Should laws be based only on harm?

Projecting current trends we need to realign our concepts for the future. In Mount Prospect, the media has reported on a diaper-fetish shop embroiled in controversy.

Recently, the nation has grappled with gay marriage and now with transgender bathroom issues. Let's just abolish the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Just as fictional character, James Bond 007 has a license to kill, people today want "license" to be … whatever they want to be. The first step is to legitimize idiosyncratic predilections - calling them "orientations," as this implies they are an immutable, intrinsic characteristic of an individual's identity.

The new authority on human normalcy should be the Pew Research Center which can create a continuum of human normalcy and locate any human behavior on the scale based on population prevalence. On this scale, fifty shades of gray would be insufficient to embody the full scope of human behavior, all of which would be considered, "normal," which should make us all feel good. Ban confrontational therapies, such as "conversion therapy," and only permit those that reinforce one's identity, thus normalizing it on the Pew Continuum.

Laws, rather than being based on "right" or "wrong" should be based on the degree of harm caused to others. Running a red light, for example, if no one is injured should result in a commendation from the police for skillfully navigating the intersection. This change will be necessary, for if behaviors such as pedophilia or necrophilia which are regarded currently as harmful, can be demonstrated to be benign, then they can be "normalized" and "legalized."

Is this not enlightened sophistication? Or, perhaps, we shouldn't so quickly abandon biblical notions, like 2 Timothy 3:1-4 and 4:3-4.

Brian Van Dine

Glendale Heights