On Tuesday Nov. 14, an article by Mr. Nathan Alday appeared in The Reflector discussing the justification of a so-called “sex column” and the supposed groundless arguments by its opponents. I am one of those opposed to such a column, and I want to take a moment to clarify the reason why.
Mr. Alday quoted unnamed individuals stating sex has become taboo and trivialized by society, and he argued that the disapproval of the proposed column by individuals, such as myself, further places a stigma on this expression of intimacy. Nothing could be further from the truth; sex is not dirty or shameful in and of itself. It is a gift of God, but it is the exploitations of the union by columns, such as the one proposed, along with elicit images permeating our society that has denigrated the union.
I do agree with Mr. Alday that propriety should not serve as grounds to avoid addressing an issue. If a belief system cannot be tested it cannot be trusted, but that does not mean discussions should be without limits or boundaries. Let’s talk about issues, morals, and foundations for truth, but when it comes to specifics of what individuals do behind closed doors, that often takes it too far. How may I ask, will the student body benefit from such a specific discussion as the one Mr. Alday suggested at the end of his last article?
Contrary to what Mr. Alday stated, identifying a viewpoint or an activity as immoral or inappropriate is not an act of suppression or censorship. In his article, Mr. Alday rejected the concept that propriety or morality should be determining factors in conducting life, much less The Reflector. He seemed to imply that lines between proper and improper are blurred and circumstantial.
Again, I respectfully disagree. There is absolute truth, despite what moral relativists are teaching today, and this truth is found in the Bible and through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ-not just knowledge of Christ or the Bible, but daily communion with Him. God is not constrained by human reason or natural law; therefore, it would be futile for anyone to rely solely upon human reason when making decisions.
God reveals his standards of right living in the Bible. These revealed laws and standards of God (i.e., our only basis for morality and propriety) are not meant to keep us from happiness. On the contrary, God’s standards are meant to preserve us for happiness.
Mr. Alday correctly stated that Christ is the ultimate example of unconditional love. He does love us regardless of our sins or failures, and no amount of good deeds will cause him to love us any more then he already does. This, however, does not give us the freedom to promote or actively participate in lasciviousness. Quite the opposite, the love of Christ requires that we deal with immorality in our lives and abstain from it.
Mr. Alday went on to defend the proposed column by stating sexual activity is discussed by religious institutions and even the Bible. That is a very good point, but it is a point that refutes his own argument. What is said regarding sexual relations in the Bible is intended to solely promote fidelity between a husband and wife, while always condemning the same actions outside the context of marriage between a man and woman. There are always negative consequences when we deviate from this moral standard.
The Reflector is already an avenue for general discussions of moral issues, with no need to devote a specific column to topics that would only server to further denigrate a sacred union intended for a husband and wife. Yes, I suppose that the proposed column in all its debauchery has the freedom to exist, but though all things may be lawful, all things are not profitable or edifying. Furthermore, there is a way that may seem right to man, but in the end, it brings death. These are things I hope The Reflector staff seriously considers when making its decision.