Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Longbow1969; MD Expat in PA
So let's cut to the chase shall we? You both believe porn to be a good thing am I right? If not why spend so much time trying to justify it. If so then just agree to disagree.

First off... The prohibition red-herring isn't going to fly. First of all a couple of drinks is not the same thing as being a drunkard. Making love and babies with one's spouse is not the same thing as indulging in mindless, animalistic sex with either multiple "real" or "imaginary" sex partners. I personally have never called for nor do I condone making alcohol illegal just as I have never condoned or called for making sex between a married man and woman illegal.
My God says adultery, fornication, sodomy and other forms of sexual debauchery are sin and not partaking in such deviant behaviors has worked for me. You obviously disagree. That is your prerogative but history shows that when the moral decay of a society takes over it's not long before the culture that's rotting ceases to exist. We have obomba because social standards have digressed to the point where people are tolerant of liars, cheats, thieves, drug addicts and sexual perverts like obomba. I cannot fault Santorum for having higher standards than most folks and while I am a firm Newt supporter I would not be one bit ashamed of voting for a man like Santorum. If Newt doesn't win the alternatives are either obomba or romney. Neither are acceptable to me. Santorum has character and good moral values. I would gladly take him over the obomney's of this nation.

JMHO

404 posted on 03/18/2012 10:30:18 AM PDT by Whats-wrong-with-the-truth (Romney... Just put the (D) behind your name and be done with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies ]


To: Whats-wrong-with-the-truth
So let's cut to the chase shall we? You both believe porn to be a good thing am I right?

No. I didn’t say that. I don’t think porn is “good”. But I don’t think it, excepting things like child pornography or “snuff films” rises to being any interest of the Federal government.

First off... The prohibition red-herring isn't going to fly. First of all a couple of drinks is not the same thing as being a drunkard.

How do you define a couple of drinks? One or two a day? A month? Every once and a while? And what if someone has more than a couple, get’s hammered, sloshed, G-d’s own drunk? There are already state and local laws regarding public drunkenness and driving under the influence. But should that be a Federal crime? Should I be arrested for being a drunkard? By the Feds?

Making love and babies with one's spouse is not the same thing as indulging in mindless, animalistic sex with either multiple "real" or "imaginary" sex partners. I personally have never called for nor do I condone making alcohol illegal just as I have never condoned or called for making sex between a married man and woman illegal.

So making love AND babies with one’s spouse is OK by you? Thanks! But I guess us post menopausal women are a different story then? Are you going to further define what sexual positions my husband and I can use too? Are you really saying that sex outside of marriage should be a criminal act? Perhaps it should be a federal crime and the BAFT could become the BAFT&S and with heavily armed SWAT teams dispatched to lover’s lanes and high school proms to make sure no one rounds second base.

My God says adultery, fornication, sodomy and other forms of sexual debauchery are sin and not partaking in such deviant behaviors has worked for me. You obviously disagree.

I’m glad they have worked for you. I have no problem with that and I have no problem with G-d or your minister defining such for you. I do have a problem with the Federal government defining them for me, or for you for that matter.

408 posted on 03/18/2012 11:32:20 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies ]

To: Whats-wrong-with-the-truth
The prohibition red-herring isn't going to fly.

Prohibition is a red-herring in the argument, but not for any of the reasons you listed. Prohibition was a result of the States delegating a power to the national government by the process of amendment and ratification.

This is nothing like that at all.

410 posted on 03/18/2012 2:39:42 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson