ABOLISH SLAVERY

Someone posted a picture to Facebook that depicted a pair of hands in handcuffs. the caption was about abolishing slavery, and while I agree that slavery is an abominable thing, whether it's white slave traffic, child or even adult slave labour, or the sex slave trade market it is a horrible thing and every measure should be taken to end this abomination. However, I see another kind of slavery that almost nobody is aware of and yet most of the population of the earth is a part of it in one way or another. Of course, when I saw this post I commented, mentioning our society's slavery to the media. In my comment I suggested breaking our tv's and throwing them out. O dear lady replied to my comment saying that this kind of thing is more of an addiction than slavery. I replied to her comment to explain slavery and addiction as I see them. this is my reply to her reply to my comment on slavery:

" I've had both addictions and enslavement. An addiction is what we experience when we allow something, or someone, to control our emotions, our body, our schedule, even our will. A simple example would be coffee (or chocolate, tobacco, alcohol, etc.). We consume these because we enjoy the flavour or the effect they have on us (hard to believe with some things). Unfortunately, we enjoy these pleasures to the extent that if we don't continue to indulge ourselves we begin to feel discomfort or 'ill at ease'. We then ease the discomfort by using more of these things until we get to the point where, if we cannot avail ourselves of these things we become ill with nervous tremours, head aches, irritability, nausea, even vomiting and much worse and I'm not even talking about addiction to hard drugs.
If there is a difference between this and slavery it's in the fact that an addiction is by choice. Then again, the apostle Paul labeled himself a 'willing bond slave" which is an Old Testament reference to a person who was a slave to a Jew for whatever reason, and when the year of jubilee came around (once every 50th year) the slave's owner was to free all his slaves. If a slave loved his/her master and wanted to remain in their service for the rest of their life, they could indicate this by going to a doorpost, driving an awl (a sharp, pointed tool) through their ear lobe (I forget right or left), and inserting a gold ear ring which they would wear, by choice, for the rest of their life.
Forced, illegal slavery is an atrocity, and should be abhorred and abolished. However, not all slavery is bad, much of it is by choice and much of that is not forced upon us, it is the sacrifice of our rationality, our sanity, and our will on the alter of pleasure.
Thank you.

LEGISLATED MORALITY

Here's something I wonder about.

In the province of New Brunswick in Canada, our laws allow boys and girls to have sex between the ages of twelve and eighteen as long as their partner is no more than five years older than they are.  At the age of eighteen the individual may have sex with whomever they please as long as their partner is no younger than thirteen years of age.  (So 12 - 12 to17; 13 - 12 to 18; 14 - 12 to 19; 15 - 12 to 20; 16 - 12 to 21; 17 - 12 to 22; 18 - 13 to whatever older; etc.)

THIS AN ABSOLUTE ABOMINATION!!!

I guess the only way to keep people from breaking the law was to change the law so that it could hardly be broken.  God defend us from that kind of moral thinking.

My thought is this:  If it's legal for twelve year old children to have sex, why is filming and taking pictures of children between the ages of twelve and seventeen against the law?  By this I am not saying that I believe it should be legal.  Quite the contrary.

Personally, I think we had it right 50 and more years ago when the law in Ontario, Canada said that the age of majority was 21, male or female (I think that was actually federal law).  That is, one was not considered to be an adult  until they were 21 years of age.  Not old enough to vote, drink alcoholic beverage or engage in sexual activity.  There was the stipulation that males were allowed to have sex from the age of eighteen with parental consent while a females were not, even with parental consent (guardian where applicable)

Call me old fashioned, but the morality legislation of the 50's and 60's seems to be more in line with the needs of young people today, considering the legal age limit and current level of maturity.  I believe that if we're going to legislate morality it should be with a keen sense of what is right and what is wrong, rather than a sense of what makes folks uncomfortable and what's less likely to offend.