There's a massive difference between restricting something (making it off limits) and making people behave in a particular way (compulsory behavior).
Also, the one who desires that which is restricted will ALWAYS view that restriction as oppression. The question then becomes, by what standard is a restriction validated?
We have by and large, two competing definitions of oppression today. (Sure, an over-simplification, but it's simply a frame to view the layout with.)
One, anything that prevents my (immoral, selfish, destructive) behavior is oppression.
Two, anything that prevents my (moral, equitable, constructive) behavior is oppression.
This is, however, ultimately a conflict between two value systems, and if one is right, accurate and good, the other is wrong, incorrect and evil.
But I think it's important to draw a distinction between legal (which is something created and enforced by the state) and lawful (which is something that upholds law, including the natural and common law), on one hand, and also between a legal and a moral (and lawful) imperative on the other.
A community defining what it sees as a moral imperative is not the same thing as a legal imperative.
The fact is, that living in a society, then one's behavior DOES impact on the rest of society. So, what is the imperative to "do not harm"? The justification for broad and indiscriminate acceptance of homosexual behavior has been that "what someone does in their own privacy doesn't affect others", but in reality, if the spiritual world exists, and we are more than merely material beings, it DOES affect others.
However, in a world of relative good and relative evil, it is NOT for the state to interfere in the choices of individuals, regardless of whether those choices are moral, lawful, or constructive or not. IMO.
There's a massive difference between restricting something (making it off limits) and making people behave in a particular way (compulsory behavior).
Also, the one who desires that which is restricted will ALWAYS view that restriction as oppression. The question then becomes, by what standard is a restriction validated?
We have by and large, two competing definitions of oppression today. (Sure, an over-simplification, but it's simply a frame to view the layout with.)
One, anything that prevents my (immoral, selfish, destructive) behavior is oppression.
Two, anything that prevents my (moral, equitable, constructive) behavior is oppression.
This is, however, ultimately a conflict between two value systems, and if one is right, accurate and good, the other is wrong, incorrect and evil.
But I think it's important to draw a distinction between legal (which is something created and enforced by the state) and lawful (which is something that upholds law, including the natural and common law), on one hand, and also between a legal and a moral (and lawful) imperative on the other.
A community defining what it sees as a moral imperative is not the same thing as a legal imperative.
The fact is, that living in a society, then one's behavior DOES impact on the rest of society. So, what is the imperative to "do not harm"? The justification for broad and indiscriminate acceptance of homosexual behavior has been that "what someone does in their own privacy doesn't affect others", but in reality, if the spiritual world exists, and we are more than merely material beings, it DOES affect others.
However, in a world of relative good and relative evil, it is NOT for the state to interfere in the choices of individuals, regardless of whether those choices are moral, lawful, or constructive or not. IMO.