Skip to comments.No premarital sex on television please, (Idaho) lawmakers urge
Posted on 03/15/2013 12:09:08 PM PDT by Olog-hai
A number of Idaho lawmakers are targeting a topic they say should be taboo on televisionpremarital sex. And theyre taking a symbolic stand.
Lawmakers are against references to premarital sex in dramas, comedies, reality and talk shows as well as advertisements.
We need to take a stand and stand up for for the morality of what is best for the citizens of Idaho, said Rep. Darrell Bolz, (R-Caldwell).
(Excerpt) Read more at kboi2.com ...
why is it that we have warning about violence, sex, nudity, language but not homosexuality>
I;m sick of settling down to wtch a movie and then two turd pokers pop up in the movie and then I stop watching.
The media wants sex, turd pokers, drugs and cheating to be a fashion and cool and sadly the young idiots out there liberal, socialist, libertarian etc fall for it.
Don’t they have better ways to use the public time?
Yep, just what the government needs to be involved in.
The groups you name are not aware of the war on the family by Marxists, which is even in the Communist Manifesto. This kind of stuff was part of the USSR’s plan to undermine the USA.
I agree. Totally.
Change the channel you idiots. Stop telling me what and how much I can watch,drink,shoot,smoke or eat. Anyone who doesn’t think we have enough laws already should be horsewhipped.
“Kill your TV”
You would lose most of conventional television and just about all of cable.
I watch a lot of old shows on MeTV and they did fine without sex, homosexuals, drugs, alcohol. I refuse to watch the garbage on TV these days. Unfortunately, a lot of young people and children watch and see nothing wrong with homosexuality, premarital sex, adultery.
The one thing that gives me hope is The Bible on the History Channel is a big success.
Um, there was a lot of pre marital sex in the Bible. And also in many classic works of art, such as the Odyssey, Shakespeare, and many historical shows.
There are a lot of sins mentioned in the Bible. That doesn’t justify any of them.
My point was if you pass laws against any references to pre marital sex, you couldn’t have the Bible mini series on the History channel. Or any showing of Hamlet, because he and Ophelia were kicking it. Or you couldn’t do any show about the Trojan war, because Helen was not married to Paris. And forget about anything in Tudor England, because depending on who you ask, king Henry was always having pre marital sex.
Yes, and just yesterday these great moral crusaders in the REPUBLICAN Idaho legislature voted to throw our lot in with the federally-funded Obamacare exchanges.
The Senate did so yesterday, the House gave their approval earlier—and it wasn’t even close.
Our Republican governor led the charge on welcoming Obamacare.
This is how things are in (supposedly) one of the most conservative states in the Union. You wave several billion dollars OF BORROWED MONEY in front of them, and the swine will gobble it up like pearls.
Thanks for clarifying. Of course, if any and all references to premarital sex are censored, then nobody would have any way to frame such in the proper context.
There is no way for the federal government to legislate morality, which is why George Washington put so much emphasis on private morality, as did John Adams when speaking of who the Constitution was made for and what sort it could not govern.
This isn’t the dichotomy it might appear to be on the surface, of course. Hard leftists love censorship.
see that is what stuns me.
How could are side be so naive, or stupid, when even this was written back in 1963
They even had this in black and white so it;s no surprise that they are now nearly passing or have passed what they put down in 63.
If our side had spoken up and mentioned the feces, how good it is to be married and raise your chuildren and see them grow, diseases and how it was not cool then we would not be where we are today.
Now we have many which infiltrate sites like this our party , our primary and pretend they;re conservative or republican but they;re not and the party allows it.
Paul for instance ran on the libertarian ticket, but then ran on ours to get himself noticed
If it weren't for premarital sex, I would have had no sex at all to speak of.
Then The Bible should be never mentioned again.
“You’re living in your own Private Idaho.”
Sure. Let’s mention the Koran instead.
Why was it done away with?
You win the thread........LOL
Citation please, from an actual Communist source.
You are stating the case correctly here. There are a lot of Freepers who use that John Adams quote over and over without realizing its implication: that if a people are not virtuous, no amount of legislation can make them so.
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, et cetera? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each others wives.
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The interesting thing, though, is that Communists in power tend to be extremely prudish, even puritanical, when it comes to the "social issues".