Though the trend is arguably decades old, recent court cases and public events have demonstrated the apparent moral (and legal) confusion over sexual behavior in the United States (and elsewhere).  Of course, when right and wrong are decided by the tide of opinion and relativism, it’s not unforeseeable.  As noted below, the US Congress is even trying to redefine “rape” in the military context.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a denial of a habeas corpus petition by Paul Lowe, a man charged with adult incest with his 22-year-old step-daughter (Lowe v. Stark County Sherriff, No. 09-3942 (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 2011)).  The decision cites a wide variety of cases, some supporting his position and many not.  The court ultimately decided (as have others) there is no fundamental right to sexual conduct, even private behavior between consenting adults.

The court also said Lowe’s complaints the law was “morality-based” were “meritless.”  Importantly, the court also said there remains a legitimate state interest in “protecting the family” — which, oddly enough, is a similar strain of logic used to oppose the acceptance of homosexual unions.

The legitimate state interest in the protection of the family also played out in Canada, when it ruled that polygamy was detrimental both to the family and the state.  Conversely, an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics advocates for multiple-marriage.  Ironically, many advocates for homosexuality have been slow to support — or they outright oppose — the “sexual liberty” of their polyamorous peers, despite the identical logic in use.  For some, it may have been purely a political stand:  Since it was believed a majority of the American public opposed multiple marriage, it was safe to describe those who warned of a slippery slope of “scare tactics.”  Still, a “multiple-family” in Utah is suing for that very reason.

That train continues, as homosexuals are currently suing for expanded “rights” by trying to get the Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional.  Some, but not all, of those groups are continuing to advocate for their transgender peers who are still prohibited from military service.

If it wasn’t so tragic, it would almost be comical the lengths some people go to carve out ethical behavior in an environment that is inherently immoral to begin with.

For example, if a group of al Qaeda terrorists executes an Islamic prisoner, it seems trivial and even ridiculous to argue over whether the victim should be buried in accordance with Islamic tradition.  It’s like arguing over whether or not you used your turn signal while ignoring the fact you were doing 90 MPH in a 45 zone.

Likewise, in attempts to encourage “moral” behavior in the military, experts frequently preach on the topic of sex (almost always simultaneously with the topic of alcohol).  What guidance on morality do they give?

The heartening part is young men and women alike want to make sure they have consent before engaging in sexual activity; unfortunately they don’t always seem to understand what consent is and isn’t. So today I would like to spend a few moments to clarify this issue…

If a person is intoxicated, incapacitated or unconscious, they may NOT be able to give consent. Ask yourself: “Would this person have sex with me if he/she was sober?” If the answer is ‘yes’, then there is no reason you can’t wait until they are sober before you initiate sex! On the flip side if the answer is ‘no’ then you should find someone else, who is willing to have sex with you when they are sober…

Ignored, obviously, is the moral Rubicon that unmarried men and women in the military cross when they decide not to keep their pants on.  (In fact, while official briefings and discussion on sexual conduct abound, not a single public example suggests members of the military abstain from sex with anyone but their spouse, when they get one.)  While one need look no further than the latest romantic-comedy to understand marriage does not necessarily equal consent, it certainly does eliminate much of the fluff discussion revolving around how to figure out if you can have sex (notably, the conversations are never about whether you should).

This emphasis, combined with pressure to press charges in even tenuously supported alleged sexual assaults, has led to widespread controversy in the military due to classic he-said, she-said accusations where the act of sex isn’t contested — just the circumstances under which it occurred.

In fact, the confusion and controversy is so deep few have noticed the US Senate’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (S.1867) (which repeals the ban on sodomy and bestiality) also redefines rape under the UCMJ, apparently in an attempt to address this controversy in the military.  It seems to try to reserve the word “rape” for the stereotypical crime of violent force.

If the Senate’s rewording stands after the conference committee, the number one accusation of rape in the US military — not a violent attack, but that the victim was either asleep, unconscious, or drunk — will no longer be rape.  It will instead be “sexual assault.”

Semantics?  You’ll have to ask the Congressmen (or their staffs) who wrote it, because its unlikey the moral confusion over sexual behavior in the military, or American society, is going to be cleared up any time soon.

With reference to the ADF.