---- — Razing boundaries between right, evil
Each time I write a letter to the editor, I strive to self edit it for alarmism. Given the contentious nature of issues these days, it is not difficult to sound alarmist. No doubt some readers consider me to be so.
However, the simplest way for anyone to determine whether I am alarmist is to observe if my conclusions match emerging reality. Thus it is that I read with great interest the “House of Burgess” column of Feb. 19.
I have been forthright in declaring the ultimate goal of sexual anarchists and their push for “marriage equality” is to silence the moral constraints of Christianity and other major religions and institutionalize adult-child sexual relationships. Needlessly and senselessly alarmist on my part? One can decide as one wishes, but consider the nature of what Mr. Burgess addressed in his column concerning film directors Woody Allen and Roman Polanski.
Both of these Big Entertainment darlings are accused of pedophile behavior. Mr. Burgess abhors such behavior, but he cannot find it within himself to distance himself from the works they have created and thereby end his contributions to their lavish lifestyles and tacit approval of their actions. Given that both Allen and Polanski continue to live large, it is apparent that thousands of others agree with the line of thinking shared by Mr. Burgess.
Here, then, is what gives validation to my conclusions concerning the current conflict with sexual anarchy: The entertainment industry has long been engaged in crusades designed to demolish the boundaries between conscientious morality and reckless immorality.
Adulterous marriage partners, homosexuality and even sexual relationships between minors have been turned into prime time sitcoms and dramas designed to entice viewers into the misguided belief immorality has no negative consequences and anyone who thinks otherwise is guilty of hate speech.
In order to favorably sway public opinion, is it really outlandish or alarmist to make the logical conclusion these two entertainment titans and others will not find ways to justify their behavior and skewer everyone who thinks otherwise as dimwitted moralists and enemies of the Constitution? After all, the thousands upon thousands who vote with their dollars are sending the clear message about the lifestyles they support.
Separate the “art” from the artists all you want, but the artists can still afford more than enough alcohol, drugs and children to satiate all the deviant desires they want.
Charles A. Layne
Ind. doesn’t commit to sexual education
Complaints about abortion providers uncovered a few tardy reports of abortions of 13-year-olds. Pregnancy in 13-year-olds is always unfortunate.
Indiana deems mutual consent between 13-year-olds invalid. Neither is considered a victim of rape; it is mutual abuse. Without knowing the partner’s age, it’s not correct to say a 13-year-old girl was a “victim of rape,” as activists and journalists have done.
Dr. Klopfer sometimes informs parents that neighboring states have different reporting laws. Reporting 13-year-olds can be harmful, carrying risk of suicide, violence, and creating barriers to health care. The position of the Society of Adolescent Medicine is that mandatory reporting laws based only on age are detrimental and sexual activity shouldn’t be presumed sexually abusive.
The problem isn’t abortion providers. The problem is the state doesn’t commit to 13-year-olds’ sexuality education, health care and opportunity.
Sue Ellen Braunlin, M.D.
Indiana ReligiousCoalition for Reproductive Justice