Leaving religion aside, the rationale for a society to limit sex to marriage is fairly basic. Marriage “sanctifies” what is otherwise merely self-centered pleasure-seeking, while also protecting individuals and society from most of the problems associated with “unwanted” children, sexual diseases and serial relationships. (How many of our most pressing social problems today are directly or indirectly related to these factors?)

Once a society abandons marriage as the prerequisite for sexual relations, however, there remains scant logical grounds to restrict any form of sexual deviance or promiscuity. For example, on what grounds can a society deny homosexuals freedom of conduct if non-homosexuals have been permitted to engage in similar disease-transmitting sexual acts? And if public health considerations no longer outweigh the “right” to sexual freedom under the law, what justifies continued limitations upon sado-masochism, incest, beastiality and even pedophilia? A society is left with no bases for regulating sexual conduct but its surviving moral standards and the legal concept of “mutual consent.”

Can we have confidence that America’s moral standards will present a lasting barrier to the continued escalation of sexual deviance? Certainly not with regard to consensual sex between adults. A quick perusal of the menu of available pornography on the Internet reveals that battle has been lost. But will the line hold against the legitimization of adult-child sex? The answer to that lies in the hands of the “gay” activists, whose dedication to their own sexual freedom has driven the sexual revolution.