Most times I find that it is not a question of wether or not a "line should be drawn" but rather "where is the line drawn".
The only line that should be drawn has to do with the definition of sex. I can think of some acts that some people might consider sexual that have nothing, or only incidentally, to do with sex per se.
That said, we exist under special conditions, so a line must be drawn. But it's those conditions that should be eradicated. However, until they are, I'm for existing within them.
As a Christian, I don't have an issue if someone does not agree with where I draw my lines. But I do have an issue with someone who "judges" me for having drawn a line.
I believe that people ought to be absolutely free in this regard so long as they don't impinge the freedom of others. So whatever you want to do or believe about sex in your private life is fine with me; in fact, I will celebrate your right to so decide.
Because it has been my experience that at some point, most everyone draws a line. Although, there are some that do believe and do argue that no lines should be drawn.
Well, again, I'm for definitional lines. Beyond that, it's not for me to decide what people do.
And I would say, that if a person does not believe in a personal infinite God...then they are most consistent and logical if they do not draw any lines. For if there is no God, then there are no moral absolutes.....and if there are no moral absolutes....then there is no right and there is no wrong.
I think any of the reasonable interpretations of this bit of locution turn out to be incorrect. Suppose there is a personal and infinite God and there are also moral absolutes that God does not agree with? This may seem strange, but there is no necessary logical contradiction implied. Suppose there is not a God, but there are moral absolutes. Suppose there is a God, but no moral absolutes. And so on. God is not a necessary guarantor of morals.
There is simply opinion and perception with no opinion having more value than any other.
Again I'm not completely sure about this. Even supposing there are no moral absolutes (I tend to think there are not), that doesn't mean that we can't judge moral opinions via other standards. I might object to a person's morality because it so offends me that I can't help it. Again, this may seem strange, but let's stop talking about morals for a moment, and talk about what Oranges (the citrus fruit) are worth. A person who owns a 5,000 acre Orange orchard might not be convinced to buy any oranges at any price--and if they don't sell oranges for a living or depend on them in any way, then oranges are surely worthless. On the other hand, a starving man will pay dearly for one.
So questions of value, of judgement, of justification, are all artifacts of a worldview that assumes moral absolutes. If we truly subtract moral absolutes from the equation, then those things, and the grounds for objection they form, must also go. So, I might acknowledge that a child molestor's moral code has no more absolute moral worth than my own (as a non-child molestor)--not because I make a value judgement, but because I reject the very notion of a value judgement to begin with. Instead, I judge the child molestor on my terms, and as it happens, I judge them quite harshly. The authority to do so comes from me and me alone.
This system works out quite beautifully if you follow it to its logical conclusion.
