Posted on 11/19/2004 3:07:51 PM PST by Lindykim
Obscenity and explicit pornography were illegal until the 60s when the leftist SCOTUS, influenced by the leftist ACLU, decided that the citizenry would have no say in whether we wanted pornography or not. The pornographers rule, citizenry must obey.
Explicit pornography is so easy to find that little kids in libraries find it all the time. Librarians (almost all rabid leftists) fight porn filters as though they would kill us all. Any home with internet and no filters (and kids aren't bad at figuring out how to get around a lot of filters) can be a porn emporium.
Cable TV is in millions of homes. Any kid who turns it on can see explicit stuff pretty easily.
And to say that parents should be able to prevent kids from seeing porn is very weak. I guess all the TVs could be tossed, and no internet connection, and parents could make sure that all the friends their kids have also have no TVs or internet.
I say let them have what they want. When their marriage is destroyed and they are eat up with VD, or when their daughters show up between the pages, they should just STFU.
Wrong! That is a huge jump in rationale. Pornography is immoral. Christianity is not. Of course you might just be paranoid. Or perhaps you have other reasons for opposing this.
So restraints on obscenity are equivalent to slavery.
Only a liberal could come up with something as lacking in basic common sense as that.
And for your information the reason we have laws against stalking and sexual harrassment is that since the collapse of the old gentleman code a tremendous amount of male misogyny has been let loose. If women no longer had to be 'ladies' men no longer had to be 'gentlemen'. That is why the first priority of feminism was laws protecting women against male bullying. Changing the way rape cases are tried so the defendent doesn't have to answer for her life. Treating wife beating like a crime. Etc.
Yes you did say rude and crude and no you cannot side step out of it.
I said that I have seen rude and crude supporters of porn on the porn threads. I don't remember seeing your name there, nor did I accuse you personally. Your words speak for themselves, anyway.
Your evasiveness just illustrates how exact my charge was. You are saying you see rude people, and we (the ones who are opposed to you fundamentalists dictating what can and cannot be seen and done by consenting adults) are the rude ones in your eyes.
I am not saying that anyone who I disagree with, or disagrees with me, is rude. I am not being evasive, just truthful. Also, could you explain what you mean by "fundatmentalist"?
I agree that there are 2 ways to change the behavior. Either by force or by persuasion just like you said.
FOr instance, rape should be stopped by force (make it illegal) and by suasion; teaching men and boys that rape is wrong. Both methods need to be used.
So like I said earlier if you evangelicals think our culture is so horrible and immoral, why don't you go evangelize instead of trying to outsource that job to the legislative branch.
What do you mean by "evangelical"? I think many who call themselves such on FR would not include me. I have nothing against people who are. You seem to be lumping anyone who understands the need for moral absolutes in one box.
Your comments about "outsourcing to the legislative branch" are pretty childish. Are you of the opinion that police forces and prosecuting attorneys are unnecessary? That legislatures should not pass any laws about sexual behavior or content?
When Jesus walked the earth did he go to Rome and try to have all the laws changed so people will be forced to fit into what he says is good and right? No he didn't, he loved, sacrificed, and died for what he believed in.
I think you're mixing up some things here. Am I saying I am like Jesus? Are people who consider rampant pornography bad acting as though they are prophets or saviors? Are you saying that no one has the right to discuss the topic of pornography?
Never once did he do what you are telling us to do. He changed hearts and empowered Christians with that ability.
Again, I am not Jesus, so what he did or would do aren't relevant here.
The fact that our culture is so depraved doesn't speak ill of the government or activist judges.
Well, according to many thoughtful people, activist judges and leftist government has helped the situation get where it is today. They are definitely PART of the equation.
It speaks ill of evangelicals Christians like yourself
See my above remarks. Actually there are many people such as religious Jews, Hindus, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Buddhists and even atheists who agree with me.
who have and still fail to see the obvious truth.
And what would that obvious truth be again?
And this putting you in boxes crap, well nice to see you can pull rhetorical crap out of your @$$.
What were you saying about how I shouldn't falsely accuse you of being rude and crude?
And at the time they wrote the Constitution, naked titty dancing and explicit pornography were illegal.
Such things weren't recently invented, they were just recently forced down society's throat by leftist judges and the ACLU.
How about this:
"It speaks ill of evangelicals Christians like yourself who have and still fail to see the obvious truth. And this putting you in boxes crap, well nice to see you can pull rhetorical crap out of your @$$."
187 posted on 11/21/2004 4:44:17 PM PST by Ksnavely
Laws mandating free methadone clinics. Laws limiting where methadone clinics can be located.
Laws mandating free needle giveaways. Laws limiting where free needle giveaways can occur.
Laws decriminalizing all manner of sexual behavior previously held to be illegal. Then laws mandating that citizens be forced to pay for: AFDC, STD clinics, CPS services because of broken families and abused children, AIDS clinics, high schools with child care so the teenage unwed mothers can bring their children, and on and on and on.
Straw man. Being black is an unchangeable, neutral phsyical characteristic, whereas being a pornography consumer is a choice, an activity, which can be changed, and is not morally neutral.
If I was black, I'd be pretty insulted by your comparison.
Hmmm the old "turning back the clock" argument of the lefists.
There were some good things about the 60s and a bunch of bad things.
BTW, you didn't get my sarcasm?
Me - "What has been side stepped here by many is just how insidious a danger this stuff poses."
You - "Please. What has been side stepped here is that those who make such statements as the one above have yet to substantiate their Chicken Little claims in any meaningful manner whatsoever."
Let me explain what I mean by an insidious danger. Let us totally put aside moral arguments. Also, let us drop discussions about the connection of porn with rape, serial killing, rape, etc.
I think most would agree that it is in society's best interests for there to be stable marraiges and young men entering into marraige with proper sexual expectations.
Pornography hurts those basic things. It creates in many men (I can't speak for women) the desire to have something that is artificial and indeed fictional. Real women can seldom look as good as those centerfold models. Also, a wife that has aged a few years and put on weight because of age and children cannot look like those manequins in Playboy. Men, married men to, by nature tend to have roving eyes, we don't need anything out there to encourage it. Married sex lives have been harmed by the husband toying with pornography.
In the case of young men, it creates in them an unrealistic view about what a young woman should look like. This can also cause them problems when they marry.
I apologize that I cannot give you rock solid scientific study evidence. I hope you are reasonable enough to see what is self evident. If for no other reason than it is counter productive to marital satisfaction, then I would be against pornography.
Young
Precisely. Pornography renders men unfit for real relationships with real human women who aren't 38-24-26 eternally submissive blondes. Men who are addicted to pornography never grow up because they reject the real life give and take of a real relationship with a real, physically imperfect, woman who has opinions of her own.
As ever, libertarians cannot comprehend that democracy is for grownups. Not lifelong adolescents.
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.