When the episcopal church made it's decision(s) around all things GLBT, the process was political. We met in conventions and passed legislation. As such, the decisions were made in the realm of power and politics. Arguments were obviously provided, sometimes with great passion, but I am not sure how much actual discussion took place. Dialogue frequently means, "let's talk and then do what I want." That was certainly what I saw in this process.

As an inside observer of the process I attempted to listen to the arguments. In the end, the pro-GLBT arguments drove me to the other side. They were generally problematic. They tended to ignore the implications of their conclusions. It did not feel 'nice' to take such a position. It was difficult in light of the pain so many GLBT had suffered. But having spent many years in seminary where moral argumentation was taught I knew that reason has a place in argumentation and reason was not on their side.

Among the things which worried me most was the disdain for tradition and philosophy (especially teleology). The Biblical arguments were typical. Each side grabbed up some texts and either "proofed" their position or "explained away" the other. The best argument I heard (though ironically unappealing at first hearing) was that the natural order is man-woman marriage as set forth in Genesis. I found this to be unmoving for a long time.

The genius of the insight dawned on me later. However, perhaps because of the more Protestant nature of the group, rarely was the church's historical interpretation of the texts brought forth. In the end, the fatal flaw of personal interpretation is it is personal. As such, conservatives tend to read conservatively and liberals tend to read liberal-ly. It is the nature of our subjectivity. Therefore, the pros and cons argued past each other. Much of the Biblical interpretation was shaped by feelings and limited insights into the position held.

However, as the 'progressives' rejected large blocks of scripture as 'outdated' they failed to recognize the repercussions. Like a toddler with sticky fingers, their arguments were picking up extra debris. For example, the claim that one's sexual orientation is God given and therefore God blessed. We heard the constant refrain "God made me this way." I and others pointed out that this was an erroneous assumption and a problematic one as well. We were ignored (and demonized). Fast forward eight years, to September 2011. Now we hear a growing movement to normalize pedophilia... The argument used? You guessed it. We cannot judge the natural occurring desires of another. Let me be clear, I and others made this logical connection almost a decade ago and we were lambasted. Now, before our eyes, we see and hear exactly the things we said would happen. The horror.

The pro-pedophilia crowd has embraced the GLBT arguments and inserted their own group. The outcome is less certain, but in the end, once one begins arguing about the acceptability of such things, there is a sense in which the battle is lost. A society which argues about such things is open to the possibility. A society which embraces unfettered freedom and individual rights is ripe to embrace it.

I am not saying gay people are child molesters. I am, however, also not shying away from the fact that the arguments made for acceptance of GLBT is also being used by the pro-pedophilia crowd. That is what I saw coming long ago. Arguments have consequences. Changing institutions impacts other institutions. Dismantling marriage will produce other unintended consequences.

The connections between some in the GLBT community and those sexually attracted to youths are documented. Sex between adult males and male teens has been well documented in the clergy sex abuse scandals. Ignoring this inconvenient truth has not been helpful. The politically correct limitations have helped create an environment where the idea of child molesting may become past tense. It is all so awful.

Years ago when I said such things I was told it would never, could never happen. Today, we are in the midst of the discussions. Many people have no idea what is going on. They did not pay attention to the consequences of 'sticky' arguments. Trying to be nice they opened the door to 'everyone' without thinking what everyone includes. An unattended, open door provides an open avenue to the monsters. And the monsters are real. And the monsters are trying to come in the house.

On September 14th our local paper ran an article by David Brooks, "The erosion of shared moral frameworks." Brooks reflected on the findings from a group of sociologists who studied America's youth. His point is that today's youth, while not decadent, are inept in discussing moral issues. Two-thirds were unable to describe a moral dilemma. Brooks reflects upon their inabillity to think in moral terms. It is very disconcerting. He concludes that things were different in the past: "A shared religion defined rules and practices. Cultures structured people's imaginations and imposed moral disciplines. But now more people are led to assume that the free-floating individual is the essential moral unit."

This does not mean that people were better in the past. Sinful humans sin. The problem of sin is always there. The problem is the younger among us are incapable of deciphering what sin is, beyond obvious things like murder. The bigger problem is the total ascendency of the individual/personal over the corporate/communal.The ethical system in which I was educated in seminary had a helpful balance between individual conscience and institutional expectations.

The concept of an informed conscience was a key element. A person was expected to engage the revelation of God's will as found in Scripture and discerned by and articulated through the Church. I know the Protestant approach negates the latter as unhelpful, and many Protestant friends speak of Church Tradition as a negative. Yet, clearly, the current conflict over interpretation of Scripture is grounded in "free-floating individuals" and the result has been rather chaotic.

The advocates for Man-Boy love (called NAMBLA, a group which no longer "officially" exists) was originally an active agent in gay rights advocacy. Lesbians were resistant to this and as the gay rights advocates became 'less radical' and more mainstream NAMBLA was expelled from their organizations.

One can only wonder to what degree the decisions were made for practical purposes (in pursuing acceptance of homosexuality). I have no doubt that many homosexuals whom I know would be offended by NAMBLA. I also am not surprised that Lesbians would find it offensive. The only point I make is that there is an overlap, and a significant overlap, of the movement to 'normalize' GLBT relationships and the aims of NAMBLA.

Because the existing moral code is under attack, not only by secularists, but also by those within the church, we live in a time where much change is taking place. What is most worrisome is that the conservative evangelicals, long criticized for their "intolerance" are manifesting the same erosion of values that their Liberal/Progressive opponents are advocating.

It is based, at least in part, on the general decline of churches into collections of "free-floating individuals." The ecclesiology of many committed Christians minimizes the value of church and negates catholicity. An emphasis on personal salvation is interpreted through the predominant cultural lens (what is in it for me?) and the rejection of the church's authority to teach reduces each person to an isolated decision maker. Shaped by assumptions which are non-Christian and limited by mediocre skills in moral analysis and decision making, the church youth are little better equipped to answer life's challenges than their non-believing neighbors.

In the end, the Bible is not always terribly helpful to such an individual. There is much in the Bible which confuses. There is a need to interpret the texts and such interpretations can be very divergent, very, very divergent. And when we listen to no voice but our own (and those who say what we want to hear) the likelihood of hearing the text say what we want to hear increases tenfold.

The success of the GLBT coalition has been astounding. For the better part of a decade it has been front and center of news stories and popular entertainment. (e.g., a popular show among teens, Glee, revels constantly in gay themes). Progressives would applaud such openness. I am not so enthusiastic. Instead, I continue to see (helpful) boundaries disappear. The efforts to normalize the GLBT has moved the limits of toleration ever closer to acceptance of the 'next thing'. The current movement to change age of consent and rethink the issue of sex between adult and child is the beginning, not the end, of a process. To the extent that they have undermined traditional moral teaching, the adovocates of GLBT stand responsible for this latest tragedy.

The failure of honesty and the refusal to analyze their own arguments (and the consequences of their claims) has produced an environment of new danger. Calling traditional morality "hate speech" has made it less possible to speak the truth in love to the advocates of child sex. Molesters revel in all this.

They have hope that the weakened standing of the traditional moral code will provide them with the opportunity to normalize their perversions. I do not see how the Progressives can answer this advance. After all, when you claim that no one has a right to judge another, you open the door to everything. Well, the door is open and everything is on its way in.

----Jeffery W. Marx is the rector of St. Andrews in Collierville, TN. He was a Roman priest for five years and in social work for ten after that. He is married with three children. He has been in TEC since 1993.