Sometimes Things Just Don't Make Sense

Is it hypocrisy or what? The culture has been inundated with sex, sex, sex, and more increasingly so since the "sexual revolution" of the 1960's and 1970's. It can be easy to forget that until that time, even adultery was considered really bad by society at large, and was one of the worst things to be accused of if a divorce was involved. Of course, even divorce was much less common then than it is now.

But since that time, sex has become more and more openly part of our society. Years ago, it used to be that people might not kiss on the first date. Now, the question often is whether or not to have sex on the first date. The point is that talk about sex is much more open than it was a few decades ago.

So why should society be surprised that there seems to be an increase in the incidents of adults having sex with minors? Granted, maybe part of the situation is just that these incidents are being reported more often, but the point is that because of the situation, laws are enacted regulating when sex is OK and when its not.

It used to be a lot more simple when sex was reserved for marriage. Now, people's entire lives can be messed up because they have sex.

For example, I heard a report on the radio the other day (I'm sorry, I can't remember specifics, so I can't cite the source) that a female 30-something-year-old teacher had accepted some type of a plea bargain that included her having to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life because she had sex with a 17-year-old boy. Now, for some of the more odd circumstances about this.

The incident happened (from what I recall from the radio report) about two years prior to the plea agreement. That means that a one-time incident from 2 years earlier has caused this woman to be branded for life as a registered sex offender.

The other bizarre aspect of this entire situation is that the radio report said that the 17-year-old turned 18 just 4 days after the incident. In other words, if the incident had occurred 4 days later, no crime would have been committed, and this woman would have had no "sex offender" label attached to the rest of her life.

Is it just me, or does this seem ridiculous? This whole being called an adult at age 18 is basically just an arbitrary thing. Why is a person suddenly considered an adult at age 18? Why isn't it at age 17, or age 21? It's arbitrary.

Hormonally, puberty generally starts in the early teen years. And these teenagers are inundated with sexual messages throughout their teen years, but are expected to do nothing with their sexual urges. Oh -- I guess that society says it's OK for teens to follow their urges under certain circumstances. It's OK to masturbate. It's OK to have sex with another teen as long as safe-sex is practiced. But make sure that a 16-year-old doesn't have sex with a 19-year old, because then the 19-year-old can be considered a sex offender, and may be branded as such for life. But in some states, people can still get parental permission to get married in their mid-teen years, and if the parents OK it, a teenager can marry someone 10 years or more older, and then this is OK.

Do you see what I mean about some things being ridiculous? There are too many arbitrary rules instituted by people who in effect want to justify certain actions while controlling the lives of as many other people as possible through enacting more and more laws.

Perhaps what is needed is to go back to the basics. Sex has been designed by God to be experienced within the context of marriage. Perhaps if society would start from that premise, things would become less complicated and arbitrary.

Maybe I Should Stay Out of Politics

OK, Mike Huckabee is now out of the Presidential race. I would think that after all of these years I'd learn that my preferred candidate won't win.

But then again, maybe that shouldn't be surprising, because since when are the views of Christians supposed to be popular in a culture? It seems to me that Jesus said that if they hate us, it's because they hated him first.

I'm using the term "hate" here very loosely. I really don't want to say that supporters of one candidate necessarily literally "hate" the supporters of another candidate. But at the same time, why should I think that the political views I hold will be popular enough to be on the winning side? Since when are Christian's views supposed to represent the majority opinion?

And, by the way, Huckabee didn't hold to my positions on every issue. I really like the "Fair Tax" idea, which he supports. I'm pro-life, and he supports a pro-life amendment to the Constitution. Combine that with the fact that he has projected a personality that seems would be one that could rally people to his candicacy and lead people to support him when he is in office, and I think he's make a good President.

But now, we are left with John McCain on the Republican side, and either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on the Democrat side. And whether we like it or not, there is almost a 100% probability that the next President of the United States will either be a democrat or a republican. No third party candidate will win the election.

So for now, the question I face is whether or not I care enough to vote for McCain (who, by the way, was my second-to-least favorite candidate vying for the republican nomination--Ron Paul was my least favorite) just because the prospect of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and their leftist, liberal views would be an alternative I really wouldn't want to see at all.

Right now, the likelihood is that I'll vote for McCain, even though his views really do not represent my own as much as the views of most of the republican rivals he faced for the nomination.