|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Sexual expression: your opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1666 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
why
you of course! No, the point is that the internet offers the first real opportunity for culture, sex, age, etc. to be irrelevant in discussions with people. just ideas. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 4188 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
well. actually. there was an article in discover magazine about people who were aroused but prevented from achieving orgasm (haha) and it cause illness and even death. no kidding. blueballs kills. tell that to your preacher.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 4188 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
durex condoms have the highest birth rate *giggles*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 4188 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
neoteny works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 4188 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i think it is important to recognize the greek effects on christianity. the hebrews were very sexual people. have you read song? fo shizzle. it even talks about oral.. both ways. moreover, there was a cultural mandate for procreation in order to fulfill god's promise to create a multitude...
there was no discussion of specific sexual taboos in the old testament like in the new (except for the levites who were special).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
In my opinion, government and religion should quit worrying so much about sex.
However, this will never happen. A major part of religion is about control. The religious leaders are in control of their congregation. If you have control of someone’s sex life, then you have control over them. To ask religions to give up control of peoples sex lives is asking a bureaucracy to give up control. That will never happen. Our sex lives clearly fall in to the morals catagories. Government should not attempt to legislate morality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 2201 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Holmes invoking God to support porn writes: The religious fanatics at least have the excuse that they say their God says it (porn) is bad, which he never did and indeed Jesus defended a prostitute from state sanction in one of the more famous passages of the Bible. But hey, maybe he changed his mind. They say it is immoral, sinful, and so bad. holmes writes: You can blame all the rest, but what about the cases I outlined. Especially in the case where couples make their own it just seems absurd to suggest a person watching his own video is lusting after someone other than his partner. Firstly, I don't blame anyone. I was making the point that your inference (top) that God isn't anti-porn/prostitution - is wildly incorrect. One can nit-pick and say the bible doesn't prohibit this specific or that specific act. There's a lot more it doesn't specifically prohibit than home made porn if that's the way you'd like to view it.
By the way, where do people like King David fit into all of this? In the exact same place that every other person fits. He was a sinner so naturally enough, he sinned. Via lust in the case of Bathseeba. God tells us not to sin but he is not surprised that we do. He tells us not to so that when we do we are breaking his law and are thus condemnable. Smart heh!
Second chance to get this right. I did not say he wasn't for implementing some social sanctions (ostracism, lecturing, etc...), but he was clearly refuting punishing others in a corporal way. Can you admit this rather obvious point or not? I thought I did. But to clarify. Yes, he was against it. Against judging others or punishing them in a corporal way. Jesus would never have used violence to punish. But he hates the action and in no way condones it. He can not be looked to for support of sexual immorality. There will be punishment for all these sins (assuming the person holds onto them until they die), that is for sure. But Jesus says it is for God to carry out the punishment then - not man now
What hallmarks of fanaticism? And how does it make me quasi-religious? It reads like you didn't like what I said and so are throwing names at me. You were (only in passing I might add) seemingly pointing to God as a tentitive support of your view. This pulls the truth about what scripture says wildly out of context to suit own ends. Pulling truths out of context is a hallmark of fanaticism. That it used a 'Religious' arena to do so makes it religious fanaticism
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6080 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
One can nit-pick and say the bible doesn't prohibit this specific or that specific act. There's a lot more it doesn't specifically prohibit than home made porn if that's the way you'd like to view it. I love it. When you point out that the Bible doesn't say something and indeed has statements which LITERALLY contradict modern thumper opinions, I get to hear how it is nitpicking not to read the Bible figuratively instead of being so literal. Now I want an explanation. Why would home made porn be upsetting to Jesus and friends? What would it be upsetting? Also, I've been doing some thinking and realized that most porn doesn't actually invoke lusting for another woman anyway. It is a fantasy and most people understand that. There is a difference between getting excited with no intention or desire to carry out an act, and actually having such intentions. Jesus was discussing desire for another person, not a fantasy image in one's head. By the way, why don't Xians more vehemently come out against violent shows and almost all sports. There's more sayings from Jesus that go against them than sexual imagery. Also why does the Bible escape this decree when it specifically describes sex in vivid language which is sure to invite excitement? Song of Solomon is erotic and not about my girlfriend. Even where it doesn't go for excitement it can be graphic including about penis lengths and amount of cum spurting from them... over underage girls nonetheless.
God tells us not to sin but he is not surprised that we do. He tells us not to so that when we do we are breaking his law and are thus condemnable. Yes but you missed my point by miles. The guy was a sexual sinner in the absolute utmost ways and yet he was still glorified by God and necessary as a link to Jesus. None of his sins carried forward and certainly all went unpunished by the state. Thus, as was the point, we can see that it is NOT important for govts to crush sexual sin. It is unimportant, and indeed (as we see throughout) such social judgement actually results in judgement by God.
Jesus would never have used violence to punish. And he told others NOT TO DO SO. Yet fundies are pushing to be able to do this using the state, just as those people did with the stones. The discussion was about repressing sexual speech. I was stating that the Bible itself is against the suppression of such things, even if it suggests people not partake of them. Now come on and address that point! Jesus would not be for jailing and otherwise punishing people simply for expressing themselves sexually... yes or no? Oh by the way, I think its a bit much to say he hated sexual entertainment and that he'd hate all porn. He did not express hatred toward the prostitute. He simply told her not to do it anymore. A doctor does not have to hate eating to tell a person they really should cut down on the desserts.
Pulling truths out of context is a hallmark of fanaticism. That it used a 'Religious' arena to do so makes it religious fanaticism First of all I was not trying to support my position. I said that at least the religious could discuss God as a source of condemnation and then pointed out an apparent hypocrisy with regard to fundie Xians. I even added they could get out of it by saying he changed his mind. Second I did not pull anything out of context, as your wriggling around shows. I was only discussing attitudes toward public sanction. It is true that God never said that sexual IMAGERY was bad, and by the way there was plenty of it back then so its omission from lists of bad things IS notable. And it is true that Jesus condemned people that condemned others specifically for sexual sin. True or not? Third, by your definition all religious people are fanatics. What religious person cannot be said to be taking passages out of context to support their own religious theory? Indeed what group IS NOT accused of doing so by somebody? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 2201 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
holmes writes: I love it. When you point out that the Bible doesn't say something and indeed has statements which LITERALLY contradict modern thumper opinions, I get to hear how it is nitpicking not to read the Bible figuratively instead of being so literal. I don't know what that has to do with my point. The bible won't support the stance that porn/prostitution is fine. It does the opposite. Prostitution is called sin, lusting after another is called sin. You seem to think that because it doesn't specifically state its stance on every single possible act of sexual immorality thaen those acts not mentioned are now okay.
There is a difference between getting excited with no intention or desire to carry out an act, and actually having such intentions. Jesus was discussing desire for another person, not a fantasy image in one's head. How do you know that? Anyway I find it hard to imagine porn not being an object focussed activity. Ones excitment has nothing to do with the object at all?
By the way, why don't Xians more vehemently come out against violent shows and almost all sports. There's more sayings from Jesus that go against them than sexual imagery. You seem to be able to exptrapolate the teachings of the bible here whilst condeming my doing so a minute ago. There was no TV then, nor am I aware of violent sports in his time that he spoke against. Only kidding Holmes, sexual immorality in a Christian is considered 'worse' because it is a sin involving the body and mind in a very complete way. And the Christian has God residing in him so they are committing an offence against the very residence of God as it were. (see below)
Also why does the Bible escape this decree when it specifically describes sex in vivid language which is sure to invite excitement? Song of Solomon is erotic and not about my girlfriend. Even where it doesn't go for excitement it can be graphic including about penis lengths and amount of cum spurting from them... over underage girls nonetheless. ...sure to get excited? I didn't. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with talk of breasts or orgasms or sexual excitement in and of itself. God made these things to be pleasant. Its not the existance of these things, its a persons reaction to them and what they do with them that matters.
Song of Solomon is erotic Like I was saying....
The guy was a sexual sinner in the absolute utmost ways and yet he was still glorified by God and necessary as a link to Jesus. None of his sins carried forward and certainly all went unpunished by the state. Relatively speaking, he wasn't that bad. I thought him murdering someone was worse myself. A believers sins, Davids included, get forgiven and are punished in Jesus. Make no mistake, all sin must be punished: either in Jesus or in the offender themselves. No exceptions. David was forgiven by God. As can anybody be. And David was king - he was the state. No one could punish him. All sin will be punished by God irrespective of what the state does or thinks. If it is sin it will be punished by God. If it is not (although the state may think that it is and punishes you for it) then it is not sin and won't be punished by God. Gods standard - not mans is what is used by God
Thus, as was the point, we can see that it is NOT important for govts to crush sexual sin. It is unimportant, and indeed (as we see throughout) such social judgement actually results in judgement by God. I don't think governments see it as sin. I think they see it as upholding a standard in order to prevent anarchy. Laws and punishment are required to do this. Goverments tend to think that if limits aren't placed on all kinds of behaviour then the slide will only be downwards. Take a stroll through the red-light district in Amsterdam sometime. Unrelenting porn and vice and perversity (my personal view) on open display. On public streets. There is nothing to stop a child walking by and being subject to it. This I would argue is a form of child abuse. Unless you would hold that there is no such thing as child abuse.
And he told others NOT TO DO SO. Yet fundies are pushing to be able to do this using the state, just as those people did with the stones. (relevant to sexual sin above) Jesus was in the temple one day and the moneylenders were there wheeling and dealing. In anger he overturned the moneylenders tables. He was not punishing people for their sin, he was objecting to the disrespect shown for his fathers 'house' being used as a place for profiteering. There is a difference between wanting to prevent 'sin' having free reign and 'punishing' people for their sin. And the way you prevent people having free reign to sin in our society is to invoke laws. The Christians didn't make it this way - but they have a right (like everyone) to use the system to those ends (prevention) if they can.
The discussion was about repressing sexual speech. I was stating that the Bible itself is against the suppression of such things, even if it suggests people not partake of them. I thought is was about porn and possibly prostitution myself. Porn is patently lustful I've argued. A person who comes to see that and agree with that view will likely see home-porn in the same light. A person who views porn as okay won't see home porn as a problem. It's a kind of either/or I think.
Now come on and address that point! Jesus would not be for jailing and otherwise punishing people simply for expressing themselves sexually... yes or no? Jailing for punishment no. Exclusion from the society of the church to protect the church and cause the person to come to their senses yes. Do the fundis want punishment or do they want the person prevented from ruining (in their view) the society in which they live? I know they can be quite radical. (another question to ask yourself is: are they Christians in fact? Or do they just call themselves Christians?)
And it is true that Jesus condemned people that condemned others specifically for sexual sin. He didn't condemn them. He convinced them they too were sinners s'all. (it was the greatest answer to a catch 22 question I've ever seen incidently).
by your definition all religious people are fanatics. What religious person cannot be said to be taking passages out of context to support their own religious theory? Indeed what group IS NOT accused of doing so by somebody? I said that tendency to pull passages wildly out of context was one hallmark of fanaticism. I was extrapolating perhaps unfairly to accuse you of it. My apolgies for the slight. How about the The Holmes Wayward Biblical Interpretation Sect? The people who don't pull a passage out of context are the ones who aren't fanatics. But seeing as we don't know which ones have it right (if any) then I suppose we can't call any of them fanatics just yet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6080 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
The bible won't support the stance that porn/prostitution is fine. Once again, I did not say that it did.
It does the opposite. Prostitution is called sin, lusting after another is called sin. You seem to think that because it doesn't specifically state its stance on every single possible act of sexual immorality thaen those acts not mentioned are now okay. While it does say things against prostitution there is nothing said about sexually graphic imagery, which I will remind you yet again was all over the place in those times. That it did not mention them in their derision is significant, especially when it includes such imagery within the Bible itself. But hey, I was not even trying to suggest that it would agree with porn. My main point was that it does come out clearly against corporal sanctions against people for such things. As far as something not being wrong unless it mentions it, fundies play that game all the time when they defend war.
How do you know that? Anyway I find it hard to imagine porn not being an object focussed activity. Ones excitment has nothing to do with the object at all? Okay, what was Jesus discussing? You said it before yourself. And no porn is not avidly focused on another person that one will then want to have sex with. It is fantasy imagery of a person you might never get a chance much less desire to have sex with in person.
There was no TV then, nor am I aware of violent sports in his time that he spoke against. Wow you are slow. I was extending your own argument. IF what you say is true, THEN why don't fundies go against violence in media? He sermonized against violence much more often than about sexual things. Get it? Now answer the question.
sexual immorality in a Christian is considered 'worse' because it is a sin involving the body and mind in a very complete way. And the Christian has God residing in him so they are committing an offence against the very residence of God as it were. Unlike violence which does nothing to mind or body? This makes no sense.
Its not the existance of these things, its a persons reaction to them and what they do with them that matters. Song of Solomon is erotic. Yes it did get people excited. It still does for some people. Once again, answer the question. It has imagery designed to invoke sexual imagery and indeed excitement. Why is that allowed in the Bible? If you are going to claim Solomon is not, how many citations do you want from Xians that say that it is before you believe me? As far as the nonerotic parts, so you are going to be okay... and fundies will be okay... with movies showing excessive sexual content including guys with huge cocks spurting gallons of jizz all over young girls, as long as it is portrayed that they are bad... correct? If not, then answer the question.
Take a stroll through the red-light district in Amsterdam sometime. Unrelenting porn and vice and perversity (my personal view) on open display. On public streets. There is nothing to stop a child walking by and being subject to it. This I would argue is a form of child abuse. Unless you would hold that there is no such thing as child abuse. Ahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahaha!!!! See that location under my name? It is where I was living when I first started and I keep forgetting to change it. I live IN the red light district in Amsterdam. I live right in there amongst the porn shops and prostitutes. Every time I step out my door I do everything you just suggested. Now what the hell are you talking about? You just undid your very argument. You said that it would slide toward anarchy, yet it hasn't. That despite having the very thing you just mentioned. And you are right that kids can see everything here, even bestiality vids are openly displayed in windows. In fact there's a child's day care center down the block from me sandwiched between a bank of the seediest prostitutes you can find and a porn theater. You call it child abuse? Why? Based on what? You say there will be problems? Why? What evidence do you have? You sir are seriously looking like a person who bears false witness... or at least logical fallacies. Oh by the way there is such thing as child abuse. To my mind taking a child and indoctrinating it in the Xian religion is to some degree child abuse. I don't like anything which scares children into hating others and themselves, as well as believing that they are basically bad, and that all knowledge comes from a single book. Call me crazy!
And the way you prevent people having free reign to sin in our society is to invoke laws. The Christians didn't make it this way - but they have a right (like everyone) to use the system to those ends (prevention) if they can. Sorry that there is some twisty turny logic. He specifically decried legal punishment of a person for sexual sin. That you cannot admit that speaks volumes. And that is wholly different that overturning tables at the temple, which was specifically condemning mixing religion with profit and govt. If anything this points up yet another hypocrisy. When fundies get into office, or into religion, they use both to mix moneymaking with religion. Yet what do they try to get laws to punish? Sexual sin.
Exclusion from the society of the church to protect the church and cause the person to come to their senses yes. Do the fundis want punishment or do they want the person prevented from ruining (in their view) the society in which they live? They want to punish. But what difference does it make if they want to prevent people from ruining their society? Are you claiming Jesus would have said "Oh yeah, okay fire away!" if they had said they were simply trying to stop her from ruining their society. And by the way, if the purpose is to exclude people from their church and so save their society then you just answered the question of whether such moves would be legal.
He didn't condemn them. Good catch, very bad word choice on my part. He criticized them.
The Holmes Wayward Biblical Interpretation Sect? Sounds great, can't wait to get the children's illustrated version into stores. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 2201 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
holmes writes: But hey, I was not even trying to suggest that it would agree with porn. My main point was that it does come out clearly against corporal sanctions against people for such things. Fair enough. It does. And if fundis are promoting coporal sanction as punishment then they are off target I reckon. They would be better off forgiving. This doesn't however remove their right to have action taken to prevent what they see as damage to the society they live in. Is imprisonment as prevention alright for a fundi to promote without conflicting with the bible
It is fantasy imagery of a person you might never get a chance much less desire to have sex with in person. Whether one gets the chance, desire in fact or intends to makes little difference. Lust doesn't require an act to be intended or to happen in order to exist
Unlike violence which does nothing to mind or body? This makes no sense. I pointed out the occasion where Jesus actually got angry and expressed it violently. His fathers house being defiled. And the Christians body and mind is where God resides. Why is it that way? I don't know but it explains why Christians might be more concerned about that than other 'sin'
1 Cor 6 writes: [18] Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. [19] Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; [20] you were bought at a price. It has imagery designed to invoke sexual imagery and indeed excitement. Why is that allowed in the Bible? If you are going to claim Solomon is not, how many citations do you want from Xians that say that it is before you believe me? Designed to evoke sexual imagery is one thing. But you seem to conclude that excitement is a given - an automatic response to it. It is not.
You said that it would slide toward anarchy, yet it hasn't. I made the point that governments needed to draw lines in order to stop the slide downwards where there was no restraint. And there is a line in Amsterdam. It may be drawn in a different place than in the States but it is still there. There are rules governing it, licenses to be issued, sanitary checks to be conformed to etc. I don't seem to recall male prostitutes displaying in the windows. A limit even for the Dutch etc.
That despite having the very thing you just mentioned. And you are right that kids can see everything here, even bestiality vids are openly displayed in windows. In fact there's a child's day care center down the block from me sandwiched between a bank of the seediest prostitutes you can find and a porn theater. I call it child abuse for the reason that children need to be protected from such imagery of bestiality in order to prevent the idea forming that it is in anyway normal. It is not normal. It is abnormal. I say this not in a judging fashion but simply that it is a fact. And there are good reasons to think that a child should be thought what normal behaviour constitutes in a general sense. Society relies on people knowing and conforming to what is considered normal and not partaking in what is not. No society can hold that any and all behaviour is normal and acceptable. The places in the world where such general constraint is removed are ones where anarchy reigns
Call me crazy! I dunno. When a bloke demands evidence for there being problem with kids being exposed to bestiality images one wonders...
iano writes: And the way you prevent people having free reign to sin in our society is to invoke laws. The Christians didn't make it this way - but they have a right (like everyone) to use the system to those ends (prevention) if they can.
holmes writes: Sorry that there is some twisty turny logic. He specifically decried legal punishment of a person for sexual sin. That you cannot admit that speaks volumes. This stoning would have been a Roman crime. The Jews were not allowed to stone people to death. Jesus prevented a crime taking place. This stoning would have been a biblical crime. Both adulteress and adulterer must die under Mosaic law. Mosaic law was specific and allowed for no deviations. IOW - there is more to it than meets the eye
And that is wholly different that overturning tables at the temple, which was specifically condemning mixing religion with profit and govt. Read the passage. Jesus anger had to do specifically with the defilement of his fathers house. How it was being defiled was not the point.
Good catch, very bad word choice on my part. He criticized them. I think if you read the passage you'll find that he didn't even do that. He just said "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" s'all. If you want to get to the meat and potatoes of where Jesus does stick in the boot in relation to religiousity and false piety and rules and regulations etc, then there is ample where he is dealing with the Pharisees. I'm pretty sure some fundi's who are representing him as badly as you say (and I don't think you are wrong in many ways) will be hearing similar words at some point Not every fundi is a Christian. ps: And if you're ever get tired of life in the Roze Buurt http://www.amsterdam50.nl/index.php Its not far from you
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6080 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Fair enough. It does. And if fundis are promoting coporal sanction as punishment then they are off target I reckon. Thank you.
This doesn't however remove their right to have action taken to prevent what they see as damage to the society they live in. Is imprisonment as prevention alright for a fundi to promote without conflicting with the bible Well that would remove their legal right in a secular society, unless they somehow were able to prove that changing a culture constitutes damage. As far as imprisonment being okay to a Xian, that's still a good question. Do the guard's turn the other cheek? Seriously though, what is the difference between stoning and imprisonment? Isn't the idea that one is not supposed to be punishing someone for something like that the important point? Are you suggesting that Jesus would have not delivered his famous sermon if they had interrupted him and said "yeah but she was destroying our society"? In fact, isn't it interesting to note that nowhere does he suggest that she is destroying their society?
Lust doesn't require an act to be intended or to happen in order to exist Now you speak for God? When it makes the difference between something that can never be attained because it is a fantasy in one's head, versus a real person one is fantasizing about actually sleeping with that seems to be important. Lets say you just see an image with genitalia engaged in what they do best. For whom are you lusting? And if lust itself is the problem, then we come back around to the problem of sex with one's own spouse being bad.
I pointed out the occasion where Jesus actually got angry and expressed it violently. Uhhhhh... he also hung out with prostitutes. You think he didn't see anything around a prostitute or any of their places? He clearly had not been upset enough to do anything noteworthy to them or the art around such places. And did Jesus really hurt anyone? IIRC the only person that ever got hurt by him or his disciples was healed by Jesus. As far as the corinthians, that is not Jesus or God talking, it is Paul. He even goes back and forth on whether he is talking as himself and for the faith. He also rails against many other than just sexual sins. And once again, I must note he goes off on people that go to the legal process against another. His suggestion was ostracism and not going to court...
6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?... 6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6:6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. I might note he is also railing against the concept of a jury system.
Designed to evoke sexual imagery is one thing. But you seem to conclude that excitement is a given - an automatic response to it. It is not. Oh please. No sexual imagery has an automatic response of excitement. That's why porn is so diverse. Not everyone gets their kicks the same way. Solomon evokes sexual imagery and it is INTENDED to be exciting. That it does not titillate you is besides the point. It is quite colorful and capable of such stimulation. And I will ask again, you are saying graphic sex will be acceptable as long as its intention was not to stimulate? Designed to evoke sexual imagery is one thing. But you seem to conclude that excitement is a given - an automatic response to it. It is not.
And there is a line in Amsterdam. It may be drawn in a different place than in the States but it is still there. There are rules governing it, licenses to be issued, sanitary checks to be conformed to etc. I don't seem to recall male prostitutes displaying in the windows. A limit even for the Dutch etc. Now you are changing your argument. You started by saying there should be and gave an example of Amsterdam as being one that did not. Quite explicitly I might add. Now that I challenged the notion that it was sliding anywhere, you suggest that that is because it has limits of some kind. So what is needed to withstand the slide to anarchy? Clearly Amsterdam can get along quite fine without many, and bureaucratic licensing is not comparable to laws on sexual behavior. Oh yes, and men are in the windows. Many many men are in the windows. Most are in drag. I'd be interested in seeing your theory on how nations slide into anarchy based on people having sex how they like. What evidence do you have for this?
I call it child abuse for the reason that children need to be protected from such imagery of bestiality in order to prevent the idea forming that it is in anyway normal. It is not normal. It is abnormal. I say this not in a judging fashion but simply that it is a fact. I'm sorry but your first example was just seeing sexual imagery... what's not normal about that? To move on to what I mentioned, bestiality, whose to say that that is not normal here? It is seen throughout much of europe and people are buying it (or it wouldn't be getting made). If abstinence is not the norm, is that something kids shouldn't ne exposed to either?
Society relies on people knowing and conforming to what is considered normal and not partaking in what is not. No society can hold that any and all behaviour is normal and acceptable. The places in the world where such general constraint is removed are ones where anarchy reigns Other than your assertion, why am I supposed to believe this? I mean I agree it is not useful to allow all behaviors, but that does not mean that all behaviors now become open to restriction. In a society where most people are muslim then, you agree that it is okay to kill Xian missionaries? Or does your law only apply to sex? See I'm having a problem understanding where you actually apply your principles consistently, as well as how society will collapse into anarchy if sex (like religion) is not controlled by law.
When a bloke demands evidence for there being problem with kids being exposed to bestiality images one wonders... I just told you it happens here. Kids walk by my window all the time, sometimes in big packs with their parents and other adults and look at the images in the porn store windows. You can watch them all laughing it up and not exploding or bursting into hysterical tears. Do you know of some problem that is going on from this? What? One wonders how you can keep asserting things. Yes I am asking for evidence. Time for you to put up or shut up.
IOW - there is more to it than meets the eye Well that's a way to put cheese on the pretzel. Jesus was not appealing to them not to break roman law. That almost blasphemous in its contortion. I thought you said quoting things out of context to support your religious position was fanaticism. Come clean. He did not argue for them to be good roman citizens, and he did prevent them from applying mosaic law regarding adultery despite their being "legally" correct to do so. He ended by refusing to condemn her himself.
Jesus anger had to do specifically with the defilement of his fathers house. How it was being defiled was not the point. Okey doke I'll agree he wouldn't have been pleased with other defilements of the Temple. This specific defilement was merging religion with money and politics. And he made some specific comments about it. He did not say, "hey anybody doing something He doesn't like shouldn't be here." He didn't beat down some infirm man and tell him he shouldn't think of getting close to an altar. AbE: That church group may be nearby but its located centuries in the past. I find it ironic that evangelicals are allowed in here by people in this historic neighborhood, historic for its sexuality and red lights, and all they can do is call for the lights to be turned out and the sex to end. You claim that norms should be preserved. Are you for laws banning Xians who live in places where it is not the norm, and pester sexual people where sexuality is the norm? This message has been edited by holmes, 11-28-2005 04:07 PM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
amun Inactive Member |
A good friend of mine (who is actually involved in the sex industry) once said to me "A human who cannot express themselves sexually is risking insanity and suicide". This friend believes, without a shadow of a doubt, that people have a fundamental need for this kind of expression. Do you have any children? I do...and I would not want them to get involved in the pornography industry at all!! Your friend seems a little extreme...does that mean than horny people need to act out their lust at any given moment without giving any thought to how it effects/violates others? In the case of children, sexual experiences which violate youngand innocent minds are nothing less than a crime!! As for adults, do we really need another era of dominant crusaders who violate and prey upon the weak and innocent...like they did with the Native Americans? If I could have fought for the people whom I have known who were violated because of the "sexual expression" of others, I surely would have done so!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian7 Member (Idle past 509 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: |
Porn is obviouslly immoral, unethical, perverted, destructive, corruptive, and a threat to the mechanics of any mind that is victimized by it. Porn is very addictive like a sigaret, and people who start getting into can't quit. It's also a leading force against Jesus/God. Jesus is VERY UNHAPPY with this porn business.
There is so much money being made off of all that crap. I don't even see why people find such things appealing, for whenever a thought related to such things enters my mind it makes me sick. It also makes me dought weather or not people trully have free will, since they are so addicted to it. At least my mind is stable enough that it is impossible for me to find such things appealling or become addicted, unlike many teen agers today. One of the Pastors of my church "Pastor Ed Ramos" (An idiot by the way), asked me if I looked at porn. He already pissed me off enough with his idiotic assumptions about my character. I said no, because what I do on the computer is related to computer programming and research or debate, such as this forum that I am on now. I don't think he believed me. He was talking about some kind of stastitics of childeren and adolescence looking at porn. That really pissed me off, because not only was he making assumptions of my character, but he was putting me in a box with mathematical probability labelled on it, as if I don't have free will. What an idiot!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Uh-huh. You're always telling us how unlikely evolution is, but we're supposed to believe that you're the one teenage male who's not at all interested in naked women? Please.
At some point, your curiosity will overcome your fear. Hopefully it'll be a revelation to you; it was for me. Looking at porn never screwed anybody up, especially as teenagers. In fact it's not looking at porn, in my view, that screws people up. It might be illegal for you to see it where you live, I don't know, and I won't link to any, but someday you'll look at it. You know how the OP talks about people who go insane because they have no sexual release? It's you he was talking about. Your obvious and dripping disdain for sexual enjoyment is going to seriously screw you up, I recommend getting over it as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024