OK, this concept came to me as I was reading different things on-line, both on CT and other places. We have things in our society that is counted as illegal, or against the limitations set down by whatever religious bonds you may have placed yourself in. Yet how does that justify labeling it wrong, or right?
We have laws that are still on the books in some states that say its illegal for me or anyone to practice witchcraft. I think it would take a severely anti-pagan official to attempt making any arrest or fines based on this old law.
Yet we also have laws guiding the use of substances. It seems perfectly OK that solid or liquid drugs, chemically altered materials, and filled with "may cause" warnings can be legal. Yet such things as marijuana, shrums, or even peyote are made illegal.
Thus we have the War On Drugs telling us these things naturally made are just as bad and illegal as these other drugs such as meth, E, heroin, and the such. A case could be made for both sides enough to balance things out evenly.
One could say these things in-all are harmful to your body. "Legal" drugs are regulated, doctor tested, and proven to have only those effects proscribed.
So say the devils advocate as the term goes, those dangerous substances are often no worse for their affects then other legal things, liquor being the main poster child. As for other harsher drugs, one could claim they are only at a high level of risk in terms of health because they are illegal. If they were legal, they too could be regulated by the medical professionals allowing for a multitude of possibilities.
Even sex seems to have its "evils", which seems to derive from our standing on the legal text. You could be 45yr years old and have sex with a 18yr old everyday and any-day after the 18th birthday. Yet a 18yr who has sex with a consenting peer who is only a few years younger are grounds that could lead to a spot on the sex offenders list.
So the debate starts on where you draw the line? When should action be taken, VS no action? The abuse factors, as-well to toss the questions what age should one be aloud sexual freedom? Arguments made could go from mental growth against physical growth, to parental rights, ending with the classification of rape.
Now I stand firmly against the forceful initiation of any kind of sexual act onto another person, male or female. Its not right because its illegal or immoral. Its wrong since it goes against our choice. If your one of those people who get-off on "being raped", then its not rape its rough-sex, or S&M, or whatever.
Now I bring these things to the open not to personalize a position. Nor am I trying to offend anyone or place hidden meaning behind my examples given above. I wish to question the multiple answers that can follow these . . .
If "something" where made legal that was illegal, or what was immoral is now moral. Would you stand by whatever yay or nay choice you made concerning it?
If "something" was from the start legal instead of illegal or moral having never been immoral. As-well visa-versa the mix, would you stand by the yay or nay choice made? Mind what it is that allowed you to make such a decision.
If "something" was . . . Well if Something was without any restraints, rules, or taboos. Could you center yourself onto a view? Removing even religious ties and cultural upraising.
I personally can never be sure if what I write makes sense. What I'd like to get at with all this is you are asked if something was right or wrong. If a law or amendment, or even house rule should be changed and your opinion was needed to reach an end. Try your best to spot out the prejudices of life and what is truly "your answer" At which point what you may find may be nothing, or "something"
Signed,
FireWriter
Blessed be . . .
