Can Love Lift Liberty Above the Divide and Conquer Issues?Submitted by fishyculture on Wed, 04/10/2013 - 18:10
If you don't have time for the entire post, here it is short and sweet: When you are choosing between legislating for morality or legislating for liberty, it is a trap. When there is a divisive law, the problem is probably in the foundation of that law. Regardless of who loves whom or who sleeps with whom, marriage licenses are ridiculous.
When you find yourself "choosing sides" on any issue, love demands you err toward liberty. The "hot topic" now seems to be the sex lives of a small minority of humans, but the concept applies to all the "hot topics" in politics - by design.
I was brought up "good Christian" and properly homophobic. In 7th grade, I met Craig. Craig tried as hard as he could to be heterosexual, he even held my hand at the roller rink one night. He was smart, funny, and the last one to know he was gay. I don't know what ever happened to him, I just know that kid was NOT "deciding" to be gay. At the time in our lives when our hormones began to rage, something in "the wiring" went "wrong" with him. Was he being molested or abused? I'll never know. But if that is the case, it is all the more reason to treat him with LOVE and COMPASSION. I think if you flip to the newer part of that book the "Christians" like to wave, there is some joker who talks about "love one another."
Later, I wound up taking anatomy and physiology a couple times, high school level, then college level, then medical level, then eye specific. The layman's understanding of "XX" or "XY" is grossly oversimplified. We are a range. This is still oversimplified, but something closer to the truth: "XYYY" "XXYY" "XXXY" "XXXX."
Physically, that manifests as people born with testes and ovaries, and people with no testes or ovaries. Consider what that would mean hormonally - the generally accepted source of our "sex drive." To say we "choose" which hormone soup we bathe our brain in is ridiculous.
Ron Paul used to be for the death penalty, then DNA evidence came along and our steadfast, unwavering doctor "flip-flopped." It is better to let guilty men walk free than to execute innocent men. That "flip-flop" is one of the reasons I supported him, I made the same "flip" for the same reasons, I just did not require the DNA test to come to that conclusion. To have both the doctors Paul refuse to speak the medical truth on the "gay rights" divide and conquer strategy is a bit disappointing. Maybe they never thought about it.
It is better to get government out of our families, out of our bedrooms, out of every aspect of our life possible. How about we stop issuing government marriage certificates all together? "Don't ask, don't tell" for everyone! Marriage, divorce, babies, - why do we need the government creating paperwork for any of it?
The most frequent case against "gay rights" is based on Old Testament Bible saying it is a sin. Maybe it is, maybe not. The OT also says judging is not our job. If homosexuality is a sin, that is an issue between the homosexual and God. Whenever you find yourself demanding a politician make a law to stop a "sin" I want you to know this without a doubt: You are on the wrong side of liberty. You might be on the wrong side of that joker who said "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Whenever possible, shoot none of them and let God sort them out.
Now, here is where it gets confusing for many, thanks to Hollywood. There are sexual predators in this world, LOTS of them. Informed consent is important - and part of that "informed consent" ought to be a discussion before ANY sexual contact about what will be done for birth control, or with any unwanted pregnancies. If handled between the two parties BEFORE sex, how many abortions would there be? If a man knew beforehand that he was about to have sex with a woman who would abort his child, he has no room to whine about it later. "Self governance" is always the correct path.
Predators can be defined by their desire for coercive sex. They seek victims, not partners. They have all sorts of sexual appetites, but most heinous are those that prey on children. Not only is there a lack of INFORMED consent, there is damage done to the process of normal sexual development. These are often the people MAKING and "upholding" the laws, and almost exclusively the type "entertaining" the masses. If you rail against a "gay marriage" entertain your kids with the predator's "programming" you are the worst kind of hypocrite; the kind that is teaching your children to trust the predators. How do we know who is which? Truth. We let the homosexuals be open in their relationships, the predators will be easier to spot.
Oh, and love them all even if you believe they are "sinning."