Looney's latest post about the way the liberal left thinks made me think of some conversations I have had with a friend recently. This friend and I walk our dogs together every morning, and while we walk we talk. Sometimes this talking leads to strong differences of opinion, depending on our topics. This past couple of days she has used the same argument for several different topics.
Yesterday I was talking with her about the study I wrote about that said that Utah was the state with the most online subscriptions to adult entertainment. I explained that I felt that many people were jumping to conclusions, and saying that Latter-day saints buy more online porn than others. I explained to her how there are holes in the study. For example, the study does not take in to account the fact that Utah doesn't have porn shops available in most cities, so the only available market is online. The study showed that somethign like 3.6 homes per 1000 in Utah buy online adult entertainment. California's statistics were something more like 2.7 per 1000. I made the point that if the study had included porn available at shops, or video stores, California's numbers may have increased dramatically over Utah's.
She began to say that she felt that one reason people are quick to believe the worst about our church is because they think that our religion is too restrictive, and that causes people to be sort of sexually repressed or something. She said that if porn wasn't considered "taboo" by our religion, then it wouldn't be titilating to the members.
Today we were talking about the same sex marriage issue. She said that if our church didn't make being gay such a "bad thing", then people wouldn't react so strongly to gay marriage. In both cases, she felt that our restrictions are what lead to our "uptightness", which leads to some people choosing wrong.
I just have to wonder if she would take the same approach on other subjects. It's interesting how the left uses some arguments to their benefit, but won't accept when we use those same tactics to support our beliefs. They want us to "give in" and not have strong beliefs about moral issues. Her argument is that by teaching our children what is right and what is wrong, we are pushing them to be interested in what is wrong. She was raised in California, and raised in a liberal environment where there were no holds barred. I was raised in and LDS home where I was taught strict values. Some might call that oppression, but I never felt oppressed. I was taught the "why" not just that I shouldn't do something because it was wrong.
It just seems to me that the liberal left often wants us to blur the line between right and wrong. They don't want anyone to define right and wrong, and they want the whole world to believe that there is no right and wrong, there is no good and evil. They think it doesn't work to teach your children not to do something. They think they will try it anyway. That may happen in some cases, but my experience is that if you teach them what is right, and why, they are less likely to make bad choices.
But it's interesting that the left says there are cases where I should be restrictive. In the eyes of the left, I should teach my children that ecology is more important than any other subject, including moral purity. I should teach my children that all gun ownership leads to more crime, therefore private citizens shouldn't own guns. They say I should teach my children that there shouldn't be any controls on abortion, even if the mother is still a child herself. They tell me that to restrict gays from marrying is wrong. You see, the left does have their own version of what is right and wrong, it is just skewed from what our founding fathers have said about our innate rights, and what God has said about what is right and what is wrong.