When FMA supporters start talking about how the institution of marriage must be “protected” from same sex couples who wish to enter into it, I just have to ask The Question, “Specifically how will the secular, legal recognition of same sex marriage harm society and the institution of marriage?”

No one who supports the FMA (and/or similiar oppressive legislation) appears to be able to provide a clear answer to The Question. Sure, they’ve got their HIV/AIDS statistics, the spectre of NAMBLA and homosexual pedophiles, Leviticus 18:22 and expressions of disgust with certain sex acts they sometimes graphically imagine gay men consenting to enjoy with one another in private. However, while all of those facts and figures, media-induced paranoid delusions, out-of-context Bible quotes and expressions of disgust might explain how some people rationalize their support for the FMA, they do not answer The Question.

Rejecting the subtrefuge of statistics and Scripture and continuing to press FMA supporters for a simple and concise answer to The Question often garners the exasperated cop-out along the lines of, “Well, if I have to explain it to you, you’ll never understand.” Which essentially means that those of us who believe that same sex marriage is a right that should be recognized in a free and secular nation will never understand their opposition to same sex marriage because we are not uncomfortable with the fact that some people are homosexual.

And just how can an issue have more than two sides? There are two sides to every issue, it’s like a rule or something, isn’t it? You have your pro-lifers and your pro-choicers and each side’s position is quite clear, thankyouverymuch. Why complicate things?

Well, upon closer examination, most issues do have more than two sides, even if the ongoing debates about them seem two-sided. And, yes, indeed, there are pro-lifers and pro-choicers and their positions are quite clear — on the surface, at least. But get beneath the oversimplified veneer of stereotypical representations in the language of sound bites and you will begin to understand just how multi-faceted one supposedly two-sided hot-button issue can really be.

For example, pro-choicers disagree about whether the right to choose should be unlimited or restricted (by trimester) and pro-lifers disagree about whether there should be exceptions (health conditions, rape or incest) to a ban on abortion. So, there really are more than two positions, which is probably the reason why the abortion issue is so volatile, even though its political minefield is populated by a great deal of uncertainty.

How can someone call himself pro-life if he is willing to allow for exceptions? After all, it is not an unborn baby’s fault if it was conceived via rape or incest. And doctors can be — and are more frequently than most of us would like to think — wrong because miracles (for lack of a better word) can and do happen, regardless of the results medical tests to detect potential complications of pregnancy.

How can someone call himself pro-choice if he is willing to place restrictions on when and why abortions may be performed? The abortion issue is about the right to choose, isn’t it? So, how can something that is recognized as a right be restricted beyond the obvious health and safety regulations?

Although they are sometimes far less pleasant to talk to than some of their wishy-washy counterparts, the non-viloent radical elements — the violent ones are merely criminals who think they’ve found a cause to rationalize their pathology so they don’t count as anything other than a tragic aside in civilized debate — of the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers are usually a more principled bunch because they are certain of where they stand and are unwilling to make exceptions or compromises.

Of course, an unwillingness to make exceptions or compromises in not conducive to the resolution of a conflict, but the radical elements serve their purpose in defining the numerous ethical implications of each side of the debate, which ultimately demonstrates the motives behind them.

It is difficult to suspect the motives of the pro-choicers because their agenda is quite clear. They believe that abortion is an inalienabe right which must be preserved and that is it, there is no apparent hidden agenda. Where the pro-choicers become suspect is in some of the rationalizations they use to defend the right to choose.

Because there is no getting around the fact that a fetus has a detectible heartbeat at only four weeks gestation, pro-choicers can be easily put on the defensive with this proven scientific fact. But, rather than admit to the fact that abortion is the killing of a living thing but not the murder of a person they have come up with some ridiculous notions about fetal parasites and the subjugation of women’s reproductive organs — too weird.

They should stick to the old “back-alley-coat-hanger” metaphors and stop trying to paint abortion-on-demand as a good thing for women’s rights rather than a sometimes necessary evil which should be kept regulated and safe. Abortion is a vile thing, but outlawing it only makes it more so by handing the business of it to the criminal element.

Now, the motives of some of the pro-lifers could be called suspect because there is more to the agenda of people who assert, in their efforts to see Roe v. Wade overturned, that they are championing for the unborn. Of course, some are sincere in their cause because they truly believe that life begins at conception and that all life is sacred. They favor the implementation of a ban as a means of preventing abortion because they think that simply outlawing a thing will make that thing go away.

But other pro-lifers do not appear to be so ignorant of how things are as opposed to how things should be when they speak of responsible behavior and how abortion-on-demand keeps women from facing the consequences of their actions which leads to more irresponsible behavior.

So, what of the unborn? How can one champion for those who cannot speak for themselves while referrring to them as the consequences of irresponsible behavior, as if they are a form of punishment along the lines of a “Scarlet Letter?” Do these people really wish to save the unborn from the abortionists or do they wish to take their cause further by making reproduction into a privilege for which one must be deemed qualified?

To test the sincerity of pro-lifers who seem to have more on their minds than the unborns’ right to life propose that the legal status of abortion is not relevant to their cause and suggest that, if they truly wish to save the unborn, a major societal attitude adjustment is in order because it is not the legality of abortion that causes some young single women to make that terrible choice, but rather the potential social and economic consequences of single motherhood.

The pro-lifers who recognize that all babies are blessings regardless of the age and marital status of their mothers or the circumstances under which they were conceived probably have no other agenda, but the motives of pro-lifers who continue to speak of responsibility and behavioral consequnces are suspect because they do not appear to be championing for the unborn so much as they are championing for the cause of chastity.

The words, “legalization” and “decriminalization” should be struck from the vocabularies of all people who support the basic ideas which they represent. To suggest that we need to “legalize” something that is illegal or to “decriminalize” something that has been traditionally considered a crime for a century only feeds the powerful propaganda machine which operates in conjuction with the war on drugs.

Advocates of drug policy reform — whom prohibitionists call “legalizers” — understand the true meaning of those two words, but the general public has been trained to equate them with a sort of chaos and anarchy which will turn America into a “nation of stoned-out zombies.” Even in the minds of average Americans who agree that the war on drugs has failed, those two words are not percieved as viable solutions to the failure of interdiction because they are not so much solutions as they are platitudes.

To simply state that prohibition doesn’t work so we ought to just “legalize it” only leads the skeptical to ask, “then what?” Because it is not logical to suggest the repeal of nearly 100 year-old policies without offering some detailed, concrete alternatives. Plus, attempts to demonize staus quo laws and policies are almost always ineffective because the people who try can easily be put on the defensive with accusations of “giving in to the criminal element.”

The real evil of prohibitionist policies is the black market they created and continue to support. Therefore, it is more effective to demonize the lawless black market rather than the law itself because those laws still continue to successfully masquerade as deterrents to the black market. The idea is to break that circular reasoning by emphasizing how prohibitionist policies feed and nurture the black market instead of deterring it.

The black market in unregulated drugs is a low-risk, high profit business because of — not in spite of — the “war on drugs.” The black market drug business thrives without taxes, restrictions or regulations. The black market considers interdiction as one small line-item in its loss column, mere “spillage” which can be easily minimized by producing and moving more product (and so what if quality and purity suffer in the process?).

The black market drug business is not regulated. The black market does not have labeling or packaging requirements. The black market is not subject to zoning restricitions or licensing or regulatory inspections. Black market businesses do not collect sales taxes or pay income or property taxes. Today’s war on drugs, like Prohibition in the 1920s, has become the ultimate de-regulation policy.

Black market drugs usually come packaged in plain plastic bags. There are no warning labels on plain plastic bags. There are no usage or dosage instructions on plain plastic bags. There are no listings of active ingredients and their potency on plain plastic bags. There is no mention of inactive ingredients, fillers or additives on plain plastic bags. There is no expiration date on a plain plastic bag. The net weight of the
contents is not printed on plain plastic bags. The address of the manufacturer, grower, distributor or seller is not printed on plain plastic bags. Many of these drugs in question may be unhealthy for their consumers, but prohibitionist policies make them far more dangerous than they should be.

Black market drug dealers sell drugs to anyone who has enough cash. Black market drug dealers will sell drugs to people who are obviously intoxicated. Black market drug dealers do not ask for or require proof of age and will knowingly sell drugs to minors. Prohibitionist policies do not protect our children from drugs, in fact they make it easier for kids to buy drugs.

Black market drug dealers do not have licenses that may be suspended or revoked due to improper business practices or failure to comply with regulations and restrictions because there are no regulations or restrictions. The black market drug business is basically free-for-all anarchy which is empowered by prohibitionist policies and the artificial inflation which creates opportunities for huge revenues requiring very little actual effort for anyone willing to assume the small risk of interdiction.

Black market drug manufacturers, growers, distributors and sellers are not subjected to regulatory inspections of their factories, crops, distribution outlets or retail storefronts. Black market drugs are not inspected for purity, potency or freshness. Black market drug factories do not have to comply with fire, safety or sanitation regulations (think about this the next time a methamphetamine lab explodes and causes a dangerous environmental hazard). Black market drug factories are not subjected to inspection of their equipment or manufacturing processes. Black market crops are not inspected for parasites, pesticides or purity. Black market distributors do not have to comply with business practice or pricing regulations or restrictions. Black market retailers do not have their storefronts inspected for fire hazards, safety violations, sanitaiton and other regulatory and fair business practices requirements. Prohibitonist policies prevent the regulation of the drug business, but not the manufacture, sale and use of drugs.

Black market retail drug dealers set up shop and sell drugs just about anywhere that they please, including in and near public and private schools. Black market retail storefronts can be found in private homes, automobiles, abandoned buildings, public restrooms or on park benches and street corners and just about anywhere else where potential
customers may be found. Prohibitionists policies have painted us into a corner in which no authority or agency really knows who is selling what to whom, where they are selling it or for how much.

Since there are no licensing or zoning requirements, black market manufacturers, growers, distributors and sellers do not pay any licensing or zoning fees. Black market drug dealers do not pay income taxes or property taxes and they do not collect sales taxes. Prohibitionist policies have never produced results that justify their cost to taxpayers, but they have creates and continue to support a wealthy class of tax-exempt black market profiteers.

The black market drug business has no consumer advocacy agencies or fair business practice and pricing associations. Black market drug dealers, growers, manufacturers and consumers who have grievances cannot go to a court of law to settle their differences or turn to law enforcement in the event of theft or fraud. Black market drug dealers and their competitors, distributors, manufacturers and customers settle disputes with each other using guns and violence. Black market businesses cannot contact law enforcement regarding theft or fraud. In the event of theft or fraud, black market businesses turn to their own armed �enforcers.� Prohibitionist policies cause violent crime.

Which is why we do not need to “legalize” illegal drugs, we need to regulate unregulated drugs.

It is human nature to believe that one’s own ideas of right and wrong are the absolute standard and that anyone who doesn’t agree is a moral relativist.

The very definition of moral relativism — a view in which moral standards are not absolute or universal, instead emerging from varied social customs, laws, religious beliefs, etc — can be interpreted to mean that everyone, even those who believe that their own personal moral standards are the absolute, is a moral relativist.

Since ethics is usually defined as a set of principles of right conduct and morals are concerned with the judgment of good and evil as they apply to human behavior and character, whether some morals are absolute or relative comes down to the question of objective versus subjective views of right and wrong.

This means that so-called moral absolutists — whose heads are often so swollen with the intoxicating effects of sanctimoniously minding everyone else’s business that they cannot tell the difference between ethics and morals — are actually preaching ethics rather than morality, which makes them just another bunch of moral relativists, everything being relative, of course.

Indeed, the semantics of these philosophical constrcts can make your head spin, but that’s nothing compared to the way that some people have –rightly or wrongly — put them into action in order to validate their own sins as righteous and virtuous while serving their agendas of controlling, via secular legislation, those natural human needs and desires, which according to their relative ethics are wrong/evil/immoral.

Those who would rather reflect upon the specks in their neighbors’ eyes rather than the logs in their own express a pious contempt for the notion that the only moral absolute with which most humans can freely and peacfully concur is that those actions and behaviors which cause harm to come to others are wrong/evil/immoral and everything else is a matter of cultural, religious and personal ethics, principles and values.

I submit that these busybodies cannot/will not accept that very narrow definition of moral absolutism because such an admission would mean that they would have to give up the distraction of judging other peoples’ sins to reflect upon the moral relativism of their own sins.

For those of you tuning in either because my WordPress installation called out to you or because you clicked on the link on the still-official LOTFHOTB site, you may notice some drastic changes upon re-loading.

Don’t worry, you’re not losing your mind, it’s just the geekgirl fiddling around with the CSS — which I have only just begun to master. . . er, mistress(?)

wordpress