"Shall we reinstate Slavery, then?"

***The following is an excerpt from a recent debate between two prominent politicians. Congressman Smith is a noted liberal, while Senator James is a prominent Secular Humanist.***

Congressman Smith: "Shall we reinstate slavery, then? Is that really what you're suggesting?"

Senator James: "Absolutely! It's my distinct opinion, Congressman Smith, that abolitionism inflicts upon my rights as an American consumer. After all, if you don't want slaves, then don't own one!"

CS: "Well, that's purely ridiculous. You are actually seeking to enslave other human beings? You have no right to do that to other people!"

SJ: "Their being "people," Mr. Smith, and therefore afforded Constitutional rights, is merely your opinion. Despite the outward appearances and biological viability, I tend to believe them to be no more than animals."

CS: "But how can you say that? Just look at them! They're human!"

SJ: "It's no more than your opinion vs. mine, and America provides us both with the right to our opinion, does it not?"

CS: "That's ludicrous!"

SJ: "No more, sir, than your position on abortion."

CS: "Well, that's a hot topic of great debate. Women must have a choice."

SJ: "And I want my choice of slaves, then. If you choose to parse and label humanity for your own convenience, than I shall do the same."

Moderator: "Clearly we have reached the limit of this topic. Let's move on to sexual ethics. Senator James, you've been accused of pedophilia for your alleged involvement with a seventeen year old girl. How do you plead?"

SJ: "Well, sir, first of all, there was no intercourse involved.. And if there was, what of it? She's as adult a girl as I've known, intellectually stronger than most women I know."

CS: "I can't believe my ears. First you argue in favor of slavery, and now for pedophilia?"

SJ: "Why is it pedophilia? She is a sexually viable woman, mature enough to make her own decisions. If two such consenting adults decide to be together, what business is it of yours?"

CS: "But she's not an adult! She's only seventeen!"

JS: "Now you're quibbling with legal labels, sir. Such a law is a gross generalization, and cannot apply to all young women. After all, great kings and nobles of the past have had wives who were barely old enough to qualify as teenagers!"

CS: "But that is not our American standard! We know better than to do such things! It's simply wrong!"

SJ: "Stay out of my bedroom, Congressman."

CS: "What you are doing is clearly wrong, and such thinking is very dangerous."

SJ: "Oh really, Congressman? What about natural law? What about God's implied viewpoint on the issue?"

CS: "Such things do not concern me, Senator James. I'm merely concerned about upholding the law."

SJ: "As am I, Congressman. In this case, I call your laws subjective and immoral. I feel that if the social standard be the only one, then your beliefs are infringing upon my beliefs. The Constitution urges me to oppose immoral leadership!"

CS: "Yet what you are doing continues to be illegal."

SJ: "If you choose to apply subjective labels to what is -- or is not -- carnally acceptable in this nation, then I will do the same. I hereby propose an amendment to redefine marriage as being possible between a man and a woman as young as fifteen. In doing so, I not only liberate young women, but follow in the tradition of our ancestors. I also challenge the dominant hegemony, who I feel wrongly assert their sexual morality upon the rest of us!"

CS: "That's absurd!"

SJ: "Is it, Congressman? How about your own husband in Massachusetts? How is such an alternative lifestyle legally possible?"

CS: "That is unfair. We are two consenting adults, living a peaceful and agreeable life together. It is our right to do so."

SJ: "Well, then you and I disagree on the legal meaning of the word "marriage." In which case, I would also like to disagree on the legal meaning of the word "adult," as so many States already do. I will take my seventeen year-old mistress to Georgia, where we shall be legally bound, despite your bigoted and heterophobic protests."

CS: "You're bordering on the ludicrous, Senator James."

SJ: "Am I? I've only used your own logic and beliefs under a different pretense... If your way of looking at the world is the correct one, then it makes no difference that we disagree, even on such fundamental issues..."

***
I of course in no way support slavery or pedophilia, but have merely tried to make a point that so many otherwise intelligent people seem so unwilling to grasp: there ARE objective standards to consider when human rights come into play. They are the objective standards of the natural law invoked by the very same document that justified American Independence. If morality is merely a social dictate, then anything can ultimately become legal if enough people support it.

There is a reason that the opening statement by Senator James is absurd, and it has nothing to do with your personal opinion.

Yet, looking at it a second time, the entire debate is absurd, because it merely hinges on opinions and legal quibbling. America has worked, up until now, because our laws and viewpoints had a deeper source. We abandon the source at our peril, risking that the above discussion become a political reality...