If Love Was a Crime: Why Liberals Would Spoil the Romance

If Love Was a Crime: Why Liberals Would Spoil the Romance

Imagine a world where love is a crime, absurd as it sounds, some ideologies might just take us there. Let's explore why controlling love is a bad idea.

Vince Vanguard

Vince Vanguard

Imagine a world where love is a crime. Sounds crazy, right? But when you take a closer look at modern society, you might just find that it’s not as far-fetched as it seems—especially if some have their way. What used to be a heartfelt connection between individuals is now under the magnifying glass of those who seem hell-bent on over-regulating feelings and relationships. Who needs Cupid when you have commissars telling you how to feel? The notion of love being a crime, in this outrageously hypothetical yet amusing scenario, came into prominence thanks to the sensational song by Bulgarian-Canadian pop sensation, Poli Genova, at the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest held in Stockholm, Sweden. Her electrifying performance left fans pondering: what if love really was a crime? Not that we’re suddenly living in a dystopian novel, but look at the absurd lengths some folks on that side of the political spectrum are willing to go.

If love were a crime, you’d better believe the penalties wouldn’t just be emotional. Think about it: you're head over heels and suddenly slapped with a fine or worse, a red tape nightmare. That’s just a taste of what could happen. Forget about the government staying out of your bedroom – they'd be in your heart and mind, too. The very essence of what makes us human, our ability to feel and connect, would be shackled for the 'greater good.' Sounds like a real-life rom-com turned Orwellian tragedy.

Let’s consider who benefits when personal connections are policed. Certainly not the individuals in question. Instead, those who stand by the “for your own good” mantra gain more control—interesting how that lines up with what some political movements value. Forget apple pie and freedom; welcome to the land of 'love licenses.' Imagine waiting in line for approval just to say "I love you" legally. Mind-boggling, right?

Now, why on Earth would anyone want to regulate love in the first place? Because feelings can’t be manipulated like policy? Perhaps because love doesn’t always align with the whims of certain agendas. And therein lies the rub. Love, being spontaneous and wild, refuses to be controlled, which makes it a potential threat to those who thrive on predictability and control.

If love was a crime, dating would become an underground movement, and having a crush would mean living on the edge. Could you picture the splintered hearts of would-be poets and romantics? Their courtship rituals would make James Bond look tame. There's something completely absurd, yet totally fascinating when we entertain that idea. Would a blue flower become the black market icon for those rebelling against the love police?

Fast forward to a world where every love declaration undergoes scrutiny akin to national security checks—it might sound like satire, but hold open your eyes and see the reality of increased paternalistic oversight creeping in through all corners of life. This shift towards control doesn’t just stop at love; it’s the proverbial camel in the tent, inching its way into other facets of life that ought to remain private.

If love was a crime, marriages would need legal monitoring. Instead of vows exchanged, imagine scripted legal texts—what a way to start happily ever after. The art of romance could become a lost one in a bureaucratic world. "Do you take this person, to comply with statute XYZ, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, so long as you both shall not offend?" Makes the heart melt in the way dry legalese always does.

Taking notes on all this might seem like a bad dream. But history has shown that even the most ludicrous ideas can materialize when we let our guard down. Let’s not forget, laws start stemming from ‘good intentions’ before they tighten their grasp. Ever seen a power-hungry bureaucracy willingly relinquish control once they’ve got a taste of it? Didn’t think so.

The audacity of meddling in personal matters should send shivers down spines. Yet, amidst the noise of 'progress', freedom takes a back seat when policy overrides passion. Maybe the song should have included a stanza about who judges the hearts of men; bureaucrats must really believe they’d do it with finesse.

Ultimately, if love was a crime, the ensuing chaos wouldn’t just disrupt the fundamental units of society—families—but would also tarnish the beauty of genuine human connection. Picture a heart shackled, yet longing to fly. The fabled song might entertain a curious thought, but hopefully, sensible heads prevail so love stays just where it belongs: free, unregulated, and as unpredictable as ever.