it pays to remember you get more flies with honey than vinegar. The recounting by the porno-mom of the child who was excluded from the treats provided to the rest the the elementary class is a good example. The mother who brought the cupcakes is an idiot, plain and simple. Instead of trying to FORCE her views onto her child's classmates (and isn't that exactly what excluding the one child from the celebration does?) she should lead by example.

Leading by example is tough. I mentioned the movie the wife and I saw, who doesn't want to see Bruce Willis kick ass and take names? But that's where it leads, if I truly believe viewing morally objectionable material is the GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) Principle in action then I shouldn't watch something I'd bar the kids from. "Do as I say, not as I do" is hypocrisy. End of story. It won't win any adherents to my beliefs.

Likewise relating to those who most emphatically DON'T share my beliefs. I should live my life in accordance with those beliefs BUT accept ALL people as being on the same moral level as myself. We're all sinners, some more blatantly than others. While I can condemn a sinful act or behavior I can't condemn the people involved.

So if I find myself making cupcakes for my daughter's class (don't laugh, I'm the stay-at-home dad and I do those things) I have to include ALL the children. When my little girl tells me that "Tommy's" mom showed up for Career Day and disclosed how she's a pole dancer I'll tell my daughter it's unfortunate and we should pray for that family. When asked why I should keep it focused on the behavior, not the individual.

Plus I have to make sure my own life is lived as close to my values as possible. Back to the  example of Prohibition, does anyone else recall one of the most prevalent arguments for the use of marijuana in the '60's? It was citing how our parents/grandparents completely ignored the law regarding the drug of alcohol.So the reasoning went that if Mom & Dad saw no problem with illegal drug use, why should we? Citing "Reefer Madness" didn't work, scare tactics rarely do.

Therefore if I believe sexual promiscuity is wrong I should practice what I preach and ditch the "men's" magazines, stop checking out the high school cheerleaders, etc. If I believe gratuitous violence is evil I should cease viewing "action" flicks.

Practice what I preach.