Which is more immoral? To deny use of condoms to potential AIDS victims in impoverished nations, or to provide condoms to children under eighteen in areas at high risk for teen pregnancies? These are just two questions, but given an almost infinite number of like scenarios, it is amazing how much people link sex and morality. There is clearly a link to sex and morality, but it is a twisted link in a perverted chain of authority over human beings. 

The correct answer to both questions, and to any question about sexual morality should fall back to two considerations. What reduces the greatest amount of suffering on the planet? and Who gets to decide?  Most human cultures have Holy scripture to follow when it comes to proscribed behaviors. Yet, as modern ethicists point out, quite correctly, ancient texts often allow rape, slavery, child abuse, polygamy, savagery in war and many other moral outrages which only a sadist would confuse with morality.

To be politically correct, which thank (Flying Spaghetti Monster?) god, no one is required to be on Helium, a writer would say that all human societies are equal and valid. Clearly, as every culture is in constant flux that is not possible. And, an action being sanctioned by immoral laws or authority does not make one moral, even if it does make one lawful. In those nations where there is no separation of church and state, it may very well be lawful to murder homosexuals, or people who work on the Sabbath, but it certainly is not right.

People intend for moral laws and authority to help guide them and their children through murky waters of unclear ethics. Yet, all too often, they do not themselves do the hard work of reasonably weighing the heft of authority against the consequence of blind adherence to articles of faith. Note: When one is too obsessed with articles of clothing, or lack thereof, they are more likely to blindly follow articles of faith to the letter. They are likely not as compassionate towards rape victims who “ask for it” by dressing in bikinis rather than Burkas.

There is a measurable way to find a balance of moral versus immoral. One simply has to reveal the statistics of sexual slavery, costs to families of pornography, influence on “traditional ” marriage versus modern marriage, and so on. It does however, ask for people to think for themselves, to always be skeptical of the motivations of authority, and to quit giving such institutions as the priesthood, or political role models a free pass.

In America today, people are more attune to scandal than to reality. Part of this is due to the repressive nature of church and state over human sexuality. If some high ranking generals want to do the Hanky Panky with people other than their spouses, this is only really a threat if it fails to expose a more important issue: Hey, guess what, people are fighting and dying in the wars you guys are supposed to be managing. Look at this, not at tits.

And if leaders want to go after other leaders for adultery, such as when the far right fought to impeach Bill Clinton, they should all be held to the same moral code. Instead, some resign who did nothing illegal, such as “sexting” while others run for President even after confirmed breaking of  “scared family values.” 

Clearly, the re-election of Obama shows that morality and sexuality are progressing, even in America. Women are beginning to own their personal bodies, and to object to the church or state defining “rape” to them or “choice.” Homophobic bigots are terrified while homosexuals are becoming accepted as real people. Churches are realizing that the priesthood probably should not sanction pedophiles and rapists. And pornography is so rampant that at some point soon, women are going to start demanding it be less degrading. Maybe porn will die of scorn, or  worse, develop story lines.