Skip to comments.
Porn Is Like Heroin In The Brain
Focus On The Family ^
| Nov. 19, 2004
| Stuart Shepard
Posted on 11/19/2004 3:07:51 PM PST by Lindykim
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 521-534 next last
1
posted on
11/19/2004 3:07:52 PM PST
by
Lindykim
To: little jeremiah; ItsOurTimeNow
2
posted on
11/19/2004 3:08:28 PM PST
by
Lindykim
To: Lindykim
burned? Is that like seared?
3
posted on
11/19/2004 3:10:58 PM PST
by
Experiment 6-2-6
(Meega, Nala Kweesta! Give A+BERT (snakeoil) his name back! Help him, JimRob, you're his only hope...)
To: Lindykim
"That image is in your brain forever," she explained. Ding! BS Alert!
4
posted on
11/19/2004 3:13:12 PM PST
by
Wolfie
To: Lindykim
Dude, I usually try and refrain from commenting on the socially conservative posts here, but this is a little creepy.
Checking a criminals house for porn? There goes your freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
Banning pornographic material? Goodbye freedom of speech!
Why don't we let the market determine what is and is not appropriate. The point of conservatism is that the government can't adequately make decisions for the individual. I think that applies in this case.
5
posted on
11/19/2004 3:13:54 PM PST
by
oldleft
To: Wolfie
We've been getting inundated with this same bogus crap over teh last few days. I think some church group may have had a council meeting or something...
6
posted on
11/19/2004 3:14:24 PM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
To: Lindykim
Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover described how pornography is analogous to cigarettes Regular or King Size?
7
posted on
11/19/2004 3:14:27 PM PST
by
Leroy S. Mort
(Falcons - the Red States Team)
To: Lindykim
What does the government have to do with this? Isn't encouraging people to avoid morally destructive behavior the province of the church? Why aren't people focused on getting the clergy back into this fight? We do not need the secular authorities to become the final solution for every moral problem. That will inevitably lead to the final solution.
8
posted on
11/19/2004 3:15:16 PM PST
by
trek
To: Lindykim
To: trek
The reason that the clergy aren't in this fight is because half the preachers and ministers are also looking at this stuff on the internet.
10
posted on
11/19/2004 3:16:54 PM PST
by
Ksnavely
To: Lindykim
Porn Is Like Heroin In The Brain
So is sex, sugar, caffine and chocolate, what's your point...
To: Lindykim
Experts on pornography's effects on brain chemistry testified at a Senate hearing this week where a key point of discussion was whether porn is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment or addictive material that should be unlawful. Regardless of what "addictive" means in relation to porn (people like sex, film at 11), if being addictive is sufficient cause for making something illegal, we're well over the nanny state line. Consider caffeine, for example.
12
posted on
11/19/2004 3:19:08 PM PST
by
ThinkDifferent
(A plan is not a litany of complaints)
To: Lindykim
13
posted on
11/19/2004 3:19:56 PM PST
by
onedoug
To: Lindykim
"Modern science," Satinover said, "allows us to understand that the underlying nature of an addiction to pornography is chemically nearly identical to a heroin addiction." So what? Religion does the same thing. Do you want to outlaw that too?
14
posted on
11/19/2004 3:20:30 PM PST
by
Viking is a verb
(Maximun Freedom, Minimum Regulation)
To: yellowhammer
Use this next time...
15
posted on
11/19/2004 3:21:14 PM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
To: Ksnavely
"The reason that the clergy aren't in this fight is because half the preachers and ministers are also looking at this stuff on the internet." Well, at least it's only half. All the Senators and Congressmen are hip deep in the stuff.
16
posted on
11/19/2004 3:22:41 PM PST
by
trek
To: Lindykim
An addiction for which there is no cure; the outrageous tragedy is the introduction to young and curious minds.
Once something is SEEN, the mind can never forget, and the rest you go figure, hence the Jeff Dommers (spelling?).
17
posted on
11/19/2004 3:24:11 PM PST
by
Paperdoll
(on the cutting edge)
To: Lindykim
They need to be more specific about what they're talking about. Child pornography, where a small, obviously young child is shown with having sex with adults should be pursued relentlessly and the perpetrators given the maximum penalty.
If, on the other hand, a woman or man is of the age of consent and can sign legally binding contracts on their own to perform in a pornographic movie or other medium, so what? As long as nobody's getting hurt, and there are no underage children involved, who cares?
To: oldleft
Let the market determine what is and is not appropriate?
So if the market determines that the age of consent laws should go out the door, you think they should? If the market determines that child pornography is okay, I guess it is, huh? At least, according to your bogus defintion of pornography.
19
posted on
11/19/2004 3:26:35 PM PST
by
mowkeka
To: yellowhammer
I'm guessing this is a fake, and it may get me banned, but you only live once:
20
posted on
11/19/2004 3:27:35 PM PST
by
BlueNgold
(Feed the Tree .....)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 521-534 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson