In an article on religious freedom, the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) shows how the majority of Arizonans don’t want gay marriage to be allowed in Arizona despite the Supreme Court ruling making it illegal to bar gay marriage. The issue, on the surface, appears to be between the democratic opinion, which is the majority viewpoint, and the emphasis of the national law as adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The bill proposed by a lobbyist, who works for CAP, is Arizona senate bill 1062. This bill favors religious freedom in such that it allows people to follow their religious conviction and not be forced to do things such as providing service to homosexual people. Opponents of the bill says that it actually promotes legal discrimination against gay people. The issue, on a cultural level, is between two parties diametrically opposed to each other: Christians, and those who publicly defy Christian ethics.
From an IMT standpoint, there are multiple, separate issues here. The most dominant issue is the law. Under IMT, control/influence from the environment is not optimal. When people try to control others, they are not helping them. When people feel in control of themselves and do not feel as if events happen by chance they will take responsibility for themselves and help others as well. Since homosexual attraction is considered to be genetic by many secular sources and a choice by many religious people. Both groups of people are more Type C. The optimal solution would be to have no law at all concerning conflicts between Type C personalities. In this case, people should take responsibility for their own actions and consider how others perceive their actions. The law should not be used as a social ruling stick nor as a way to punish others for their own life choices.
As a Christian, I see IMT as a way to actually promote what I believe since others are more likely to respect and adhere to Christian ethics if I don’t force them to abide by my beliefs.