TSF

I've always been baffled by the Muslim view of heaven--72 virgins. What's that all about? Heaven is time surrounded by 72 women who haven't had sex? And that's "heavenly" how? Well, of course, it's about sex. Everyone knows that "sex"="heaven". Or, at least, they should.

It's the message today. The clamor is for TSF--Total Sexual Freedom. We should be allowed to pursue happiness, you see, and happiness is defined as "doing whatever we want sexually". The quaint moral concept of "perverted" is right out. The claim is "What I do with whom in my bedroom is no one's business." That claim in the '60's meant "We don't have to be married to have sex," but "You've come a long way, baby." What that sex entailed, what was "sexy", how public that bedroom was made, who those activities were with, and so much more have all morphed until we have groups that publicly assert that "man-boy love" is good, that marriages between multiple men and women together ought to be recognized, and, equally disturbingly, that anyone who believes otherwise is a discriminating hater.

That's what's going on over the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) situation. It's not that anyone is saying, "We are going to discriminate against gays!" The fear is that there is a possibility that someone (unnamed at this point, but likely one of those hateful Christian types) might object morally to my means of orgasm and that will never do! The link is simple. "If Christian, then bigot." Anyone with moral values (except the moral value of total sexual freedom) is a hater. Any attempt to limit my total sexual freedom is itself evil, and that includes your opinion that my behavior is in some sense bad.

One is tempted to think, "It's that small, oppressed minority, the gays, who are up in arms here" and, as such, might be sympathetic. But it's not possible, in light of the responses to this law, to conclude such a thing. It's not some "loud and proud" gay group yelling out there. It's Apple and Angie's List and the NCAA and the Democratic Party (whose president signed into law the 1993 RFRA). The aim here is not to defend some oppressed minority, but to make people with religious values the endangered minority. Because nothing is more fundamental to human rights than my Total Sexual Freedom, and you had better not say anything about it ... even in your own mind.

So, where do we go from here? Recently my place of employment required us all to fill out a "diversity survey". You know, "How do you think we're doing encouraging diversity in the workplace?" That kind of thing. One of the questions they asked--and you know what answer they hoped for--was "Do you feel safe expressing views that might not agree with the mainstream?" I had to honestly answer "No" because, while they might certainly encourage diverse views on Total Sexual Freedom, regardless of how bizarre or even morally reprehensible they might be, they would certainly not keep someone employed who held to a biblical perspective on such things. "That will never do. Your services will no longer be required." Because our current society encourages diversity ... as long as it's not Christian. And the Indiana hubbub shows that the media, the captains of industry, and the culture in general will certainly militate strongly against any law that defends people of traditional faith. Tolerance is the buzzword, but it only goes one way--my total sexual freedom.