The Supreme Court has recently issued a ruling which will essentially strike down laws against sodomy. The gay community is hailing this as a blow for freedom while the religious communities are warning that this is a blow against marriage and the family. Both are right, if you carefully define what is meant by freedom.

The liberal definition of rights covers a broader range of activities than has been traditionally allowed by American law, which is based on Christian principles. They deny the authority of God to pronounce laws, often even denying His existence, and thus deny the authority of Christians to establish and enforce laws. Instead, laws are being devised to check people from restricting harmful behavior in the name of personal freedom and human rights. Personal freedom has replaced personal responsibility as the cornerstone of their belief system.

There is more than personal freedom involved in the sodomy laws and similar laws governing sexual conduct. There are also the consequences to the persons involved, not only to those doing the acts but to the society in which they live. God had a good reason for commanding what He did against sodomy. Sodomy (and other forms of promiscuous sex) spreads deadly diseases, undermines the male-female relationship, undermines marriage, and undermines the family where children receive that crucial nurturing and teaching in society's values and vital social and work skills, hence the outcry from the religious community.

The liberals think that we are sufficiently advanced to be able to cope with these problems. However, the best medical science has not been able to develop a cure for AIDS and the other sexually transmitted diseases are developing drug-resistant forms. The rest of us are also threatened by these diseases as well as the potential impact on health insurance and the health care system. Many African health care systems are already struggling to provide care for AIDS patients as well as the affected societies having to deal with thousands of orphans and elderly people left behind when the young and middle age adults succumb to the disease and its complications.

The root of the problem is that the liberals have not only lost the fear of God but they have also lost the fear of the consequences of foolish behavior. The best education programs in the world will not stop the spread of AIDS if people with a delusion of safety continue the practices which spread the disease. The denial of the clear medical facts of the methods of transmission and the failure rates of "safe sex" methods may feel like freedom, but it is a tragic confusion instead.

A further delusion lies in the denial of the effect that sodomy and other forms of promiscuous sex have on the structure of society. The liberals insist that free sex has had a beneficial effect on society, liberating people to be themselves more fully without being stigmatized by people of other beliefs. The changes in society since the adoption of free sex have shown otherwise. Significant other relationships have not been shown to be an improvement over traditional marriage, and both the break ups of these relationships and the divorce rates have become so common as to be accepted as normal. Yet because promiscuous sex is hailed as an expression of love between the partners, we are supposed to respect their privacy no matter what we can see happening as a result of de-stigmatizing sex outside of marriage.

The truth is that sex has become treated more a matter of casual lust rather than committed love, with the resultant fragile relationships offering momentary pleasures with no long-term stability, especially for women and children. These casual relationships have the feel of freedom about them, but only until the consequences catch up to the individuals involved. Love will not protect anyone from unintended pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, or relationships too fragile to make the commitment of marriage in the first place. Lust does not prevent abusive or exploitive relationships, either.

By making sexual relationships so easy to enter, we are denying ourselves the true love superficially promised in return for a fleeting imitation of it without any serious commitment of the two lives involved. It is ironic that the gay community is fighting for the privilege of getting married while so many heterosexuals are defending the so-called right of having sex without marriage, but that schizophrenic view of the value of marriage and sex is the result of defying God's instructions about both.