Yesterday's Beetle Bailey cartoon nailed it!
Posted on 01/12/2011 11:32:22 AM PST by Colofornian
Buzz about the 2012 presidential election is already in full swing. But with no real Republican front-runner, really, anyone is game. We’ve been hearing Mitt Romney’s name tossed around as a potential for a while now, but two weeks ago we started hearing another familiar name: Jon Huntsman.
While Huntsman doesn’t have the same national profile as Romney, he has gained status as the ambassador to China and might become more of a threat in the upcoming year. Can you imagine—TWO Mormons (gasp) both running for president?
Now, I understand my next thought doesn’t apply to every Mormon, BUT, I know of a lot of members who vote for politicians based on the fact that they, too, are LDS. And honestly, I know that I’ve been unjustifiably biased toward LDS politicians for the sole reason that we share a religion.
But what if Romney and Huntsman go head to head in 2012? Who will the Mormons vote for?! If their only choice was Romney, I bet a fair number of Mormons wouldn’t really give the other candidates a second thought. But throw Huntsman into the picture and we might actually have to do more research on each candidate’s stances. If they both end up running, it will be interesting to see how members react to the situation over the next two years. Do I sense a hint of BYU vs. Utah-style rivalry in the air?
My wife is more of a “why do you waste all your time like that?” kinda discussion.
Yesterday's Beetle Bailey cartoon nailed it!
Ahhh, the classic, if not overused, tactic of the ad hominem. Color me unimpressed. I've been called or compared to worse by folks better than you.
Also, since the discussion was revolving around the Christian position on adultery, why are you surprised that the NT stance was used as supporting or substantiating information?
I'll continue to use whatever sources I choose in support or defense of my position. That's what debating is about.
#1...Did you even see me address "what is legal" and "what is illegal" in my post to you? (I didn't) Too many so-called "conservatives" let the law guide them on what is "immoral" & what is "moral." If United States law or Canadian law established by politicos, enforced or not enforced by black-robed rogues, & oft' engineered by bureaucrats -- if they have become your moral compass, God help you!
[I'm sure many of the residents living in Sodom & Gomorrah were within all citizenry boundaries. "legal" & otherwise!]
Explain yourself. Adultery involves sexual intercourse between a married spouse and someone other than their husband or wife. How exactly does watching pornography fit into that?
I am a Christian -- and I try to see the world through Christ's eyes. One of the most famous messages He gave is called "The Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5). In that message, he said:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
You see murder doesn't begin with an outward act; it begins in the heart...sometimes it's hate...sometimes it's exploitation & the exploiter needs to get rid of the evidence (rape-murder)...sometimes it's jealousy...sometimes it's envy...but all of that began somewhere in the heart.
The same is true with adultery. Now not all lust leads to physical adultery, just as not all jealousy & envy & hate leads to violence. But God sees our hearts; therefore He judges on both motive/purpose as well as action/inaction.
What if the viewer of the Marriott-provided film is a single male? Is he cheating on himself?
He is cheating God of offering Him a purer heart. He is cheating a potential future wife if he thinks "screen women" can satisfy. He is cheating himself if he thinks porn is a replacement for living relationships...no different than what Ebenezer Scrooge did -- only Scrooge eschewed relationships & opted for $. Many single men eschew long-term relationships in favor of both $ & false replacements.
What if it's a couple that enjoy watching porn together, for whatever reason? Are they cheating on each other by watching it?
Again...what's the difference between that couple heading to a local orgy & being voyeurs @ such an event? In that case, they sanction ("bless") the orgy; and the couple watching porn is helping to pay the salary of the porn industry. If they think the porn industry is more worthy of their $ than the poor & needy, well, there ya have part of our nation & world's troubles in a nutshell.
No it doesn't run along the same pro-choice roots. People who have abortions are killing their baby. I support that "choice", if you can even call it that, in cases of rape, incest involving a minor, and to protect the mother's life. That's it.
Sure it does. Every non-chemical abortion stops a beating heart & stops brain waves. There's nothing that increases the "personhood" of that child by further growth. Therefore, dismembering the pre-born via a suction aspirator is no different morally than chopping up a newborn.
If you support abortion in the case of incest, you are effectively in favor of helping the incest perpetrator cover up his crime in cases involving a father/stepfather/family member, etc.
Numerous women have gone public & said they were the "product" of their mother's rape, including Ethel Waters. I'd like to see you go face-to-face with any of them, & tell them, "I supported dismembering the likes of you in the womb because of what your father did."
Pro-aborts talk "pro-choice" language so that they don't have to describe what a suction aspirator does; you used pro-choice, pro-option, & pro-selection verbiage so that you didn't have to describe prostitution-on-film meant to "satisfy" a long-distance voyeur.
The majority of feminists that were behind the abortion movement actually oppose pornography because they feel it's degrading to women.
Initially, yes. Not true as we moved into the 90s. Many pro-abort feminists lean more toward an ACLU worldview of free expression. They take the attitude of "Well, I wouldn't watch a porn flick myself, but I wouldn't oppose anybody else doing that."
A lot of them would like to see it banned, so it is actually you that is in good company with the abortionists...what would you like to have see happen to the porn industry? Would you like to see pornography banned? If so, the First Amendment apparently means nothing to you.
Well, let's see. Porn theaters came around in the 70s...and corporations making $ off of hotel porn came around the 80s. So "the First Amendment" wasn't in operation prior to the 70s or 80s???
Actually, since organizations like the ACLU argues for the production of more porn under the guise of the First Amendment, your position makes you in good company with the ACLU. And if you're into promoting the ACLU, what are you doing on a conservative Web site?
What would I like to see happen to the porn industry? (It'd be great if many became saved in Christ...a few have come out of that industry). Beyond that, 'twas great that Winona County in MN banned all hotel porn last year!
When DID I ever compare Marriott adult movie offerings to children's cartoons? Of course the adult movies are different from children's cartoons. Children's cartoons are meant for children and adult movies are meant for adults.
You referenced prostitution-on-tape-for-purchase as "customer...option" and "customer...service" as if catering to voyeur-johns wasn't distinct from offering a Disney flick to kids! (And obviously, to much of Corporate America, it's not).
"It is completely distinguishable from watching a movie involving PAID ACTORS...ADULT movies..."
"Adult?" You buy into the porn industry's labeling of its products? Wanna explain what is so "mature" about watching something primarily geared to prompting a male hand to touch a male organ? And you call filmed prostitution "acting?"
Listen, Hollywood's professionals have A LOT to be slammed about, but to compare what the porn industry does to at least what Hollywood did for decades before it, too, went completely South shows a completely uncouth lack of cultural appreciation of the visual arts.
If you don't want to see it banned, then your advocacy on this thread amounts to nothing more than a leftist-type screed against a public corporation that has done far more good for this country than you ever could dream of doing.
Of course, you seem to assume that simply removing the porn from Marriott's business plan (whether it was self- removed or elsewise) would somehow make any good that Marriott has done evaporate. If that's your argument, how foolish!
How many workers do you employ?Does your anti-pornography company employ a few dozen? I assume you give them wages and a 401k and health insurance like Marriott does?
Well, let's see...I heard that cleanhotels.com refers potential customers to more hotels & motels that don't carry in-room porn than the # of facilities Marriott has.
Add that to the Omni chain, which also doesn't carry in-room porn (since 1999). How many employees do these anti-porn hotels & motels employ? (More than Marriott!!!)
Tell you what...why don't buy shares in Omni instead vs. being an investor in the porn industry!
Did the baby who was the product of a rape ask to be concieved?
Which is a more horrendous crime: requiring a mother to (potentially, it’s not even guaranteed this would be the case) relive her rape for the next nine months (and indeed, I’d think a woman who was raped would probably relive the event in her mind for quite some time no matter if she was pregnant or not), or, is it a greater crime to kill a baby?
Kill a baby or cause mental anguish? Which is worse?
Would You Vote for against Someone Just Because They’re Mormon?
Ayup. Intellectual dishonesty will spill over into public affairs.
I think I counted 11 responses to 11 excerpts of yours...only two of which addressed "God." A third response section you just responded to dealt with abortion. That leaves about eight responses I gave dealing with porn -- that doesn't cover "God"; are you going to respond to those?
(Also, just because you don't subscribe to what I believe, doesn't mean you have to avoid exposure to the words of Jesus, does it? IOW, can't you separate what Jesus says from "doctrines" of believers in evaluating worldviews?)
If you support abortion in the case of incest, you are effectively in favor of helping the incest perpetrator cover up his crime in cases involving a father/stepfather/family member, etc.[Me]
That's simply your opinion. [You]
Come now. Imagine you're 18. Your young sister has been orphaned & placed into a home. The adopted family has a perpetrator in the midst who gets her pregnant & figures the easiest way to cover it up is abortion. What's so much of a "stretch" about that? Are you trying to lecture us that sex offenders don't cover up the evidence of their crimes? Whoa, what kind of a naive world do you live in?
What's your alternative? Make the girl have the baby that's the product of incest?
There ya go with that "pro-choice" language again...as if what happens after a pregnancy is where all the life-and-death decisions take place. May I remind you that biology teaches that what "makes" a baby is the act of intercourse -- forced or unforced. (It's not some after-decision that does that...and if you believe in this magic "after-decision" then the abortion industry has been your mentors throughout your youth & adult years!)
What you seem to be suggesting is that you want the victim to be violated yet again! The first violation was incest-rape; the second violation is a suction aspirator forced into her. And there she becomes re-victimized all over again -- betrayed yet again!
I assume you'd be opposed to letting the father/grandfather have visitation later on, but maybe he can repent and raise his baby.
Well, ya know, if the incest-perp is incarcerated -- where he needs to be -- any "visitations" that we're talking about are people who go to see him...behind bars!
Turning it around, I'd like to see you go face-to-face with a pregnant rape victim and tell them, "I support forcing you, against your will, to have that child."
Sorry. You can't transfer the guilt of the rapist to those who would protect a rapist's child. On what grounds then, doesn't your argument likewise apply to a 1-day-old newborn?
What do I mean? Let's say a rape victim didn't find out til it was "too late" that she indeed became pregnant from that rape. Let's say she was in denial that she was pregnant; and let's say she lived in a state where late-term abortions were disallowed -- or no late-term abortionist operated; and she lacked resources to travel. So she has the baby, after all.
I'd like to see you go face-to-face to that young mom of a 1-day old and say, "I want you to know that I don't 'support forcing you, against your will, to' allow 'that child' to live...Oh, and I've brought the knife."
If we're in favor of protecting 1-day-old babies whose fathers are rapists, what's so terrible about that? You know as well as I do, that biology tells us that each of us had a gestational age before a "birthday." That 1-day-old baby is the same baby -- simply a "resident" further up the birth canal.
So, are you telling us -- that were the law changed -- if the Supreme Court said that 1-day-old babies of rape victims can have their children killed, you'd be in favor of it? (All because you -- and to quote you with just a few added bold-faced words -- don't "support forcing you, against your will, to have" [to deal with] "that child" [remaining alive]?)
Somehow I think that will be more offensive to most Americans than what you would have me say. I don't support FORCED dismembering of the child, and if a woman who is a victim of rape wants to carry the baby to term, then that's her prerogative. But if she doesn't, I won't fault her for that.
Hmmm...you "don't support FORCED dismembering of the child," eh? Well, then, please Nut Flush -- just please let me know when you see the pre-born lining up and volunteering to be dismembered...then we'll know there's nothin' "forced" goin' on!
(You mean like baptizing dead Jews by proxy to make them Mormons in the afterlife...that kind of "strong respect"???)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.