Skip to main content

See also:

Sanitizing the immoral, or, the village is failing

The television network ABC Family has among its shows one called Baby Daddy. It's about a man who discovers he's a father after a one night stand. Hilarity ensues.

So this is what passes for family entertainment these days? It makes The Waltons and Little House on the Prairie seem downright archaic. But more than that: it marks the logical direction of a path which seeks, intentionally or not, to destroy the real and true family. When we as a society have come to the point where we accept gay marriage and sister wives as legitimate moral options, where should we expect to land except with a resounding crash where no actual parameters to personal behavior remain? Bestiality, perhaps? Of course, that won't happen. The same people who promote undisciplined human behavior can't have anyone violating animal rights.

Quite frankly, this is the trouble with an ill defined sense of personal freedom: it shoos personal discipline and personal responsibility to the side. It becomes an excuse for any old act which doesn't directly affect others. It conveniently ignores the concept of indirect affect. People say, you don't want your kids to like blank, teach them not to like it. Yet when the general society is working against what you're trying (very rightly) to teach, it affects who you're trying to teach, and not necessarily for the good of anyone.

Mrs. Clinton was right (even though she misused the analogy): it takes a village. That's why the village has responsibility to the person, up to and including recognizing and promoting good behavior while, at the least, discouraging bad behavior. When the village refuses to make judgment about even personal behaviors then it will be overrun with any and all behaviors. We will then no longer have a civil society. But we will have a jungle. And a dense and impassable one at that.