Posted on 06/23/2010 8:37:50 AM PDT by Zakeet
The Texas Republican Party gives a whole new meaning to the word conservative.
The GOP there has voted on a platform that would ban oral and anal sex. It also would give jail sentences to anyone who issues a marriage license to a same-sex couple (even though such licenses are already invalid in the state).
“We oppose the legalization of sodomy,” the platform says. “We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.”
[Snip]
In addition, the platform says that homosexuality “tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit and leads to the spread of dangerous communicable diseases.”
It also states that homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in public schools and “family” should not be redefined to include homosexual couples.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Looks like this thread has flushed out a couple more noob trolls (see from post 51 on) as most threads about moral issues are wont to do.
What a self-righteous, immoral hypocrite.
You pollute the thread with your vile insinuations that those of us who righteously defend God's Laws of Private Property are secretly Pornographers and Sodomites...
...and then you get all wounded when someone points out that it is YOU who wants to Trespass upon Private Property to look through family pictures of children to determine what's "provocative" or not.
I don’t think they’re new, I think they are all retread trolls.
What I’m wondering is if your psychosis is fueled by drugs or just au naturel. I think it’s drug fueled, myself.
CC posts like a re-tread; also cruisin’ for a bruisin’.
Basically acts like every other Paulbot.
What a self-righteous, immoral hypocrite.
You pollute the thread with your vile insinuations that those of us who righteously defend God's Laws of Private Property are secretly Pornographers and Sodomites (and Drug Users)...
...and then you get all wounded when someone points out that it is YOU who wants to Trespass upon Private Property to look through family pictures of children to determine what's "provocative" or not.
Like most leftists you have a serious problem with projection.
You pollute the thread with your vile insinuations that those of us who righteously defend God's Laws of Private Property are secretly Pornographers and Sodomites (and Drug Users)...
...and then you get all wounded when someone points out that it is YOU who wants to Trespass upon Private Property to look through family pictures of children to determine what's "provocative" or not.
Nearly ALL child molestation and other forms of abuse takes place ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
You and your libertarian ilk seem to think that all of your beloved vices should be considered sacrosanct as long as they are done on private property. The Bill of Rights DOES NOT protect private property, it protects private property against UNREASONABLE search, as soon as reasonable evidence of a crime is presented (and a crime is ANYTHING that is legislated whether you feel it is just or not), a person can no longer hide behind any claim of private property.
We hire people to do that sort of thing CC, they're called "law enforcement":
South Florida Sun-Sentinel - November 29 2006
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-cporn29nov29,0,1746781.story?coll=sfla-news-broward
An Alabama federal grand jury Tuesday indicted two Fort Lauderdale men for operating a child modeling Web site that gained national attention for posting provocative photos of underage girls.
Marc Evan Greenberg, 42, and Jeffrey Robert Libman, 39, were charged with 80 counts of conspiring to use minors for sexual photos and interstate transportation of such photos. Birmingham photographer Jeff Pierson, 43, is charged with sending and conspiring to send sexual photos of minors.
From 2002 to 2005, federal prosecutors said, Greenberg and Libman operated a now-defunct Web site that allowed viewers to select a "model" age 7 to 16, then direct them to that model's own Web site where they could pay a $20 monthly subscription to view more photos of the girl. The three defendants shared in the profits, Alice H. Martin, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, said in announcing the indictments.
Greenberg and Libman's company, Webe Web Corp., was one of the first to offer what news reports called "child erotica" online.
"We do legal, all-ages modeling for the sake of profit, something that just wasn't available before the Internet," Greenberg and Libman said in an e-mail featured in a 2002 broadcast of Dateline NBC.
Their photos, determined as sexually explicit by the grand jury, featured children in provocative poses such as yoga positions.
Link to child porn case
Well, if she were 18 years old and married, do you think that her husband snapping bedroom pictures of his wife should be against the law?
We'll stipulate that such pics should not be distributed in the Public Commons, since I already agree that communities have the right to police obscenity in the public sphere.
As shown in my earlier post, adult porn can (and often time does) lead to child pornography. Besides that, as a supposed "Christian" you should know God's view of pornography; it debases something as beautiful as lovemaking between a husband and wife into a cheap act of carnal indulgence. (You're really not a Christian are you? You're la la la "liberaltarian").
I have no objection to laws against child molestation, on Private Property or otherwise.
You're citing a case of Public Distribution of Child Pornography.
As I've said all along, I have no objection to such laws. I affirm the right of local communities to police obscenity from the Public Commons.
I do object to Trespassing upon Private Property for the purpose of rifling through a NON-PUBLIC family photo album, looking for pictures of naked toddlers running around and trying to determine whether or not they're "provocative".
FWIW, there's definitely some people who are a little TOO "libertarian" for my blood.
Like my wife's aunt, in Belgium.
When my wife returned from visiting her aunt in Belgium, she found (to her dismay) that the photo CD her aunt sent her included not only the pictures of her trip, but all the pics her aunt had taken that summer... which included a bunch of photos of her 7 and 8 year old cousins traipsing around various European water parks and beaches going topless (and even completely nekkid).
Now, I don't share her aunt's blase, European attitude towards toplessness and nudity, so I would have no inclination to include such photos in our own family album. I told my wife to just delete all those photos.
But I think it's absurd that my wife could theoretically have been prosecuted for *child porn* because she happened to have in her possession some photos of her child cousins running around in a state of undress.
Now, if my wife had any inclination to distribute such photos PUBLICLY, you'd hear me singing a much different (and much harsher) tune.
But the fact that she happened to have in her possession, on her own Private Property, some au naturale pics of her cousins that her aunt had left on the photo CD? That should be considered grounds for Trespassing upon her Private Property and bringing Charges of child porn against her?
No. That's absurd. (And IS a violation of God's Laws protecting the sanctity of Private Property, whether you want to admit it or not).
Hiding behind an allegedly libertarian position isn’t fooling anyone.
We can see that you’re being deliberately obtuse about the issue lj mentioned earlier about the parents filming their own child.
We’ve had plenty of experience with trolls who claim to be libertarians in an effort to promote things like gay lifestyle, child porn, pro-death issues, etc.
Nope. I've even posted some private information (certainly more than my accusers on this thread deserve to know about my extended family) concerning exactly that issue, regarding my wife's overly-permissive Belgian aunt. See my #252.
(Well, maybe her aunt is not overly-permissive by European standards, but she is by mine).
We’ve had plenty of experience with trolls who claim to be libertarians in an effort to promote things like gay lifestyle, child porn, pro-death issues, etc.
I have no interest in promoting any such immorality, and gladly affirm the right of local communities to police obscenity from the Public Commons.
My position, all along, has concerned the sanctity of Private Property, in cases where no assault or molestation or what-have-you are being committed upon that Private Property.
I will defend the rights of Private Property. That's my position, simply and plainly.
He uses a lot of insinuation and other dirty tricks.
Nassty troll.
Blasphemy in Civil Law:
Blasphemy cognizable by common law is defined by Blackstone to be “denying the being or providence of God, contumelious reproaches of our Saviour Jesus Christ, profane scoffing at the Holy Scripture, or exposing it to contempt or ridicule”. The United States once had many penal statutes against blasphemy, which were declared constitutional as not subversive of the freedom of speech or liberty of the press (Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, Vol. IV, 582). In the American Decisions (Vol. V, 335) we read that “Christianity being recognized by law therefore blasphemy against God and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scripture are punishable at Common Law”, Accordingly where one uttered the following words “Jesus Christ was a bastard and his mother was a whore”, it was held to be a public offence, punishable by the common law. The defendant found guilty by the court of common pleas of the blasphemy above quoted was sentenced to imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm
As I mentioned in an earlier post, blasphemy laws were once used here in the US.
Regarding your (weak) claim that “Judaism, by denying that Christ is God, commits Blasphemy against God.”:
This case of blasphemy, however, is a specific one, called “the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 12:31. In Matthew 12:31-32, the Pharisees, having witnessed irrefutable proof that Jesus was working miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit, claimed instead that the Lord was possessed by the demon “Beelzebub” (Matthew 12:24). Now notice that in Mark 3:30 Jesus is very specific about what they did to commit “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.”
This blasphemy has to do with someone accusing Jesus Christ of being demon-possessed instead of Spirit-filled. As a result, this particular incidence of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be duplicated today. Jesus Christ is not on earth—He is seated at the right hand of God.
http://www.gotquestions.org/blasphemy-Holy-Spirit.html
Do me a favor and change your name to “Libertarian Capitalist” (you give Christianity a bad rap).
Jesus in Hell: Where His punishment is "boiling hot semen," Gittin 57a identified as Jesus in footnote to same, and in Jewish Encyclopedia under "Balaam."
Christians in Hell: In the above passage punished by "boiling hot excrement" which is the punishment for all who mock "at the words of the sages." (Talmud)
Jesus: "Committed bestiality," "corrupted the people," is "turned into hell." (Sanhedrin 105a)
Just answer the question: Is that Blasphemy, or is it not? YES, or NO??
Actually, the children weren't nude, it was the "provocative" nature of the pictures that made it pornography. These pictures were sent from PRIVATE property to (sick) men who got their jollies looking at young girls. I would hope that we'd both agree that this sort of thing should be unlawful.
I do object to Trespassing upon Private Property for the purpose of rifling through a NON-PUBLIC family photo album, looking for pictures of naked toddlers running around and trying to determine whether or not they're "provocative".
Who wouldn't object to that sort of infringement on a family's civil rights? Are you implying that law enforcement officials are entering private homes without probable cause and going through people's family photo albums, hoping they'll find something they deem as "lewd"?
There is no malicious intent here.
In my county we have had a Sexually Oriented Business committee for years. They have yet to attract even one sexually oriented business to the area, I think they need to be replaced!
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.