Posted on 05/19/2005 11:05:47 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
You never answered! LOL OMG I'm done with you.
WORD!
Follow this advice and you will soon be kneeling, facing east, five times a day.
Try this advice. It's not so wifty: "Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords." -- Ben Franklin.
The recording of any sexual activity for both private and public consumption.
What adults want to do or watch or read in the privacy of their homes or the homes of others may be pornographic, but if the pornographic material does not involve minor children and is not supplied to minors, does not involve harm to the participants, and is not distributed in a fashion where those who do not want to view such material do not have to take any precautions to prevent their inadvertent exposure to such material (such as installing internet filtering software or having certain cable channels blocked) then I see no reason to ban or prevent its production, sale, and distribution to those who want to consume it.
If people want to view sexual activity, fine, but it needs to be their responsibility and the responsibility of those who purvey porn to prevent any and all pornographic images from accidentally being accessed by any and all. Those who produce or market pornography and do not conceal it behind non sexually explicit password protected splash pages should be subject to criminal prosecution.
Do what you want. Just don't force me and my family to watch you screwing in the road while I'm channel or web surfing....
I do not use the abuse button, save for when the violence line is well and truly crossed.
I do, however, chide.
I've been hooked into the Pepsi challenge three times and Coke kicked ass every time. My sister-in-law likes Pepsi so we keep it on hand. I go through 20 towers of Coke for every one of Pepsi.
This "Pepsi wins" urban-myth is the logical result of advertising. People believe it even though it isn't true.
It would be crazy to think that they would create a society where rights derived by God would be so easily manipulated into justifying acts against Him.
I know it's hard to conceive of, but the Constitution contains exactly one reference to deity - the the "Lord" in the date.
Try a word search on the text here. Cant' find anything else ? I thought not.
The Founders had no intention of creating a theocracy where Mrs. Grundy could impose her religious views on others - regardless of anyone's ideas about God.
Well some people see my views as harsh, but that's just too bad.
All right, just so I'm clear: Christians now pick and choose which parts of the Bible they follow?
Or do you just pick and choose among the teachings of Jesus that you like?
Welcome to the Church of Whatever the Hell We Feel Like! Everyone is has a home here, because you can pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you like!
I like this 21st Century Christianity: it's like a Biblical cafeteria plan!
Boy, I spent four years with the Jesuits, and this is a LOT better than what they taught...
Children were sexually assaulting other children long before porn became popular. This is a matter that is being treated differently now and our awareness of its frequency has been raised but it is doubtful there is much more of it. In the past kids kept assaults to themselves. Now, we've told them for two generations that it's okay to report it and we will protect them and punish their assailants.
He is. He's just being...well...disingenuous.
just reckoned a cool glass of sweet tea between friends was in order. carry on ;)
Lest you think we all are total prudes, maybe I can clarify. Freepers understand the "slippery slope" concept when it comes to issues like Terri Schiavo and euthanasia, or incremental gun controls. It's possible to yield ground a little bit at a time and end up far from where you intended to be.
In the case of Terri Schiavo, there was a lot of discussions on FR about what comes next? Killing off the sick, the elderly, the mentally retarded? On moral issues like that, it's wise to stay as far away from the line of demarcation rather than trying to define it. The Prez called that "erring on the side of life." With gun control, it begins with registration, then banning gun shows, computer background checks. Eventually it will result in confiscation and imprisonment. We resist the beginning because we can anticipate the end result.
Likewise with pornography, there's a slippery slope. The VS commercials might titillate, but any pastor in any church will tell you of men (and women) who became slaves to pornography and it ruined their marriages and their lives--and it all began with a Playboy magazine or a Victoria's Secret catalog. Pornography is addictive. One builds up a tolerance to it. To get the same "endorphin rush," the viewer escalates to more hardcore material.
Many men who become addicted to porn find it ruins their sexual relationship with their wives. Porn is not representative of normal human sexuality. It objectifies women. The wives of pornography addicted men often claim that they don't feel they can "measure up" to those levels of "performance."
When a guy's wife declines to participate in the fantasies introduced into her her husbands imagination, he may be driven elsewhere. They go from flirty chat rooms to furtive meetings with others. Just look at all the cases of arrests made of prominent public figures (this week there was a mayor up in Washington state) who made arrangements to meet up with someone they thought was a "teen" for sex and met the cops instead.
At the "end of the road," these people behold their degenerate condition and think how it would be different if they had never picked up a Playboy or watched the porn flick in the Hilton while on a business trip. They stepped onto the slippery slope, confident they could have a little peek and go back. You should see the damaged lives, the regret, and the pain they have brought upon themselves and their loved ones.
Are there any pastors on FR? Chime in! You know what I'm talking about. A battered self-image, devastated marriages, disillusioned children, and emotional heartache are the ultimate rewards in this evil indulgence.
Are you saying that this Nation and its Laws are not founded on the belief in God and the rights that flow from Him?
LOL!!!
Yeah. It's a legal document.
The founders were no dummies.
They could have left it out.
But they left it in.
Doing so was a tacit acknowledgement that ultimately,
we are under a higher jurisdiction
from whence flow all of our unalienable rights,
the source of true Law.
As the American patriots cried in battle:
"We have no king but Jesus!"
Rather than firing analogies back and forth, why not check out reality?
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.