9 votes

Can Love Lift Liberty Above the Divide and Conquer Issues?

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.

Long version:

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."

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Are you calling Thomas Jefferson homophobic?

Fishy your words in your post:

"I was brought up "good Christian" and properly homophobic" to me are saying good Christians are made to be homophobic.

Note the use of a pejorative in the term "homophibic." I pick on your word "homophobic" as being phobic against anyone who does not agree with the said "phobia."

Then you say:

"Later, I wound up taking anatomy and physiology a couple times, high school level, then college level, then medical level, then eye specific..."

So when I read that I read I was brought up to be "homophobic" as all "good" Christians are, but later after I was educated I found the falicy in being a "good" Christian because "good" Christians are stupid because they are not educated therefore they are homophobic.
Have you ever wondered why the Bible speaks against homosexuality?

Have you ever wondered what open homosexuality looks like? http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_Research

How about the havoc on a person's health?

I ask those questions because you say this: "We let the homosexuals be open in their relationships, the predators will be easier to spot."

Why in the world would Thomas Jefferson pen these words http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs... :

"Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least."

I can hardly believe I found those words. And according to wiki...he was removing the death penalty! "In 1778, Thomas Jefferson wrote a bill in Virginia reducing the punishment for rape, polygamy or sodomy from death to castration"

Did Thomas Jefferson know something:

Do my questions and comments indicate to you that I am homophobic or perhaps I am just a Bible-waving Christian who believes in a kook?

Do my questions and comments indicate a lack of love? Or is one able to speak truth in love?


Bear, note that fishy put

"good Christian" in quotes, I believe, because she was not labeling all good Christians as "homophobic," but rather, was indicating that she was raised to be homophobic as the stereotype of a "good Christian" might be.

I have to admit, I don't always understand homosexuals, as I am straight and it doesn't make any sense to me how a man could be physically attracted to and get crushes on other men. But that is my nature, it is the way God made me.

One of my gay friends from college told me (because he was a Christian) that he had resigned himself to never being able to have that "special someone" to spend his life with because he wished to serve the Lord and felt having a homosexual relationship would tarnish that effort. I wish every straight Christian would think about that for a moment, how difficult it would be to never be with your husband or wife romantically because you knew that God would disapprove.

Honestly, Bear, I really don't think fishy was trying to insult you or any other Christian. She was just trying to explain that gay people have a very tough time in this world, and we should not try to make their plight any more difficult by condemning them for being gay, as after all, isn't condemnation or approval up to God, not us?

Personally I see it as divisive: Pitting homosexuals against

homophobic, Bible-waving Christians.

I have had several gay friends in my life,

and most of them wished to God they were straight. It honestly isn't, for the most part, a choice. Even Billy Graham said that although he believed homosexuality to be a sin, he didn't see it as any greater sin than, for instance, lying or adultery (an obvious reference to a certain televangelist who will remain nameless).

Each and every one of us sins every split second simply by existing. We can't help it, as we are all imperfect. In condemning others for a sin that has a label, we are, in fact condemning ourselves for all of our sins, whether they have labels or not. Jesus said if you have broken one commandment, you have broken them all. Keep this in mind next time you feel like complaining about the mote in your neighbor's eye.


Love Liberty --> True Life


LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I wish

I could give you 1 million stars rating -- it would still not be nearly enough to Thank you for letting the truth be known.


LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

You put your Spirit to work here

+ 1.

Without Love, there is no Liberty.

Can I borrow your words for my book of poetry?

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Great post fishy....

I like your last line....

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

Where does marriage belong?

I read a post once that stated that since marriage belongs with God, we're wrong to have government issue marriage certificates. It's effectively "rendering unto Caesar that which is God's."

I fully believe in God's plan, of chastity before marriage and complete fidelity after marriage. But this is God's territory, not the government's. It's not up to the government to dictate marriage for anyone, for any reason. Nor is it up to my neighbours, or anyone else. Teach the principles that would lead to happiness, but use no force outside of one's jurisdiction.

It's okay for me to teach my children that marriage is to be between one man and one woman, and to be virtuous and chaste before marriage and completely faithful after marriage. It's not okay to teach that those who do not live up to this standard deserve to be ostracized and mistreated and shunned. Love everyone, especially those we see as having gone astray, because everyone is a Child of God, and God loves every one of His children. Persecution will not save those precious children. Only love unfeigned and God's power can, just as it is with ourselves.

If my post has offended anyone, please know that I had no intention to offend, and I wish those offended well.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

'How about we stop issuing

'How about we stop issuing government marriage certificates all together?'

I do not know if this could work. Couples that marry have children, earn money and that complicates the issue. What would happen with divorce? What happens to the children then? How would you decide who gets what?

In order for that to work, two adults would have to sign a contract between each other to marry. As strange as that sounds it may actually work better than marriage certificates. :)

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

It used to be that marriages were registered

in the family Bible, or at the parish church, and those were considered legal documents, and still are actually, but society has changed, so in many cases that wouldn't be appropriate. Perhaps, for people who don't use Bibles or churches, and instead of a marriage permit like we have been doing, one ought to have the option of registering a marriage at city hall for in case of divorce, death, or other occasions that involve a judge.

I know couples who were married in large Presbyterian church weddings who didn't buy a marriage permit from the government, and they are lawfully married according to the Church and civil government.

The only reason why a couple would need a marriage license is for living on a military base together or being able to stay together during international military moves. The feds require a marriage license for that.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Tolerance is the substrate of Liberty

As I said on the other thread,

Without tolerance, Liberty cannot grow.

Love is what makes tolerance possible.

Without Love, there is no Liberty.

"Without Love, there is no liberty."

So simple, so true, and yet so hard to really understand.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

These words that you said

"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"."

do not match your title

"Can Love Lift Liberty Above the Divide and Conquer Issues?"

IMO because Love does lift above pointing fingers at anyone...including "the Christians." And the "joker" you speak of is Jesus Christ. He was not joking when he said to love one another.

I feel divided and conquered. It is how I felt after getting to the part about "the Christians" and the "book they wave" and "some joker."


C"mon bear, you are trying to be offended then.

You know the kind of "Christian" I am talking about, and you know sarcasm when you read it. If I thought Jesus was just a "joker" I would not be trying to promote his message of "LOVE ONE ANOTHER" in spite of the garbage the churches spew. If I called Ron Paul a "kook" would you be offended?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.


Hey I missed you last week on the DP. If you called Ron Paul a kook, I would say something.

When you say "the churches spew" you are collectivizing.

Why pick out Christians and Churches?

You say the words in absolutes "the churches" & "the Christians."

If you added the qualifier "some" I would not think twice about the statements. Or even better if you use "some who call themselves..."

There are counterfeit Christians and counterfeit churches.

Why lump them all into the same group?

The word church means called out assembly. A bowling team is a "church"

The word Christian means little Christ. Little Christs do not spew hate otherwise they are not little Christs, or in otherwords imitators of Christ. Christianity is singular, individual, and voluntary. There are many counterfeits.

Being lumped together with counterfeits gets old...Oh gee, that sounds like I am some kind of "great" Christian. I don't mean to sound that way lol. But I am not a hater, my husband is a pastor and he is not a hater. He does not spew hate. We do not spew hate.

Perhaps those that spew hate are placed by the devil to conceal the truth?

Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way

In context:


Bear, pick on words all you must to feel righteous.

You know what I am talking about. Most of the people who claim to be Christian are not "little Christs" - they are attending "mega churches" where they are exposed to blatant mass hypnosis and told to support Israel above all and that obedience to the government is God's will. They are being lead by a desire to know Christ, but few have any desire to actually FOLLOW his teachings. Churches like it that way - spiritual sovereignty means no tithes to them, and no obedient masses to control.
Those that openly spew hate are less of a problem than those who think they are doing good work, but are blindly obeying corrupt leaders.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

You know fishy

the words you write about churches and mass hypnosis concern me only because I can see churches being made out to be the villan and it seems to me that during population cleansing churches and the people that attend them are targeted.

That being said, people within churches have the right to free speech just like we do here. I understand what you are saying about churches holding power over people. However, you did not say that in your post.

That being said, people within the church have every right to teach every word written in the Bible and if certain things are called out as sin, then it is the right of those people to believe and say so. You may like to say that I am under hypnosis to believe that the Bible is from God and it holds the best plan for mankinds everyday living as well as eternity. You have every right to say that and every right to chide me.

Please know though, that I do not need to feel righteous. I just feel the need to speak my mind when I happen to read words that appear to me to be misleading. I do not have to pick out any words to feel righteous or self-righteous. I am righteous because I am in Christ and He is my righteousness.

Here we are talking about love lifting liberty and at the same time downing Bible waving Christians. The very title of your comment to me appears condescending, IMO.


I am down on hypocrites, not genuine followers of Christ.

I believe that was "between the lines" in a pretty obvious way, unless you refuse to look.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

fishy, I am trying to tell you that it's offensive to Christians

I am looking forward to your reply on the comment I just left about Thomas Jefferson being homophobic!

I figure I might as well let it all hang out!

Was Jesus conveying his love through a whip?

You can still love a butcher and a slaver while beating them with a whip. Stop trying to paint Jesus as some fuzzy love monger who never opposed any of mans evils. He sacrificed everything to give you a chance because he knew in a world filled with this kind of evil, you'd have no chance without his sacrifice.

Tolerance is what makes tyranny possible, not love.


If he didn't love the people, he would have never used the whip against those violating the people in His Father's House.

Are you the same person who has been calling Ron Paul an Anarchist and a Communist? Or was that another ID?

Michael Nystrom's picture


Thank you fishy!

I'd like to think so.

Some who claim the name Christian are misguided, but true believers. ( Yes, this includes me in some areas. Some of us are even recovering legalists, and recovering statists, as well, with all the hang-ups that entails.)

Personally, I question the salvation of one who could boo the 'Golden Rule'. However, I wouldn't condemn them, that is not within my jurisdiction. What is within my 'domain' is to inspect their fruit. (Just as it is within both the fellow Christian's 'domain' and the unbeliever's domain to inspect my fruit.)

I wish all Christians or those who claim the name would read one book (Besides the Bible). It is called, Evangelism, Doing Justice and Practicing Grace, and is written by Harvey Conn. In it he describes a principle of looking at others that would really change the judgmental perspective most take of certain types of 'sinners'.

He points out that those committing what many Christians see as gross sins, are often not just committing sin, but are even more grossly being sinned against. The 'boyfriend' who pressures a girl into getting an abortion would be one of the 'sinning against' types, but so would a 'Christian' parent who did the same because of 'how it would look to have a pregnant daughter to fellow Church members'. This can also be traced back as far as one would like.

As for me, I don't want to take away anyone's natural rights.(enumerated in the Bill of Rights) On the other hand, I don't want my rights removed, either. I wish my brothers and sisters were all awake to the numerous ways our rights 'as Christians' were being removed, from Obamacare's forced abortafacient coverage to being on the target list in Colorado for forced gun confiscation.(thanks, emalvini, for the post) Combating the loss of our rights would be more than enough to keep all of us busy, leaving no time (hopefully) to plot the removal of the rights of others.


"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I agree wholeheartedly

with everything you say here...having known and loved numerous homosexually oriented people in my life, I find it ludicrous to suggest that it is a "choice!"

Once again, the answer is for the government to not be involved, and to respect each individual for who he/she is.


Rosaria Butterfield, the author of a book I just read,

was a lesbian for 10 years. She said that for her it absolutely was a choice. She chose to live that life, and then she chose to stop it.

All of us are oriented to lie, cheat, steal, some more so than others. Whether we give in to those temptations or not is a choice.

Maybe Glenn Beck will lead you to liberty

and make you drink?


Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

oh yeah, Glenn.

Waterboarding is just friggin' HILARIOUS!