Yet.”
If you have something to say say it. “Yet” says nothing unless YOU are getting into thought crime enforcement yourself.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“It is all about:
a) Enforcing the laws that are there now.
Hmm. That’s an interesting concept. I wonder if it would work with speeding. Oops, sorry. I was thinking out loud there. “
Again, I have no idea what you are getting at... Is there a point to be made behind your meaningless ramble here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“b) Changing the public perception of pornography and acceptance of pornography in its midst.
That fair. Innocuous even. Can we expect them to work towards longer skirts and higher necklines? Is it too early to say goodbye to hiphuggers?
I’m asking you where the line should be drawn.”
It’s really none of your business if they do is it? I mean as long as they are working from the angle of persuading peoples hearts and minds, it's really there own business. Your snarky attitude does not defend the fact that YOU are trying to control these folks actions, thoughts and efforts. Very Orwellian of you, I would say.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“2) All of the things you mentioned are illegal in certain states.
I’m not aware of any state having a law against premarital sex. Please, enlighten me.”
Okay, I glossed right past the premarital sex one. Sorry. A quick Google search didn’t turn up any states where it is illegal but I could have sworn there was one where there was some obscure law that was no longer enforced. Hmmmmmm.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Do you have a problem with people being required to keep the terms of their contracts?
No. But I sometimes have a problem with people referring to marriage as a contract. It’s not. It’s a sacrament of the church. Oh, wait. I forgot. Not everybody goes to church.”
Wrong again. Marriage is a contract in every state of the US and is, BESIDES being a Sacrament of the Church, a recognized institution of the state and that is why you go to the STATE for a divorce or to ENFORCE the marital obligations of spousal support etc.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“So much for enforcing morals.”
What??? Look, you are going to have to decide whether you want to try to debate based on logic. Or try to keep throwing out these snarky vacuous comments which really have not made sense. I vote for the logical path at least you don’t look so silly when you fail on that one.
Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining. It doesn't take a genius to catch my drift. You want me to flesh out an idea, that's fine, just ask me. But save the charade.
It’s really none of your business if they do is it? I mean [blah blah *snip*]
You're missing my point entirely. Again. I'll try to be more direct:
I’m asking you where the line should be drawn.
Really, GB, that's as direct as I can get. Previously, you said:
"...breaking down the public morality is one of many steps towards communism.
Assuming that's true, how far do we go to ensure that public morality is maintained? That is my question to you. Everything else I have said or asked is a means to this end. So far, you have yet to respond.