When one defines what constitutes an illness solely based on how his tummy feels when he thinks about something, he is being narcissistic.
Twenty years have passed since the American Psychiatric Association (APA) voted, in 1973, to remove "Ego-syntonic Homosexuality" from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The present study investigates the influence of the patient's sexual orientation on the...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Homosexuality, prior to 1973, was classified as a mental disorder.
When one ignores several independent lines of research that have meaningfully described what constitutes a mental illness and what does not, he is being idiotic.
Mirror, look in it.
When one tries to impinge on the rights of other solely based on how his tummy feels, he is being sociopathic.
Yes, homosexuality makes me physically ill.
But that's not why it's wrong.
It's wrong because God said that a man should leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife. Meaning, one man and one woman, in marriage, and no sex outside of marriage.
Wreaking havoc in the meantime?
Again, all you need to do is convince one man that what he's doing will A) be held to his account for the rest of history, and that his ego would be harmed by it, B) harm the nation he's ruling, which will result in less income for himself, and C) most importantly, that he will be held accountable for his actions on Judgment Day.
And guess what, the people of his nation have the right to protest through civil disobedience if he violates the constitution which he is under. So if he starts doing things that violate the constitution, the people will protest.
And who will replace him? A candidate vetted from different angles by the public? Nope. An even stupider relative of the first guy or a new guy who has advanced tactics in bullying.
Says who?
Not the system I hold to, proposed on
https://kgov.com/constitution.
The one to replace him would be either his oldest son, or if none, someone picked through lottery.
Trump is an example of the inherent weakness in the system.
To say nothing about Biden? or Clinton? Or Bush (either of them)? Or any other president in the last 40 years?
However, a republic rather than enact the whims of the populace directly, installs leaders to make the decisions for them.
It's a close relative to democracy, just one more step in the process.
Democracy is mob rule, slightly slowed.
A republic is democracy, slightly slowed.
The qualities of each leader are associated with particular consequences and the public can vet future leaders on that basis.
Elections waste fortunes: from lost productivity, campaign expenses, and legal bribery. How much does it cost to pick from a lottery? A few seconds worth of time?
Also, power is balanced by branches of the government.
The larger the committee the more unreliable its performance, thus democracy leads poorly.
Fail safe mechanisms exist to remove problem children.
Last century, democracy empowered the NAZIs and democratic socialists slaughtered tens of millions. Yes, Hitler was elected by the people.
Trump would have been impeached by republicans if he had not taken steps to leave office.
Children do not vote to give their parents authority over them. Neither should citizens their leaders.
That's a nutty consideration.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
For immediate matters, you only have to convince a handful of people in a Republic.
A handful?
A handful???
535 in Congress, 9 in the Judiciary, and 1 President, totaling 545 people?
That's a handful?
And when have you ever seen all 545 people working in unison towards a decent goal? I'll tell you when: NEVER, because 1) The majority is wicked and 2) One bet against the gaming house might win; likewise, one leader may be benevolent, but not millions.
Men under an evil king need change only one heart; those in a democracy can never change hundreds, let alone millions. And again, at the very least, a wicked king can die, even if his mind is never changed.
