Its like he's the Manchurian candidate for Obama...the economy is in the toilet, once in the toilet the loans are going to be called in, and this is what this guy is worried about? If this is what the Republicans put up, they can forget about a vote from Team Wienie.
Photo: APInternet pornography could conceivably become a thing of the past if Rick Santorum is elected president.
The unapologetic social conservative, currently in second place behind Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination, has promised to crack down on the distribution of pornography if elected.
Santorum says in a statement posted to his website, “The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws.”
If elected, he promises to “vigorously” enforce laws that “prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier.”
Although the idea of Santorum vanquishing Internet pornography may seem far-fetched, a serious effort to combat online smut might actually be successful, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told The Daily Caller.
“If the government wanted to aggressively move against Internet pornography, it could do so,” explained Volokh. “Here’s the deal: In most parts of the country, a lot of pornography on the Internet would plausibly be seen as obscene.” (RELATED: Full coverage of the Santorum campaign)
There are a few approaches that Santorum could pursue in an attempt to eradicate Internet pornography. “It wouldn’t be that difficult to close down a lot of the relatively visible websites that are used for the distribution of pornography, if they’re in the United States,” said Volokh.
Ads by Google
Santorum’s administration could take American-based porn distributors to court for violating obscenity laws, said Volokh, and have them shuttered. But that would leave foreign-based sites untouched.
To black out foreign sites, Santorum would likely need legislative action requiring Internet service providers to use “a mandatory filter set up by the government or by the service providers,” said Volokh.
But the government could also prosecute individual citizens who view porn, and already has the legal authority to do it.
“Although the Supreme Court says private possession is constitutionally protected, it has said that private receipt of [pornography] is not protected,” noted Volokh. “You can’t prosecute them all … but you can find certain types of pornography that are sufficiently unpopular” for easy convictions, he explained.
Most contemporary prosecutions for the receipt of pornography are because the government cannot prove its suspicion that the accused has committed more serious crimes, said Volokh. He speculated that there aren’t more prosecutions because “that prosecutor isn’t going to win a lot of votes in the next election.”
The government would probably need to “find some extra money in the budget for additional porn prosecutors,” joked Volokh. He also cautioned that there would be significant outcry because “sometimes it’s viewed by husbands and wives who watch it to spice up their sex lives.”
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, noted that “What constitutes obscenity remains maddeningly vague,” but added that he’s not entirely convinced Santorum would be successful in an attempt to snuf Internet porn.
Why does this guy have such a bee in his bonnet about people doing the naked squishy dance in front of cameras? And others enjoying said squishy dance in the privacy of their own homes? I thought that's what the internet is for...
Yes, it's hard to believe there wasn't a better Republican candidate than the collection of individuals currently slugging it out for the nomination. But then I have often thought that about Republican nominees.
Should have just given the nomination to Palin. At least that would have been amusing to watch for the rest of us.
We are building a society of internet porn addicts. It's way to to easy to feed your perversion now. It used to be that you had to go to video stores or porn movie theaters to get your fix, thus making it somewhat of a discouragement. With the internet all you have to do is click your mouse, or even take it with you via your cell phone now.
generalgrog wrote:We are building a society of internet porn addicts. It's way to to easy to feed your perversion now. It used to be that you had to go to video stores or porn movie theaters to get your fix, thus making it somewhat of a discouragement. With the internet all you have to do is click your mouse, or even take it with you via your cell phone now.
generalgrog wrote:We are building a society of internet porn addicts. It's way to to easy to feed your perversion now. It used to be that you had to go to video stores or porn movie theaters to get your fix, thus making it somewhat of a discouragement. With the internet all you have to do is click your mouse, or even take it with you via your cell phone now.
GG
And?
I don't watch porn very often, my missus and I have regular sex, she actually demands it more than I do if I happen to be in the middle of a raid on wow or I'm painting a bunch of models or something...
And I think that 99% of grown men with wives/cohabiting partners are the same.
If the missus is away with her mom for a week I might drink a few cans, put a HD threesome on and then fling myself around my bedroom for a bit though.
I'm struggling to see why this perfectly healthy, natural, legal behaviour is a problem?
generalgrog wrote:We are building a society of internet porn addicts. It's way to to easy to feed your perversion now. It used to be that you had to go to video stores or porn movie theaters to get your fix, thus making it somewhat of a discouragement. With the internet all you have to do is click your mouse, or even take it with you via your cell phone now.
GG
OH NO! The internet made porn convenient
And the problem is?
generalgrog wrote:We are building a society of internet porn addicts.
Do you have a reputable source showing that porn addiction is taking over society? Hint: James Dobson isn't a reputable source.
generalgrog wrote:It's way to to easy to feed your perversion now.
If just seeing a naked person is feeding into perversion, my god, seeing your partner naked also feeds into perversion! We must take steps to ensure a husband never sees his wife in the nude. Sex, only for procreation, and only with the lights off. Be sure to never see your wife before marriage either, becuase we wouldn't want any perverted thoughts there either. We must remain staunchly afraid of the human body. Any sightings of it must be contained and controlled. Perhaps we could make sure women are covered head to toe at all times, thus keeping thought of perversion down, and modesty at high levels.
And it isn't all fun and games until someone threatens porn. Santorum has been made fun of on a lot of other subjects as well.
OH NO! The internet made porn convenient
And the problem is?
Indeed. I also dislike the rather bizarre way that people like GG (full blown Christians) massively over use the word pervert!
We are building a society of internet porn addicts. It's way to to easy to feed your perversion now.
Feed your perversion!?
GG, I dont know if you have seen much porn, but in a nutshell, your a pervert If you like wearing a spiky leather suit, jamming a hot baguette up your arse and then nailing your testicles to a workbench.
Not if once or twice a month you happen to watch some porn for ten minutes.
i remember reading once that places where porn watching is less restricted, the sexual crime statistics are lower... don't want to check that while on break at work tho!
OH NO! The internet made porn convenient
And the problem is?
Indeed. I also dislike the rather bizarre way that people like GG (full blown Christians) massively over use the word pervert!
We are building a society of internet porn addicts. It's way to to easy to feed your perversion now.
Feed your perversion!?
GG, I dont know if you have seen much porn, but in a nutshell, your a pervert If you like wearing a spiky leather suit, jamming a hot baguette up your arse and then nailing your testicles to a workbench.
Not if once or twice a month you happen to watch some porn for ten minutes.
There seems to be an inherent assumption that because you watch porn and admit it, you must automatically be into the most hardcore, orifice stretching degredation available. There is a spectrum in pornography, as with most things...
Blackskullandy wrote:There seems to be an inherent assumption that because you watch porn and admit it, you must automatically be into the most hardcore, orifice stretching degredation available. There is a spectrum in pornography, as with most things...
Santorum does this stuff because he ends up in the news every time he talks about it, and it just makes his political base love him more and more. It's all calculated.
There isn't any evidence that it's harmful, though. The distaste for it is based on social attitudes which vary across the country.
I have to disagree on that statement. I know of at least 4 divorces that were caused by the husbands addiction to porn, and there was a lot of negative emotional fallout.
Everything can be harmful if in the wrong..."hands".
Relapse wrote:
I have to disagree on that statement. I know of at least 4 divorces that were caused by the husbands addiction to porn, and there was a lot of negative emotional fallout.
Everything can be harmful if in the wrong..."hands".
See, this is why I've learned to masturbate using my feet. What started merely as a desire to pull myself off whilst eating a pizza has evolved into the only way to fly, as I take great pleasure in the feel of my coarse, calloused feet on my lower appendage.
Santorum says in a statement posted to his website, “The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws.”
I thought our culture was based on pornography. It's the only explanation for Snookis and Paris Hiltons.
There isn't any evidence that it's harmful, though. The distaste for it is based on social attitudes which vary across the country.
I have to disagree on that statement. I know of at least 4 divorces that were caused by the husbands addiction to porn, and there was a lot of negative emotional fallout.
Everything can be harmful if in the wrong..."hands".
I know of at least 168,000 divorces that weren't caused by the husband's addiction to porn.
gorgon wrote:Santorum does this stuff because he ends up in the news every time he talks about it, and it just makes his political base love him more and more. It's all calculated.
I don't know if that's such a good idea. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't at least half of his flock actually those guys who may not have intercourse except to produce offspring? Wouldn't those people practically lose all chances of ever seeing a beautiful woman naked for the rest of their lives if they lost their easy access to internet porn?
Seriously, while I am not too sure whether my profiling of the average american bible belt inhabitant isn't slightly exaggerated, but there are probably a lot of people who wouldn't ever admit to watching porn, but actually do so quite a lot. Those people would have the biggest problem with that, because I can simply go to a video store and buy or rent some porn as I don't mind admitting to it, but they cannot.
Relapse wrote:
I have to disagree on that statement. I know of at least 4 divorces that were caused by the husbands addiction to porn, and there was a lot of negative emotional fallout.
Everything can be harmful if in the wrong..."hands".
See, this is why I've learned to masturbate using my feet. What started merely as a desire to pull myself off whilst eating a pizza has evolved into the only way to fly, as I take great pleasure in the feel of my coarse, calloused feet on my lower appendage.
As always Matt, you find yourself rubbing someone the wrong way!
There isn't any evidence that it's harmful, though. The distaste for it is based on social attitudes which vary across the country.
I have to disagree on that statement. I know of at least 4 divorces that were caused by the husbands addiction to porn, and there was a lot of negative emotional fallout.
Everything can be harmful if in the wrong..."hands".
I know of at least 168,000 divorces that weren't caused by the husband's addiction to porn.
And I know that of those 168,000 divorces, 167,900 were families that regularly ate bread. Now if Santorum was going to ban bread, I'd vote for him. Bread is the real danger.
There isn't any evidence that it's harmful, though. The distaste for it is based on social attitudes which vary across the country.
I have to disagree on that statement. I know of at least 4 divorces that were caused by the husbands addiction to porn, and there was a lot of negative emotional fallout.
Everything can be harmful if in the wrong..."hands".
I know of at least 168,000 divorces that weren't caused by the husband's addiction to porn.
Just replying to the blanket statement that there is no harm in porn.
Santorum is a rag. I can't imagine how stupid you have to be to see any enviable traits in this man.
Who's he appealing to with stuff like this? The ultra-orthodox, nuclear family soccer moms? I think he lost any votes he had left from middle-aged men and people with internet connections.
There is this myth going around that the Republicans are "stuck with" bad candidates, like it's some kind of coincidence that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are the two leading hopefuls. I think the picture makes a lot more sense when you accept that these candidates represent the contemporary state of the party and American conservatism more broadly. Santourm in particular reflects a yearning, whether contrived or otherwise, for the social mores that Dwight Eisenhower took for granted. Ironically, if Santorum could take those issues for granted (i.e., if it were still 1953, culturally speaking) he'd be utterly irrelevant as a politician.
There isn't any evidence that it's harmful, though. The distaste for it is based on social attitudes which vary across the country.
I have to disagree on that statement. I know of at least 4 divorces that were caused by the husbands addiction to porn, and there was a lot of negative emotional fallout.
Everything can be harmful if in the wrong..."hands".
I know of at least 168,000 divorces that weren't caused by the husband's addiction to porn.
Just replying to the blanket statement that there is no harm in porn.
There isn't. If porn had been the only problem amongst those loving couples, they certainly wouldn't have divorced. Porn is only a problem if a couple has other issues, like for example a massive fear of being left alone or serious trust issues. A couple of two grown up persons who really love each other can solve a disagreement about one wanting to watch porn and the other disliking that.
And if it was a porn addiction, then addiction is the problem, not the drug. If they hadn't had access to porn, they'd have become addicted to something else that makes them feel good without any need to invest or work for it.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Santorum is a rag. I can't imagine how stupid you have to be to see any enviable traits in this man.
Who's he appealing to with stuff like this? The ultra-orthodox, nuclear family soccer moms? I think he lost any votes he had left from middle-aged men and people with internet connections.
Man I read an article about him in the Economist.. Ill try and find it for you.
Basically, he IS an extremely devout individual, and unlike many of the preacher types, he doesn't seem to be a hypocrite. I don't doubt he is a genuine and decent human being. However, he doesn't seem to understand that what very devout Christians think is excellent, isn't necessarily excellent for everyone else.
In a nutshell, he and his wife were told that her foetus was going to be born fethed up and it wouldn't survive childbirth. So rather than have the unfeeling, nerveless foetus aborted, he had his wife take it to term, give birth to it, allowed it to live for a few hours in terrible pain, and then took his dead baby home for the rest of the kids to play with for a bit.
Yeah.. Unless your brimmers with Jesus Juice you might have a hard time swallowing it. Which is probably why Mitt Romney pissed the primaries. Shame actually.. he seems a pretty nice fella. If he was merely a practising Christian instead of a full blown, "follow the doctrine to the letter and feth everything else" kinda guy, I reckon he could have got the nomination. He seems a pretty charming and likeable bloke that aside.
I don't dislike Santorum personally, I just don't like how he throws his morals around, and his completely immovable opinions. We need someone who can make compromises and find solutions to the tough problems, without bias (and religious bias in particular). Polarity is exactly why we're in the gak we're in now, and we should avoid it if at all possible.
Like you said, he's not really a hypocrite, and he is actually very devout, which is admirable, especially for a politician. I don't get the feeling that he's using religion as a political bargaining chip, like some other candidates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:FWIW, Santorum is not a model Catholic by any standards but those of American ultra-rightists.
That too. What is a model catholic though? A little old hispanic lady living in an adobe house?
@S_A115: There is no such thing as a "model Catholic" except for the saints. And even then, it's not like your a gak Catholic if you don't live like the saints.
Samus_aran115 wrote:I don't dislike Santorum personally, I just don't like how he throws his morals around, and his completely immovable opinions. We need someone who can make compromises and find solutions to the tough problems, without bias (and religious bias in particular). Polarity is exactly why we're in the gak we're in now, and we should avoid it if at all possible.
Like you said, he's not really a hypocrite, and he is actually very devout, which is admirable, especially for a politician. I don't get the feeling that he's using religion as a political bargaining chip, like some other candidates.
Aye as I said, I dont dislike him personally, he seems a nice bloke, but that's the issue I have with many Religious people. The immovable moral compass.
Life is complicated, people are complicated, thus you should try and live your life taking each thing as it comes, look at individual situations and make your own mind up. That Santorum and those like him they have a simple black and white list which demands adherance is what gets my goat. You know, like the abortion thing, should a woman be able to just randomly be able to get an abortion whenever she fancies it? Probably not, we have contraception, we know the birds and the bees, what's wrong with a little common sense? But should a rape victim?
Santorum's answer depends on NOTHING, and that has always been my issue with those like him. Abortions for a Drunken slut with 8 kids already? No. Incestuous Rape Victim? No. Gang raped by twenty men? No.
When you have your answer before you hear the question, thats what gives matty the rage.
Well, and millions of other things obviously.
Oh and here you are I found the article in question, January 7th I read it.
CK SANTORUM, a former senator from Pennsylvania, is a virtuous man: intelligent, industrious and God-fearing, the proud father of six children, whom he and his wife have schooled at home. His misfortune as he strives to become president of the United States is that virtue is in the eye of the beholder. As anyone who Googles his surname will discover (don’t let your children try), many gay Americans abhor him and will resort to any revolting prank to besmirch his name.
They have reason. Last September the former senator was one of nine Republican hopefuls participating in a televised debate in Orlando, Florida. A question was posed over video by a soldier in Iraq who said he had hidden the fact that he was gay because he did not want to lose his job. Did any of the candidates intend to repeal the measure Barack Obama signed into law last year that had at last given gay soldiers the right to serve their country openly? Mr Santorum’s unblinking answer was Yes. Allowing gays to serve in the military was giving one group of people “a special privilege”; it was “social policy” that ought to have no place in the armed forces.
his became a notorious exchange, not least because some members of the ultra-conservative audience in Orlando booed the soldier. But the episode hardly does justice to the depth of the former senator’s feelings about the things gays get up to. The propinquity of the wicked plainly has an unsettling impact on the peace of mind of the virtuous Mr Santorum.
Gays should not only be disqualified from serving their country, says Mr Santorum. They should also be prohibited from marrying one another. Even if unmarried, they would be ill-advised to have sex. To Mr Santorum the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2003 that anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional was a bad mistake: this was a slippery slope that would establish a right to bigamy, polygamy, incest, adultery—“anything”.
It is not quite clear what Mr Santorum thinks about heterosexuals who have sex for fun—or at least who have it only for fun. The special status of marriage, he told the New York Times, does not exist “because people like to hang out together and have fun”; it is there to provide “a stable environment for the raising of children”. As president, he said more recently, he would at last address “the dangers of contraception in this country”, because contraception is a “licence to do things in a sexual realm that are counter to how things are supposed to be”.
If Mr Santorum has doubts about contraception, he has none about abortion. It is wrong, even in cases of rape or incest, because life is sacred and begins at conception (he does, however, support the death penalty, as it is not the innocent who die). Any doctor who performs an abortion should face criminal charges.
Because he is a virtuous man, Mr Santorum does not lay down a code that he is not prepared to abide by himself. In 1996 he and his wife were told that their unborn child had a fatal defect. They decided against an abortion and the newborn died within two hours. The next day they took the dead baby home to be cuddled by their other children. They named the baby Gabriel, and Mr Santorum’s wife later wrote a series of letters to Gabriel, which she turned into an affecting book.
Why it matters
If you write the most controversial opinions of a sincere and thoughtful man down in a list, you are in danger of ending up with a caricature. Google the words “Santorum” and “bigot” and you will get about 5m results. But is it fair to dwell, as the media caravan now will, on Mr Santorum’s divisive attitudes to sex, abortion, family values and gay marriage instead of his many interesting ideas about economics and foreign policy (for example, that “all of the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis”)?
The case for doing so is threefold. First, these are undoubtedly the opinions that appealed most to the caucus-goers of Iowa when they placed him in second place behind Mr Romney, the front-runner in the nomination race. Mr Santorum was the clear favourite of those who described themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians (Mr Romney was the favourite of the rest). They are also the views that will repel a lot of voters, not least in secular New Hampshire, who might otherwise be intrigued by Mr Santorum’s qualities. Last, Mr Santorum argues in his own 2005 book, (“It Takes a Family”), that family values are not just one page in a portfolio of policies. They are the foundation on which all else must stand. A former aide once told the New York Times that he thought of his boss less as a politician and more as “a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate”.
Besides, Mr Santorum’s thinking on public morality highlights a division in his party. He says in his book that the family, not the individual, is “the fundamental unit of society”. This idea, plus his religiosity, undergird his wider politics. Before he went down to defeat (by a margin of 17%) in Pennsylvania’s senatorial election of 2006, he was a champion of George Bush junior’s notion of “compassionate conservatism”, ie, giving taxpayers’ money to faith-based organisations, on the theory that do-gooders who had God on their side perform better than social workers.
Such ideas do not grate only on liberals. They also collide with the strand of conservatism represented in this cycle by Ron Paul, whose army of avid followers insist that the best thing government can do is to get out of people’s way—and certainly out of their bedrooms. Mr Santorum prefers government to serve as an instrument in the urgent task of remoralising a society that has lost its spiritual moorings. These philosophies are opposites, hard to accommodate in the breast of a single political movement. The eventual Republican nominee, even if it is the elasticated Mr Romney, will not find it easy to regroup his party.
That cartoon is no joke. I took a class in law school taught by a woman who had worked as an advisor to the Vatican observers at the UN. She constantly emphasized the need to forge partnerships with Mormons and Muslims for the sake of preserving what she thought of as Catholic morals. I'm not saying Catholics shouldn't work with other religions when it comes to social issues but I do think we should consider how much it's going to cost to climb in with these strange bedfellows.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Life is complicated, people are complicated, thus you should try and live your life taking each thing as it comes, look at individual situations and make your own mind up.
Yes, that's called an act of conscience. For more on conscience, see the Catholic Church.
Why do peopel have this delusion that Ron Paul is really any different from Santorum on the topics of gay marriage, abortion, feminism, and so on?
There is almost no difference between them, socially speaking. They are both fringe conservatives who will gladly curb-stomp the rights of minorities for the sake of appeasing the extremist religious type.
mattyrm wrote:Life is complicated, people are complicated, thus you should try and live your life taking each thing as it comes, look at individual situations and make your own mind up.
Yes, that's called an act of conscience. For more on conscience, see the Catholic Church.
Mate, we've danced this dance many times before. There are a great many things that the CC knows the answer to before they hear the question, so lets just not go there eh?
The Economist's delusions about Ron Paul is frustrating. They love him so much for his economic right wing stances that they utterly ignore everything else about him. I mean I support Obama, but I'll gladly point out areas where we don't agree (such as his apparent lack of enthusiasm for investing in infrastructure).
mattyrm wrote:There are a great many things that the CC knows the answer to before they hear the question, so lets just not go there eh?
If you want to criticize Catholicism based on how people like Rick Santorum think (or even John Paul II thought) of it, you're going to find yourself in league with a lot of Catholics.
mattyrm wrote:There are a great many things that the CC knows the answer to before they hear the question, so lets just not go there eh?
If you want to criticize Catholicism based on how people like Rick Santorum think (or even John Paul II thought) of it, you're going to find yourself in league with a lot of Catholics.
Yes I know that mate, I know plenty of people who define themselves as Catholic who wouldnt take a stillborn home for a party. And I didnt slate the Catholic church did I? I specifically said Rick Santorum as a man. I didn't say that Santorum was a "typical" Catholic either!
Your just getting needlessly pissy instantly because he happens to be a Catholic, and your embarrassed about it.
I clearly didnt slate the CC enmasse or say that Santorum was like your average one, because I know full well he isn't a typical Catholic, and thank feth for that!
Because he is a virtuous man, Mr Santorum does not lay down a code that he is not prepared to abide by himself. In 1996 he and his wife were told that their unborn child had a fatal defect. They decided against an abortion and the newborn died within two hours. The next day they took the dead baby home to be cuddled by their other children. They named the baby Gabriel, and Mr Santorum’s wife later wrote a series of letters to Gabriel, which she turned into an affecting book. ]
That this man could potentially be the next President of the US I find truly terrifying. That is some seriously messed up gak.
Are there no moderate Republicans? Things such as the above will immediately put off most people from voting for him, and in fact vote for the other party specifically to stop him gaining power (as I think happened a lot with Obama and McCain/Palin last time, with people voting for Obama just because the possibility of Palin becoming President was so frightening).
Manchu wrote:There is this myth going around that the Republicans are "stuck with" bad candidates, like it's some kind of coincidence that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are the two leading hopefuls. I think the picture makes a lot more sense when you accept that these candidates represent the contemporary state of the party and American conservatism more broadly. Santourm in particular reflects a yearning, whether contrived or otherwise, for the social mores that Dwight Eisenhower took for granted. Ironically, if Santorum could take those issues for granted (i.e., if it were still 1953, culturally speaking) he'd be utterly irrelevant as a politician.
I agree with what you're saying about Santorum being irrelevant other than being as far-right as you can get socially. But I don't think it's a myth that the republicans are stuck with bad candidates - well, anymore than they're stuck with a bad ideology.
I think the banking crisis really showed just how detrimental modern "conservative" economic principles are to the vast majority of people. The Republicans are completely ignoring this, pushing the same old rhetoric that's not working (trickling down, "job creators" etc) and hoping that people are so upset about gays getting married that they'll completely ignore their wallets in favour of their prejudices. The entire Republican mantra can be summed up as, "I'm not gay, I'm not black, and I don't believe in science." The most shocking thing to me is how many Americans seem to want to go along with this mindset.
mattyrm wrote:Your just getting needlessly pissy instantly because he happens to be a Catholic, and your embarrassed about it.
Not trying to be pissy, needlessly or otherwise. But you're definitely right that I am embarrassed by Rick Santorum. I mean, can you imagine if there was this extremely opinionated former Royal Marine going around loudly slagging this and that off and that everyone just assumed you must agree with him because you were also a Royal Marine? Embarrassing stuff. You might even feel the need to clarify that what that bloke says isn't anything to do with the Royal Marines.
Manchu wrote:There is this myth going around that the Republicans are "stuck with" bad candidates, like it's some kind of coincidence that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are the two leading hopefuls. I think the picture makes a lot more sense when you accept that these candidates represent the contemporary state of the party and American conservatism more broadly. Santourm in particular reflects a yearning, whether contrived or otherwise, for the social mores that Dwight Eisenhower took for granted. Ironically, if Santorum could take those issues for granted (i.e., if it were still 1953, culturally speaking) he'd be utterly irrelevant as a politician.
Thank you.
The old Bill Parcells quote about "you are what your record says you are" kind of applies here. People can call Santorum an idiot or whatever, but who took his campaign from about 8th place to 2nd place without the deep pockets of some of the other GOP candidates? Who's probably positioning himself for more of a leadership position within the party even after Romney wins the nomination?
CLEARLY, there was a yearning inside the GOP for a candidate to talk about these kinds of issues, and Santorum can serve that stuff up better than almost anyone. Now, someone might say that he just got lucky and was able to exploit an opportunity. But that's politics, and Santorum knocking out everyone but Romney isn't an accident here. I'm no Santorum supporter by any stretch, but I respect the man's political skills and his doggedness. He's a strong campaigner, and stays on his message pretty well.
Said it before and I'll say it again...I used to live in his old neighborhood, and had it on pretty good authority that he wasn't always so conservative. You guys have to understand that a lot of this stuff is calculated. He's cultivated a very distinct personal brand, and it's set him apart from a lot of other candidates and served him well over the years. Everyone laughs at him for having practically Victorian-era values, but he probably just keeps laughing as his numbers and donations spike every time he says something outrageous.
Edit: I mean, just look at this thread. Look at the Santorum threads that pop up here what seems like weekly. You can't stop talking about him. He knows what he's doing.
And Manchu, I agree that it's embarrassing that people might think Santorum represents American Catholics. Then again, he's kind of a drop in the bucket compared to other things the church has dealt with in recent years.
mattyrm wrote:Your just getting needlessly pissy instantly because he happens to be a Catholic, and your embarrassed about it.
Not trying to be pissy, needlessly or otherwise. But you're definitely right that I am embarrassed by Rick Santorum. I mean, can you imagine if there was this extremely opinionated former Royal Marine going around loudly slagging this and that off and that everyone just assumed you must agree with him because you were also a Royal Marine? Embarrassing stuff. You might even feel the need to clarify that what that bloke says isn't anything to do with the Royal Marines.
I see what you did there....
It IS the exact same thing though isn't it? If some guy from your club does wacky stuff, you all get embarrased about it. If some RM was coming on here loudly slagging off things that made perfect sense I would most definitely be embarrassed by him.
Good job there is one right here that is always logical and right about everything. He can follow my lead.
Redbeard wrote: But I don't think it's a myth that the republicans are stuck with bad candidates - well, anymore than they're stuck with a bad ideology.
Hey, I can agree with that 100%.
The entire Republican mantra can be summed up as, "I'm not gay, I'm not black, and I don't believe in science." The most shocking thing to me is how many Americans seem to want to go along with this mindset.
There are two responses to observing what you feel is unreasonable behavior: (1) reevaluate your notion of reasonableness or (2) reevaluate your observation of the behavior. I'll just check off (1) there as I agree that mantra is totally unreasonable. So that leads me to believe that that mantra is not what's motivating people voting Republican.
I wonder how much of it can be attributed to misinformation, tradition, and a predisposed set of beliefs about "liberals" that aren't easily altered by reality?
Because he is a virtuous man, Mr Santorum does not lay down a code that he is not prepared to abide by himself. In 1996 he and his wife were told that their unborn child had a fatal defect. They decided against an abortion and the newborn died within two hours. The next day they took the dead baby home to be cuddled by their other children. They named the baby Gabriel, and Mr Santorum’s wife later wrote a series of letters to Gabriel, which she turned into an affecting book. ]
I'm sorry, but is this even remotely true? That is some seriously sick and disturbed behaviour right there... Watching porn on the internet is pretty acceptable socially compared to bringing home a dead fethus so that your children can "cuddle" with...
Because he is a virtuous man, Mr Santorum does not lay down a code that he is not prepared to abide by himself. In 1996 he and his wife were told that their unborn child had a fatal defect. They decided against an abortion and the newborn died within two hours. The next day they took the dead baby home to be cuddled by their other children. They named the baby Gabriel, and Mr Santorum’s wife later wrote a series of letters to Gabriel, which she turned into an affecting book. ]
I'm sorry, but is this even remotely true? That is some seriously sick and disturbed behaviour right there... Watching porn on the internet is pretty acceptable socially compared to bringing home a dead fethus so that your children can "cuddle" with...
Indeed. That is not even funny. It isn't unlikely that those kids will have nightmares for the rest of their lives. That guy as president of the US makes me want to support China's view on human rights, as it is less frightening.
Redbeard wrote: But I don't think it's a myth that the republicans are stuck with bad candidates - well, anymore than they're stuck with a bad ideology.
Hey, I can agree with that 100%.
The entire Republican mantra can be summed up as, "I'm not gay, I'm not black, and I don't believe in science." The most shocking thing to me is how many Americans seem to want to go along with this mindset.
There are two responses to observing what you feel is unreasonable behavior: (1) reevaluate your notion of reasonableness or (2) reevaluate your observation of the behavior. I'll just check off (1) there as I agree that mantra is totally unreasonable. So that leads me to believe that that mantra is not what's motivating people voting Republican.
First, I think the general election will see the GOP lose. These candidates might be able to win a primary among other republicans (and maybe not, there are still four candidates running in March), but I don't think any of them will be able to carry the middle.
As to those who remain Republican, I think there are those who are simply traditionally Republican - kind of like the people who always buy Ford, because their family always has bought Ford, or those who belong to a certain church because their family has always belonged to that church. Some people don't have it in them to explore alternatives. I also think that there are a large number of people who do buy into the Republican view that American should be a White Christian nation. There appear to be blinders on some people, who will rant against their belief that the US is becoming a welfare state, while simultaneously looking for subsidies that benefit them. There is data out there that shows, rather dramatically, that red states receive more from the Federal government than blue states, and yet the GOP pushes the idea that they're the frugal ones.
And a lot of this is because the GOP is much better at using rhetoric and language to push their views. They're also much better at using tricks (voter registration issues that predominantly impact the poor, robo-calls telling people that their voting places have changed, the voting machine issues in Ohio, and so on) to disenfranchise large blocks of voters. It's not that I think the Democrats are above such tricks, they're just not as good as it. I think the GOP is better at gerrymandering as well. They're better at the game of politics, but their policies have become so detrimental to the good of the country that even that isn't going to save them. I think it's telling that the GOP were willing to sacrifice the country's credit rating in order to push an agenda that hurts most Americans. It's sad that winning is more important than doing what is best for the people you supposedly serve.
Melissia wrote:I wonder how much of it can be attributed to misinformation, tradition, and a predisposed set of beliefs about "liberals" that aren't easily altered by reality?
I think the probable truth is that the majority of Republican, Democrat and Independent voters are middle of the road, and much more similar to each other than different.
They don't want Granny to die on a street corner for lack of a pension.
They think people should do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.
They want their children to have a good education and a good chance in life.
They think family business is private and shouldn't be interfered with needlessly.
Etc.
What we see on the internet and news is the most shouty extremists on both sides, because it is always the shoutiest people who get heard.
mattyrm wrote:
Feed your perversion!?
GG, I dont know if you have seen much porn, but in a nutshell, your a pervert If you like wearing a spiky leather suit, jamming a hot baguette up your arse and then nailing your testicles to a workbench.
Not if once or twice a month you happen to watch some porn for ten minutes.
Melissia wrote:I wonder how much of it can be attributed to misinformation, tradition, and a predisposed set of beliefs about "liberals" that aren't easily altered by reality?
I think the probable truth is that the majority of Republican, Democrat and Independent voters are middle of the road, and much more similar to each other than different.
They don't want Granny to die on a street corner for lack of a pension.
They think people should do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.
They want their children to have a good education and a good chance in life.
They think family business is private and shouldn't be interfered with needlessly.
Etc.
What we see on the internet and news is the most shouty extremists on both sides, because it is always the shoutiest people who get heard.
Well said.
There are also different regional and local flavors for each party. There are plenty of Republicans in the Northeast who are fiscally conservative but don't really give a fig about what people do in their bedrooms. Southern Dems tend to be more moderate.
The county I live in has often been described as a "GOP stronghold." And in fact the GOP dominates most local races. But it's gone for the Dems by a solid margin in recent Presidential races. And this isn't really a contradiction -- it just shows that locals are focused more on their taxes than things like social issues, which tend to be more prominent in national races (at least around here).
Just like with religion, people kinda pick-and-choose with their politics. The interesting part IMO is how so many do that while simultaneously demanding a certain level of ideological purity from their candidates. They might sneak a peek at something naughty on the internet, but would be outraged if a candidate was caught doing the same. It all just leads me back to thinking the reason Americans are so dissatisfied with their candidates in every...single...election is because they've placed unrealistic demands and expectations on them.
Kilkrazy wrote:They don't want Granny to die on a street corner for lack of a pension. They think people should do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. They want their children to have a good education and a good chance in life. They think family business is private and shouldn't be interfered with needlessly. Etc.
Not to mention the majority of Americans are okay with gay marriage, heh. Like they care, doesnt' effect them. Unless they have a gay child, in which case they'd be happier if the child could get married when they grow up, of course.
I sincerely hope the GOP brings this numbskull forward as their champion, but frankly, I'll happily see the serial adulterating oily toad or the richie rich cretin brought forward as well.
They had one credible candidate, one I might even have considered voting for, Huntsman. Their core are so rabidly socio-conservative now that he received little to no support from them, because the guy spoke out favourably towards science and evolution.
Ah Santorum, friend of plants everywhere...
Who else wants to see him conduct an interview from a co2 'enriched' room?
Manchu wrote:There is this myth going around that the Republicans are "stuck with" bad candidates, like it's some kind of coincidence that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are the two leading hopefuls. I think the picture makes a lot more sense when you accept that these candidates represent the contemporary state of the party and American conservatism more broadly.
This is actually pretty insightful. Republicans bemoan the poor quality of the field while apparently oblivious to the fact they ran all the moderates out of the party. Guys like Santorum might be good at exciting the base, but he cannot get elected president, and a super-conservative who can't get elected will do less to advance a Republican agenda than a moderate conservative who could be elected.
Kilkrazy wrote:Romney will win the nomination, and he has a good chance against Obama unless there is some good economic news between now and November.
Yep, it's a shame, because I was very pleased with the early front runner, Rick Perry. I'd have liked him as the Republican choice...
Kilkrazy wrote:Romney will win the nomination, and he has a good chance against Obama unless there is some good economic news between now and November.
Yep, it's a shame, because I was very pleased with the early front runner, Rick Perry. I'd have liked him as the Republican choice...
.
You know you wanted Cain....
If his slogan had been 9-9-9 pizzas for every family, the President would've been in worse trouble.
Well, if he would've kept it in his britches too.
Ok. Here is what w have on Santorum so far
1: 7 kids,
2: one died in child birth and he took it home
3: Wants to nullify current gay marriages
4: Make birth control illegal
5: Wants to get rid of pron
6: ENDORSED BY PAT ROBERTSON
7: Im pretty sure he is a zombie, or vampire.
mattyrm wrote: I've decided I agree with Rick Santorum.
I just saw a video of a heterosexual man having sex with a consensual partner... and I'm suddenly filled with the desire to feth a squid.
I always new you had a thing for sailors.
Anyway, this seems relevant:
We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does
I'm not aware of how polygamy and bigamy are enabled by the right to consensual sex. I mean, I can already be married and have as many orgies as I want, I just can't be married to all the participants.
There isn't any evidence that it's harmful, though. The distaste for it is based on social attitudes which vary across the country.
I have to disagree on that statement. I know of at least 4 divorces that were caused by the husbands addiction to porn, and there was a lot of negative emotional fallout.
Everything can be harmful if in the wrong..."hands".
I know of at least 168,000 divorces that weren't caused by the husband's addiction to porn.
Just replying to the blanket statement that there is no harm in porn.
There isn't. If porn had been the only problem amongst those loving couples, they certainly wouldn't have divorced. Porn is only a problem if a couple has other issues, like for example a massive fear of being left alone or serious trust issues. A couple of two grown up persons who really love each other can solve a disagreement about one wanting to watch porn and the other disliking that.
And if it was a porn addiction, then addiction is the problem, not the drug. If they hadn't had access to porn, they'd have become addicted to something else that makes them feel good without any need to invest or work for it.
Sorry to say that porn was in fact the reason the divorces happened. I was told by one of the wives that she was made to feel inadequate because her husband would rather be watching porn and masturbating. This woman is gorgeous and if she was dressed in the outfit would look like the Wonder Woman actress from the old t.v. series. She finally decided she had enough after trying for years, took the two kids and divorced him.
A friend of mine at work shocked me by telling me he was getting a divorce and cited his porn addiction as the reason his wife was leaving him. This guy is like a total outdoorsman. The kind of hunter who always gets an Elk. He's fisherman, camper, rock climber, etc. Suddenly, here he is, telling me he's losing his wife and kids because of his porn addiction.
The stories from the other people I know getting divorced because of a porn addiction are similar.
Some people should not go near alcohol, drugs, or Tim Horton doughnuts because something in their nature predisposes them to get addicted to these things to their detriment.
To say porn is absolutely safe for everyone is not a true statement, the same as if someone said no one was ever hurt by alcohol, over eating, or whatever other thing some people get addicted to.
dogma wrote:
I'm not aware of how polygamy and bigamy are enabled by the right to consensual sex. I mean, I can already be married and have as many orgies as I want, I just can't be married to all the participants.
And some people are completely okay with that, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Relapse wrote:
Skylifter wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:That's absolutely true.
There isn't any evidence that it's harmful, though. The distaste for it is based on social attitudes which vary across the country.
I have to disagree on that statement. I know of at least 4 divorces that were caused by the husbands addiction to porn, and there was a lot of negative emotional fallout.
Everything can be harmful if in the wrong..."hands".
I know of at least 168,000 divorces that weren't caused by the husband's addiction to porn.
Just replying to the blanket statement that there is no harm in porn.
There isn't. If porn had been the only problem amongst those loving couples, they certainly wouldn't have divorced. Porn is only a problem if a couple has other issues, like for example a massive fear of being left alone or serious trust issues. A couple of two grown up persons who really love each other can solve a disagreement about one wanting to watch porn and the other disliking that.
And if it was a porn addiction, then addiction is the problem, not the drug. If they hadn't had access to porn, they'd have become addicted to something else that makes them feel good without any need to invest or work for it.
Sorry to say that porn was in fact the reason the divorces happened. I was told by one of the wives that she was made to feel inadequate because her husband would rather be watching porn and masturbating. This woman is gorgeous and if she was dressed in the outfit would look like the Wonder Woman actress from the old t.v. series. She finally decided she had enough after trying for years, took the two kids and divorced him.
A friend of mine at work shocked me by telling me he was getting a divorce and cited his porn addiction as the reason his wife was leaving him. This guy is like a total outdoorsman. The kind of hunter who always gets an Elk. He's fisherman, camper, rock climber, etc. Suddenly, here he is, telling me he's losing his wife and kids because of his porn addiction.
The stories from the other people I know getting divorced because of a porn addiction are similar.
Some people should not go near alcohol, drugs, or Tim Horton doughnuts because something in their nature predisposes them to get addicted to these things to their detriment.
To say porn is absolutely safe for everyone is not a true statement, the same as if someone said no one was ever hurt by alcohol, over eating, or whatever other thing some people get addicted to.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Furthermore, you're still only listing a few cases in a pool of thousands, and these problems may not be stemming from porn itself, but from repressed sexuality (not surprising, considering how abysmal US sexual education is), or some other deep seated issue.
@Fafnir,
The fact is, these people pointed porn out as the reason for their divorces. Some people cite their spouses addiction to alcohol or gambling as reason for a divorce. Why should porn have this magical ability to not also play a role in some divorces?
Relapse wrote:
The fact is, these people pointed porn out as the reason for their divorces. Some people cite their spouses addiction to alcohol or gambling as reason for a divorce. Why should porn have this magical ability to not also play a role in some divorces?
The reality is that nothing is absolutely safe for everyone, not even marriage.
That's sort of the thing about addiction, empirically assessing what is and isn't to someone's detriment isn't terribly easy, and largely turns on imposing a particular set of values on others.
generalgrog wrote:We are building a society of internet porn addicts. It's way to to easy to feed your perversion now. It used to be that you had to go to video stores or porn movie theaters to get your fix, thus making it somewhat of a discouragement. With the internet all you have to do is click your mouse, or even take it with you via your cell phone now.
GG
Are you saying that we should be ashamed of looking at porn?
Relapse wrote:
The fact is, these people pointed porn out as the reason for their divorces. Some people cite their spouses addiction to alcohol or gambling as reason for a divorce. Why should porn have this magical ability to not also play a role in some divorces?
The reality is that nothing is absolutely safe for everyone, not even marriage.
That's sort of the thing about addiction, empirically assessing what is and isn't to someone's detriment isn't terribly easy, and largely turns on imposing a particular set of values on others.
Funny, Santurum doesnt beleive in darwinism. Yet he supports the free market. Which is social darwinism. both types of evolution where the strong and adaptable survive.
More stupidity from the politicals. I watched "Religulous" the other day and laughed so hard when the senator from Arkansas mentioned with a wide smile that one does not have to pass an I. Q. test to be a senator! Then he realized what he said and I laughed harder when the smile eroded from his face. And this is an example of the kind of people that win these popularity contests and wind up being our leaders.
No wonder we are in the toilet, we are letting the idiots be in charge!
Some Interesting stats--( some data is a little dated)
Statistics on Pornography, Sexual Addiction and Online Perpetrators
PORNOGRAPHY ADDICTION STATS
Pornography Addiction and Industry Statistics
As of 2003, there were 1.3 million pornographic websites; 260 million pages (N2H2, 2003).
The total porn industry revenue for 2006: $13.3 billion in the United States; $97 billion worldwide (Internet Filter Review).
U.S. adult DVD/video rentals in 2005: almost 1 billion (Adult Video News).
Hotel viewership for adult films: 55% (cbsnews.com).
Unique worldwide users visiting adult web sites monthly: 72 million (Internet Filter Review).
Number of hardcore pornography titles released in 2005 (U.S.): 13,588 (Internet Filter Review).
Adults admitting to Internet sexual addiction: 10%; 28% of those are women (Internet Filter Review).
More than 70% of men from 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month (comScore Media Metrix).
More than 20,000 images of child pornography posted online every week (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 10/8/03). Approximately 20% of all Internet pornography involves children (National Center for Mission & Exploited Children).
100,000 websites offer illegal child pornography (U.S. Customs Service estimate).
As of December 2005, child pornography was a $3 billion annual industry (Internet Filter Review).
"At a 2003 meeting of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, two thirds of the 350 divorce lawyers who attended said the Internet played a significant role in the divorces in the past year, with excessive interest in online porn contributing to more than half such cases. Pornography had an almost non-existent role in divorce just seven or eight years ago." (Divorcewizards.com) (SO THAT CALCS OUT TO MORE THAN 33% OF DIVORCES ARE RELATED TO INTERNET PORN--GG NOTE)
Christians, Pastors and Church Pornography Statistics
A 1996 Promise Keepers survey at one of their stadium events revealed that over 50% of the men in attendance were involved with pornography within one week of attending the event.
51% of pastors say cyber-porn is a possible temptation. 37% say it is a current struggle (Christianity Today, Leadership Survey, 12/2001).
Over half of evangelical pastors admits viewing pornography last year.
Roger Charman of Focus on the Family's Pastoral Ministries reports that approximately 20 percent of the calls received on their Pastoral Care Line are for help with issues such as pornography and compulsive sexual behavior.
In a 2000 Christianity Today survey, 33% of clergy admitted to having visited a sexually explicit Web site. Of those who had visited a porn site, 53% had visited such sites “a few times” in the past year, and 18% visit sexually explicit sites between a couple of times a month and more than once a week.
29% of born again adults in the U.S. feel it is morally acceptable to view movies with explicit sexual behavior (The Barna Group).
57% of pastors say that addiction to pornography is the most sexually damaging issue to their congregation (Christians and Sex Leadership Journal Survey, March 2005).
Statistics on Women with Pornography Addiction
28% those admitting to sexual addiction are women (internet-filter-review.com).
34% of female readers of Today's Christian Woman's online newsletter admitted to intentionally accessing Internet porn in a recent poll and 1 out of every 6 women, including Christians, struggles with an addiction to pornography (Today’s Christian Woman, Fall 2003).
Statistics on Pornography's Effect on Families and Marriages
47% percent of families said pornography is a problem in their home (Focus on the Family Poll, October 1, 2003).
The Internet was a significant factor in 2 out of 3 divorces (American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers in 2003 - divorcewizards.com).
Statistics on Child Pornography Use
9 out of 10 children aged between the ages of 8 and 16 have viewed pornography on the Internet, in most cases unintentionally (London School of Economics January 2002).
Average age of first Internet exposure to pornography: 11 years old (Internet Filter Review).
Largest consumer of Internet pornography: 12 - 17 year-old age group (various sources, as of 2007).
Adult industry says traffic is 20-30% children (NRC Report 2002, 3.3).
Youth with significant exposure to sexuality in the media were shown to be significantly more likely to have had intercourse at ages 14 to 16 (Report in Pediatrics, April, 2006).
"Never before in the history of telecommunications media in the United States has so much indecent (and obscene) material been so easily accessible by so many minors in so many American homes with so few restrictions."
- U.S. Department of Justice, Post Hearing Memorandum of Points and Authorities, at l, ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824 (1996).
generalgrog wrote:Adults admitting to Internet sexual addiction: 10%; 28% of those are women (Internet Filter Review).
What is "Internet Sexual Addiction" according tot his poll, and what is the "Internet Filter Review"?
generalgrog wrote:More than 20,000 images of child pornography posted online every week (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 10/8/03).
Approximately 20% of all Internet pornography involves children (National Center for Mission & Exploited Children).
100,000 websites offer illegal child pornography (U.S. Customs Service estimate).
As of December 2005, child pornography was a $3 billion annual industry (Internet Filter Review).
Horrible to be sure, but utterly irrelevant when discussing porn where all the actors are consenting adults.
The site linked to, "internet-filter-review.com", does not have an easy access to its studies. I would dare say that, given that it is nothing more than a marketing site for internet filters, that it is an unreliable source that only gives a damn about increasing its profits, not about internet porn.
ps. an interesting quote from the site The pornography industry has larger revenues than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix combined.
Children Internet Pornography Statistics
Access to pornography is available from early on. The average age of a child’s first exposure to pornography is 11. A total of 90 percent of children ages 8-16 have viewed pornography online. Pornographers use many character names that appeal to children such as “Pokemon.”
Children Internet Pornography Statistics
Average age of first Internet exposure to pornography 11 years old
Largest consumer of Internet pornography 35 - 49 age group
15-17 year olds having multiple hard-core exposures 80%
8-16 year olds having viewed porn online 90% (most while doing homework)
7-17 year olds who would freely give out home address 29%
7-17 year olds who would freely give out email address 14%
Children's character names linked to thousands of porn links 26 (Including Pokemon and Action Man)
Women and Pornography
According to statistics, men are not the only ones to access pornography at work. A total of 13 percent of women admit to accessing pornography at work. One in three visitors to pornographic websites are women.
Women and Pornography
Women keeping their cyber activities secret 70%
Women struggling with pornography addiction 17%
Ratio of women to men favoring chat rooms 2X
Percentage of visitors to adult websites who are women 1 in 3 visitors
Women accessing adult websites each month 9.4 million
Women admitting to accessing pornography at work 13%
Women, far more than men, are likely to act out their behaviors in real life, such as having multiple partners, casual sex or affairs.
Melissia wrote:The site linked to, "internet-filter-review.com" [...] I would dare say that, given that it is nothing more than a marketing site for internet filters, that it is an unreliable source that only gives a damn about increasing its profits, not about internet porn.
And I quote:
Internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com wrote:The following top 10 list has been compiled using credible sources
What sources? Why are they credible? What did each of the varying sources have to say about the subject? The site doesn't say. Some of its statements are stupidly inaccurate though.
Internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com wrote:US porn revenue exceeds the combined revenues of ABC, CBS, and NBC.
Internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com wrote:According to statistics, men are not the only ones to access pornography
Man this site is on the fething ball here. Next they'll be saying that... *gasp*... women want to enjoy sex! Scandalous! Just scandalous!
Internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com wrote:Top Pornography Banning Countries Saudia Arabia, Iran, Syria, Bahrain, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Kenya, India, Cuba, China
And these are the countries that Mr. Santorum wants us to be more like-- regressive, often theocratic nations with high amounts of corruption and low amounts of personal freedom.
Internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com wrote:Pornography consumers are divided fairly evenly by age but not by income.
We should get the poor to watch more porn, maybe that'll help influence them to become rich.
Nevermind that these came from its own studies and the site did not state its methodology-- assuming it even had any methodology in gathering the data and didn't just make it up out of whole cloth. This wasn't even a proper study from what I can tell, just a marketing site pulling numbers out of its ass to try to make a case for its products.
ps. an interesting quote from the site The pornography industry has larger revenues than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix combined.
I haven't even checked, but this just totally reeks of wrong.
I mean, feth me, Microsofts total revenue has to be over 50 billion a year or something surely?! More? 100 billion? Bill Gates aint regarded as one of the worlds richest men for nothing.
And Google is crazy money as well..
How can the porn industry have larger revenues when nobody pays for porn anymore?
ps. an interesting quote from the site The pornography industry has larger revenues than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix combined.
OK, so now we know where the source of this was - the Department of Made-Up Statistics. Vivid is one of the largest (probably the largest) porn studios in the world, and they pull in revenues of approx 100 million a year. Apple made nearly 7 billion in profit last quarter.
ps. an interesting quote from the site The pornography industry has larger revenues than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix combined.
OK, so now we know where the source of this was - the Department of Made-Up Statistics. Vivid is one of the largest (probably the largest) porn studios in the world, and they pull in revenues of approx 100 million a year. Apple made nearly 7 billion in profit last quarter.
Thanks for doing the groundwork.. I was merely working off good old common fething sense.
ps. an interesting quote from the site The pornography industry has larger revenues than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix combined.
Ouze wrote:
OK, so now we know where the source of this was - the Department of Made-Up Statistics. Vivid is one of the largest (probably the largest) porn studios in the world, and they pull in revenues of approx 100 million a year. Apple made nearly 7 billion in profit last quarter.
I'm not saying that the numbers they quote are accurate because I don't know for sure. But you and mellissia show a lack of the ability to read. I didn't say that Vivid made more money than apple.....I highlighted the text that the "pornographic industry" read entire thing... made more than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix combined.
It's possible that this is incorrect but at least try to argue honestly.
i did a quick look and the chart and it showed over 100 billion annualy from "the entire porn industry" while cbs was only 13 billion. and wasn't even in my list(for melissias benefit)
generalgrog wrote:I'm not saying that the numbers they quote are accurate because I don't know for sure.
IF you paid attention at all you woudl know that the numbers are false.
generalgrog wrote:It's possible that this is incorrect]
By 100%, not that you give a damn about facts, honesty, or truth.
generalgrog wrote:i did a quick look and the chart and it showed over 100 billion annualy from "the entire porn industry" while cbs was only 13 billion. and wasn't even in my list(for melissias benefit)
Their chart listed a TOTAL income of 13 billion for the entire porn industry in the US. Try reading your own source.
Even that 13 billion is the HIGHEST estimate. Most estimates are closer to 2-5 billion.
Also you should look up the meaning of ad hominum... here for you benefit.
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.
calling my source "bull gakkers" is an example.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
generalgrog wrote:I'm not saying that the numbers they quote are accurate because I don't know for sure.
IF you paid attention at all you woudl know that the numbers are false.
generalgrog wrote:It's possible that this is incorrect]
By 100%, not that you give a damn about facts, honesty, or truth.
generalgrog wrote:i did a quick look and the chart and it showed over 100 billion annualy from "the entire porn industry" while cbs was only 13 billion. and wasn't even in my list(for melissias benefit)
Their chart listed a TOTAL income of 13 billion for the entire porn industry in the US. Try reading your own source.
so total porn industry = only USA? again you are being purposefully obtuse. go back and look at the worldwide statistics.
Melissia wrote:He got that information from a level twelve deep bullgak scan by USS Make S*** Up and her crew of professional bullgakkers.
What stuns me is that people lie so obviously.. I mean, nothing wrong with a lie you might get away with, but anyone who reads a newspaper once in a blue moon is aware that companies like Microsoft and Google turn over tens of billions annually. gak, I read a few weeks ago that Apple have more money than the US government, but GG expects me to believe that the blokes who make grunge mags rake in more?
generalgrog wrote:so total porn industry = only USA? again you are being purposefully obtuse. go back and look at the worldwide statistics.
The worldwide statistics that site provides are even less reliable. The site gives a source for none of their statements, mind you, so every single number and letter on that page are suspect to begin with (and thus bullgak from bullgakkers that just want to sell you a product), but this number is made up out of whole cloth. I have been utterly unable to find where they pulled it out of, so it's safe to assume it came from their ass.
They're marketing professionals. It's their JOB to lie to you so that they can convince you buy their product. They're already suspect to begin with, but the fact that they do not cite their sources at all makes it completely obvious taht they're lying.
generalgrog wrote:so total porn industry = only USA? again you are being purposefully obtuse. go back and look at the worldwide statistics.
The worldwide statistics that site provides are even less reliable. The site gives a source for none of their statements, mind you, so every single number and letter on that page are suspect to begin with (and thus bullgak from bullgakkers that just want to sell you a product), but this number is made up out of whole cloth. I have been utterly unable to find where they pulled it out of, so it's safe to assume it came from their ass.
They're marketing professionals. It's their JOB to lie to you so that they can convince you buy their product. They're already suspect to begin with, but the fact that they do not cite their sources at all makes it completely obvious taht they're lying.
Again you use the ad hominim. "They are selling internet software..so they must be lying". proves in your mind (I guess) that they lied.
Well I did a quick look, and Microsoft made nearly 70 billion in 2011.
So even if your right (you very likely aren't) then your still wrong, because add google and apple into the equation and they kick the gak out of 100 billion with ease.
Melissia wrote:He got that information from a level twelve deep bullgak scan by USS Make S*** Up and her crew of professional bullgakkers.
What stuns me is that people lie so obviously.. I mean, nothing wrong with a lie you might get away with, but anyone who reads a newspaper once in a blue moon is aware that companies like Microsoft and Google turn over tens of billions annually. gak, I read a few weeks ago that Apple have more money than the US government, but GG expects me to believe that the blokes who make grunge mags rake in more?
Apple made $108,249,000,000 in 2011 according to its Securities and Exchange Commission form 10-k (found on its website here in pdf form).
No, I'm expressing doubt in your source because your source sucks ass. Repeating "ad hominem" ad naseum doesn't change the fact taht your source is lying to you and you believe it like the good little dupe you are, not for a moment being skeptical about a bunch of unsourced claims made by marketers who are trying to sell you a product.
By the way, I have a plot of land on the moon I can sell you. Brand new, only been used once. Yours for just fifty bucks.
To start with, I can't stand porn because of things I've written in earlier posts on this thread, but I don't care if people want to look at consenting adult porn. It's up to them what they want to look at, as long the sites are clearly marked out.
What pisses me off are tricks used like the one I ran into when I was helping my(at the time) 9 year old daughter with her homework on maps.
I typed in an address that stated the site had a good selection of U.S. State maps and ended up in the middle of a porn site. I was at least glad I was there to kill the site, but I really wished the people resonsible for the link were on hand so I could knock their teeth in.
Melissia wrote:He got that information from a level twelve deep bullgak scan by USS Make S*** Up and her crew of professional bullgakkers.
What stuns me is that people lie so obviously.. I mean, nothing wrong with a lie you might get away with, but anyone who reads a newspaper once in a blue moon is aware that companies like Microsoft and Google turn over tens of billions annually. gak, I read a few weeks ago that Apple have more money than the US government, but GG expects me to believe that the blokes who make grunge mags rake in more?
Apple made $108,249,000,000 in 2011 according to its Securities and Exchange Commission form 10-k (found on its website here in pdf form).
No, I'm expressing doubt in your source because your source sucks ass. Repeating "ad hominem" ad naseum doesn't change the fact taht your source is lying to you and you believe it like the good little dupe you are, not for a moment being skeptical about a bunch of unsourced claims made by marketers who are trying to sell you a product.
By the way, I have a plot of land on the moon I can sell you. Brand new, only been used once. Yours for just fifty bucks.
Now at least your tackling the argument. I'll take a look at your source. thanks.
OK so the Forbes article was pretty good. I didn't see a specific number quoted from their researchers(50 bil quoted from bbc), but the bottom line is that they suggest that it is impossible to get an accurate accounting of the porn revenue. They also state that most stats are "overinflated". So I am willing to concede to melissias point.
Huzzaa!!
Now that doesn't change my stance on porn being bad, it just means that it isn't as bad as what I thought.
I just dont see whats so bad about sex. Im not mega into porn, I havent watched one since...er.. when was the last time my missus went away for more than a few days...
Months anyway!
I really think that engaging in sex and things associated with it is a normal part of being a healthy mammal, I really dont understand the point your trying to make. Banning porn wouldnt achieve anything at all in my eyes. People would just look at illegal porn.
You cant regulate something so easy to..well.. do, or film.
generalgrog wrote:OK so the Forbes article was pretty good. I didn't see a specific number quoted from their researchers(50 bil quoted from bbc), but the bottom line is that they suggest that it is impossible to get an accurate accounting of the porn revenue. They also state that most stats are "overinflated". So I am willing to concede to melissias point.
Huzzaa!!
Now that doesn't change my stance on porn being bad, it just means that it isn't as bad as what I thought.
GG
How does the amount of money porn makes have any bearing on how bad it is?
So much for freedoms. Santorum is an idiot. God, I like Obama, and I hope with all my being he stays in the White House, especially if this is his competition. Porn is perfectly acceptable, in whatever quantity you want, as long as you're single-if you don't have a GF/BF, stick it on for the rest of the night and get a box of tissues. If you are in a relationship, you and your partner should come to a mutual decision/compromise of what is acceptable-some, all, or no porn. It only becomes a real issue among single people when you can't differentiate between fantasy and reality in the sexual world. And if Santorum does get this bill off the ground, well, look what happened with booze in the prohibition period-people still got it. You can't stop it, you can only stop where the source comes from. People will find a way (insert Jurassic Park quote here).
On the topic of him denying homosexuals in the military...can somebody sew this guy's mouth shut? It's hate speech. I have friends who are gay/bi, and they deserve the same rights as the rest of us. If they choose to serve and protect our country, damn it, nobody should deny it. If they want to get married? Why not? And telling them he discourages them from having sex? Whose choice is it? It shouldn't be his.
A good leader, in any job, knows how to differentiate between his personal beliefs, and the ideals needed to help everyone he is influencing. This guy doesn't deserve to be leader of a mop & bucket store, let alone the president. I absolutely hated Bush Jr., but he never tried to turn America into an anti-sex, Neo-Nazi regime. And that's what this guy wants. If he takes away my Miley Cyrus issue of Playboy due out in the fall, I'll be VERY upset!!
generalgrog wrote:OK so the Forbes article was pretty good. I didn't see a specific number quoted from their researchers(50 bil quoted from bbc), but the bottom line is that they suggest that it is impossible to get an accurate accounting of the porn revenue. They also state that most stats are "overinflated". So I am willing to concede to melissias point.
Huzzaa!!
Now that doesn't change my stance on porn being bad, it just means that it isn't as bad as what I thought.
GG
How does the amount of money porn makes have any bearing on how bad it is?
Well it could be argued that the more money an industry rake in = a direct reflection of how many people use said industry. (all things being equal)
One point to consider...how much does the free porn cost the porn industry?
Melissia wrote:It's perfectly okay if you're not single too. As long as you don't use it as an excuse to ignore your significant other.
That's why I added the part in about coming to an agreement with your partner on it. Without knowing boundaries on it, it's quite easy for someone to get offended (either person). Discuss it and achieve a happy medium, and complaints/problems shouldn't happen.
Melissia wrote:It's perfectly okay if you're not single too. As long as you don't use it as an excuse to ignore your significant other.
That's why I added the part in about coming to an agreement with your partner on it. Without knowing boundaries on it, it's quite easy for someone to get offended (either person). Discuss it and achieve a happy medium, and complaints/problems shouldn't happen.
I've seen it sometimes comes down to what a person values more. Their signifigant other, or porn.
Melissia wrote:It's perfectly okay if you're not single too. As long as you don't use it as an excuse to ignore your significant other.
That's why I added the part in about coming to an agreement with your partner on it. Without knowing boundaries on it, it's quite easy for someone to get offended (either person). Discuss it and achieve a happy medium, and complaints/problems shouldn't happen.
I've seen it sometimes comes down to what a person values more. Their signifigant other, or porn.
And in any relationship worth its salt that question is already answered. If one of them picks porn over the other then that relationship didn't have a hope in hell of lasting.
While there are problems with the porn industry (regarding exploitation and poor health practices), in itself there is nothing wrong with filming and selling consensual sexual acts.
It doesn't surprise me that GG is leading the charge here, he's a religious conservative on many subjects. Previous discussions have covered his belief in creationism over evolution and his disgust of gay people. I distinctly remember his upset at Star Trek being spoiled because he found out George Takei is gay. So I can't take him seriously on *any* matter and his attempts at 'research' are more an exercise in finding anything that reaffirms his prejudices and prudishness.
One problem with people telling others how to run their sex lives and marriages, and giving morality lectures is that often they are people with very little sexual and relationship experience themselves. They just parrot what they have heard elsewhere. GG is only a kid so some naivety on his part is excusable.
Claims that porn ruins lives of customers is nonsense. People can control their own actions, if they spend their lives looking at porn and not caring for their parter, they are to blame not the porn. It's hardly a surprise that some blame the porn, they just want an excuse. It's not porn that ruins relationships - people ruin relationships.
Very true. I've seen people have their marrages end and lose their kids because of an addiction to porn.
A guy I work with that this happened to came right out and told me that it was his porn addiction that ended his marriage. He said he got into it when he was 14 and had to view it the way an alcoholic needs a drink.
At that point his wife couldn't take it anymore and she took the kids and left him.
@Howard,
I have to disagree with your statement that porn doesn't ruin lives. I agree that people can control their own actions, but some can't control as well as others at times depending on what they get into.
To certain people, I have seen porn can be as addictive as cigarettes, alcohol, or gambling is to others to the point their marriage or relationship crumbles.
I can't help but be reminded of that one senator that was caught on cspan of all things on some porn site on his computer while congress was in session.
Howard A Treesong wrote:People can control their own actions, if they spend their lives looking at porn and not caring for their parter, they are to blame not the porn. It's hardly a surprise that some blame the porn, they just want an excuse. It's not porn that ruins relationships - people ruin relationships.
Indeed. Welcome to 2012. Nothing is ever your fault.
This isn't just my opinion on the matter, read a newspaper and see for yourself. I check the BBC website each day of the week, and its always the same story when your reading about a court case or a problem or something. Murder, rape, paedophilia, alcoholic, obese, whatever. If there is something the matter with you, then its not your fault. Its a condition. Such is life in our cringing spineless society. You dont even get kids being little bastards these days.. when I was a kid if you cut class it was cos you were being a necky little gak, but nowadays its always "Oh he did it because of bad parent/mental problem/additives in soft drinks/advertising/rap music" and this even goes on with adults. "Oh he hacked that computer because he has Asperger's Syndrome" "he set the house on fire because he has ADD" "he raped that woman because his father molested him" "he went on a rampage in Afghanistan because he saw his friend die" the list goes on and on and on and on and on.
While I obviously am aware that sometimes there is an external reason, and I especially feel sorry for people with genuine mental issues, we need to draw a line in the sand. People need to man the feth up and lay in the bed they make for themselves. I can see where Relapse and GG are coming from, and I'm sure porn is just another temptation for some people, but ultimately we decide gak for ourselves. Thats what freedom is all about. You have the right to choose, you have the right to make your own decisions, and if you feth up then you pay the price.
We don't ban anything at all that we think you might get addicted to, be it gambling, boozing, smoking fags, or eating cakes. gak, they say even fast food is addictive, should we ban that too?
Thats pretty much the size of it. You make your own decisions, and thats the way I like it. I dont want the government deciding that anything and everything that is addictive should be banned.
If you get addicted to lubing yourself up and throwing yourself around the house 8 hours a day whilst watching Chitty Chitty Gang Bang and you start ignoring your wife, then its because your a fething idiot with no willpower. Its not porns fault.
Your wife should have married someone awesome like me.
Howard A Treesong wrote:While there are problems with the porn industry (regarding exploitation and poor health practices), in itself there is nothing wrong with filming and selling consensual sexual acts.
It doesn't surprise me that GG is leading the charge here, he's a religious conservative on many subjects. Previous discussions have covered his belief in creationism over evolution and his disgust of gay people. I distinctly remember his upset at Star Trek being spoiled because he found out George Takei is gay. So I can't take him seriously on *any* matter and his attempts at 'research' are more an exercise in finding anything that reaffirms his prejudices and prudishness.
One problem with people telling others how to run their sex lives and marriages, and giving morality lectures is that often they are people with very little sexual and relationship experience themselves. They just parrot what they have heard elsewhere. GG is only a kid so some naivety on his part is excusable.
Claims that porn ruins lives of customers is nonsense. People can control their own actions, if they spend their lives looking at porn and not caring for their parter, they are to blame not the porn. It's hardly a surprise that some blame the porn, they just want an excuse. It's not porn that ruins relationships - people ruin relationships.
How to answer this...
A) My comment about George Takei was a joke..and you are taking my joke out of context in very poor taste.
B) Just as you did with Sulu you take my disgust for the act of homosexuality our of context and say I have a "disgust for gay people".
C) You also misrepresented by stance on creationism. In that I do believe that evolution on the microscale exists.
Very..very..bad form....so therefore based on your willingness to distort and misrepresent my statements I guess we all should just ignore you and your statements from now on... becuase after all you have just shown your willingness to stretch the truth.
I wonder how many people that are so vigourosly defending porn are addicts themselves?
generalgrog wrote:
C) You also misrepresented by stance on creationism. In that I do believe that evolution on the microscale exists.
Which means you believe in evolution as a whole.
there's no such thing as 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution,' because macroevolution is just lots of little microevolutions bundled together.
fafnir we have been down that road before on the OT...I've given my explanation... not going to derail this thread with that topic. pm me if you like. :-)
Howard A Treesong wrote:While there are problems with the porn industry (regarding exploitation and poor health practices), in itself there is nothing wrong with filming and selling consensual sexual acts.
It doesn't surprise me that GG is leading the charge here, he's a religious conservative on many subjects. Previous discussions have covered his belief in creationism over evolution and his disgust of gay people. I distinctly remember his upset at Star Trek being spoiled because he found out George Takei is gay. So I can't take him seriously on *any* matter and his attempts at 'research' are more an exercise in finding anything that reaffirms his prejudices and prudishness.
One problem with people telling others how to run their sex lives and marriages, and giving morality lectures is that often they are people with very little sexual and relationship experience themselves. They just parrot what they have heard elsewhere. GG is only a kid so some naivety on his part is excusable.
Claims that porn ruins lives of customers is nonsense. People can control their own actions, if they spend their lives looking at porn and not caring for their parter, they are to blame not the porn. It's hardly a surprise that some blame the porn, they just want an excuse. It's not porn that ruins relationships - people ruin relationships.
How to answer this...
A) My comment about George Takei was a joke..and you are taking my joke out of context in very poor taste. B) Just as you did with Sulu you take my disgust for the act of homosexuality our of context and say I have a "disgust for gay people". C) You also misrepresented by stance on creationism. In that I do believe that evolution on the microscale exists.
Very..very..bad form....so therefore based on your willingness to distort and misrepresent my statements I guess we all should just ignore you and your statements from now on... becuase after all you have just shown your willingness to stretch the truth.
I wonder how many people that are so vigourosly defending porn are addicts themselves?
GG
'Disgust' certainly sums it up. You've spoken at some length on your 'discomfort' at being around gay people because they rub your face in it. You've spoken of how being gay is a 'lifestyle choice' but that it's a sin which some have repented and 'turned their lives' around.
Need I go on or should I start digging up quotes from the numerous threads you've discussed all this previously?
Okay here's a gem that should show how you view porn and homosexuality...
I know the Bible is right and I know that God doesn't make mistakes, homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.
Oh and...
generalgrog wrote:
I wonder how many people that are so vigourosly defending porn are addicts themselves?
GG
If you're trying to make a specific point about the character of those disputing your opinion, man up and say it.
Show us all the gem where I say I am "disgusted by gay people".
You can continue to try and demonize me, but most of the regulars on here know what you are trying to do, and it's wrong. I find it disturbing how easy it is for so many people to just ignore the blatant exploitation of women and children so they can pleasure themselves to internet porn.
generalgrog wrote:You can continue to try and demonize me, but most of the regulars on here know what you are trying to do, and it's wrong.
This is correct. Not taking sides, but I can spot a good old-fashioned trolling gang-up when I see it. Ask me how. That said...
generalgrog wrote:I find it disturbing how easy it is for so many people to just ignore the blatant exploitation of women and children so they can pleasure themselves to internet porn.
I think one of the places you've gone wrong in this thread is conflating child pornography with the more run of the mill variety.
Monster Rain wrote:
I think one of the places you've gone wrong in this thread is conflating child pornography with the more run of the mill variety.
They arent even remotely linked so Its hardly worth refuting.
Thats like saying that because I like seeing a man have sex with a woman, I would enjoy watching sex involving anything at all as long as it has the sex part in.
Kids, two donkeys, man on goat..
I saw two insects fething once on a wildlife show.. does that count as porn?
generalgrog wrote:You can continue to try and demonize me, but most of the regulars on here know what you are trying to do, and it's wrong.
This is correct. Not taking sides, but I can spot a good old-fashioned trolling gang-up when I see it.
It's not trolling to call someone on their nonsense.
generalgrog wrote:You can continue to try and demonize me, but most of the regulars on here know what you are trying to do, and it's wrong. I find it disturbing how easy it is for so many people to just ignore the blatant exploitation of women and children so they can pleasure themselves to internet porn.
I thought I commented on exploitation in my first post. I don't ignore it or see that as a positive. But don't confuse paedophilia with porn, there is a difference. Most of the regulars on here are probably familiar with your posting history so I probably don't need to make a point of quoting a lot of it to build up a picture of your continued dislike of homosexuality. Whine that my posting is "wrong" if you like, but that's just because you have no answer to it.
CT GAMER wrote:I'd bet $100.00 that santorum has directed his staff to hide a dead hooker or has pictures of little boys hidden away for his own use.
He definitely gives off that "creepy" vibe: vacant wild darting eyes and cheesy hair ,etc.
Its always the guys that protest and preach the loudest that have the most skeletons in their own closets...
An odd situation when your slating a Religious bloke and Im defending one.
I think Santorum is a pretty stand up guy personally, I just think he has that typical "I am definitely 100% correct" thing going on because he is a fundie, but for a change I think he is actually sincere in his belief.
So its more he thinks slagging off porn is what God requires of him rather than hiding some filthy secret. I could be wrong, but he seems to be a genuine believer, unlike a great many preacher types who do indeed endlessly slate the evils of homosexuality with one hand while savagely jacking off a rent boy with the other.
generalgrog wrote:You can continue to try and demonize me, but most of the regulars on here know what you are trying to do, and it's wrong.
This is correct. Not taking sides, but I can spot a good old-fashioned trolling gang-up when I see it.
It's not trolling to call someone on their nonsense.
No, but the leaps of logic and putting words in other peoples' mouths kind of comes off that way.
mattyrm wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:I'd bet $100.00 that santorum has directed his staff to hide a dead hooker or has pictures of little boys hidden away for his own use.
He definitely gives off that "creepy" vibe: vacant wild darting eyes and cheesy hair ,etc.
Its always the guys that protest and preach the loudest that have the most skeletons in their own closets...
An odd situation when your slating a Religious bloke and Im defending one.
I think Santorum is a pretty stand up guy personally, I just think he has that typical "I am definitely 100% correct" thing going on because he is a fundie, but for a change I think he is actually sincere in his belief.
So its more he thinks slagging off porn is what God requires of him rather than hiding some filthy secret. I could be wrong, but he seems to be a genuine believer, unlike a great many preacher types who do indeed endlessly slate the evils of homosexuality with one hand while savagely jacking off a rent boy with the other.
Like this guy for example!
This is why, though I disagree quite strongly with mattyrm on a few things, he is awesome.
generalgrog wrote:You can continue to try and demonize me, but most of the regulars on here know what you are trying to do, and it's wrong.
This is correct. Not taking sides, but I can spot a good old-fashioned trolling gang-up when I see it.
It's not trolling to call someone on their nonsense.
No, but the leaps of logic and putting words in other peoples' mouths kind of comes off that way.
What 'leaps of logic'? What words did I 'put in his mouth'? My comment "previous discussions have covered his belief in creationism over evolution and his disgust of gay people" is not in fact me saying he literally said "gay people disgust me". Otherwise I would have just said that. Seeing as I wasn't actually quoting him, his attempt to make me come up with an exact quote, instead of a general summation of his extended posting history that would allow one to draw the same conclusion, is trying to be a little bit clever.
generalgrog wrote:Show us all the gem where I say I am "disgusted by gay people".
Right here:
generalgrog wrote:homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/510/233388.page Look at the bolded parts of this, especially. Statements like this piss me off more than almost anything else. They are spiteful, hateful, ignorant, and disgusting comments that frankly are utterly indefensible.
You are a homophobe, and have repeatedly stated you are such. If you want to say you've changed, that's fine (I wouldnt' believe you for an instant), but don't say you never said these kinds of thigns.
Very true. I've seen people have their marrages end and lose their kids because of an addiction to porn.
A guy I work with that this happened to came right out and told me that it was his porn addiction that ended his marriage. He said he got into it when he was 14 and had to view it the way an alcoholic needs a drink.
At that point his wife couldn't take it anymore and she took the kids and left him.
@Howard,
I have to disagree with your statement that porn doesn't ruin lives. I agree that people can control their own actions, but some can't control as well as others at times depending on what they get into.
To certain people, I have seen porn can be as addictive as cigarettes, alcohol, or gambling is to others to the point their marriage or relationship crumbles.
I understand that you're saying some people are weak and can't control themselves. Do you understand that I think it's stupid to outlaw things for everyone to accommodate the fractional percentage of people who cannot control themselves?
I know several co-workers who are utterly addicted to World of Warcraft. Some even flunked out of school because of it. In America, we call that "consequences". More to the point, if I want to enjoy a legal adult activity, it's not my problem (or society at large) your coworker couldn't control himself. The US Government is not our daddy.
This is why, though I disagree quite strongly with mattyrm on a few things, he is awesome.
You do? I thought we were like two peas in a pod old chap!
Can't believe I missed this earlier.
It must be because I'm "fething Leathered!" as it were.
Howard A Treesong wrote:What 'leaps of logic'? What words did I 'put in his mouth'? My comment "previous discussions have covered his belief in creationism over evolution and his disgust of gay people" is not in fact me saying he literally said "gay people disgust me". Otherwise I would have just said that. Seeing as I wasn't actually quoting him, his attempt to make me come up with an exact quote, instead of a general summation of his extended posting history that would allow one to draw the same conclusion, is trying to be a little bit clever.
I think the fact that you knew exactly what post I was referring to speaks volumes. Anyway, I've said my piece on this and I'm frankly profoundly uninterested in going around about it.
I know the Bible is right and I know that God doesn't make mistakes, homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.
generalgrog wrote:
Adults admitting to Internet sexual addiction: 10%; 28% of those are women (Internet Filter Review).
What is internet sexual addiction? How was the admission established? What was the initial sample?
generalgrog wrote:
More than 20,000 images of child pornography posted online every week (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 10/8/03).
Not relevant to pornography as a whole. I also, again, doubt the number due to it conveniently ending in four 0's.
generalgrog wrote:
Approximately 20% of all Internet pornography involves children (National Center for Mission & Exploited Children).
100,000 websites offer illegal child pornography (U.S. Customs Service estimate).
I'd like to know how these numbers were developed.
The 100,000 number I can see, but even if its true I don't care. Its infinitesimal in context of the total number of registered domain names, even before considering aggregating websites not based on the explicit traffic of CP.
The 20% number simply seems incorrect.
generalgrog wrote:
As of December 2005, child pornography was a $3 billion annual industry (Internet Filter Review).
Globally?
If so, that's negligible.
Also, I like how these statistics came from a website designed to sell internet filters. Totally trustworthy.
generalgrog wrote:Also you should look up the meaning of ad hominum... here for you benefit.
When the ad hominem is true, and relevant to the argument, the ad hominem is not fallacious.
If someone is claiming something that demonstrates that they are full of gak, then it isn't fallacious to claim that they are full of gak.
Anyway:
I'm wondering how the widespread viewing of pornography indicates that porn is a problem, without the accompanying assumption porn is a problem. Then, of course, I'm also curious as to how the average initial age of viewership was established, and what definition of "porn" was used.
To be honest, I think you should be ashamed for posting a blatantly speculative set of statistics without any documentation regarding methodology. And even more ashamed for attempting to defend it.
Child pornography is already illegal, so I fail to see how that has any relevance on whether pornography featuring consenting adults should be illegal.
If anything it shows that making it illegal does not prevent it from happening. Paedophiles who want their child porn fix still find a way of getting it.
Normal adults who want their consenting adult porn fix will also find a way of getting it. All you'd do is put the money into the hands of criminals and lose out on income in the form of taxation or whatever.
In case anyone tries to misunderstand what I'm saying, I am not saying that child porn should be legal. I am only saying that making something illegal does not make that thing go away.
generalgrog wrote:Show us all the gem where I say I am "disgusted by gay people".
Right here:
generalgrog wrote:homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/510/233388.page
Look at the bolded parts of this, especially. Statements like this piss me off more than almost anything else. They are spiteful, hateful, ignorant, and disgusting comments that frankly are utterly indefensible.
You are a homophobe, and have repeatedly stated you are such. If you want to say you've changed, that's fine (I wouldnt' believe you for an instant), but don't say you never said these kinds of thigns.
The fact is, that the homosexual agenda has attempted to hijack the civil rights legacy and try and make the claim that homosexuality is a thing you are born with similar to someone being born a racial minority. Yes I know there have been "scientific" studies attempting to claim a " gay gene".
I know there are people on here that are sexual perverts and they don't like being called out on it. That doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me honest, and someone who will not be accused of being an enabler. Hopefully being honest will help someone come to the realization that they can change.
I have said this before but it bears repeating to the new folks. You can love the sinner but hate the sin. I can be disgusted by the homosexual act but love the homoesexual. What howard and melissia are trying to do, is equate opposition to what I believe to be sexual perversion, to hatred. And that is wrong, and quite unfair.
generalgrog wrote:
I know there are people on here that are sexual perverts and they don't like being called out on it. That doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me honest, and someone who will not be accused of being an enabler. Hopefully being honest will help someone come to the realization that they can change.
By existing near it and holding an opinion, you automatically become an enabler?
I'm in total agreement about not trying to outlaw anything people indulge in that doesn't hurt anyone else. There is always going to be someone with a weakness for something where it is better for them that they never indulge in.
The only real thing I wanted to bring up was that it's an incorrect statement to say porn is 100 percent harmless based things I have personaly witnessed and been told by ex spouses of people who let porn become more important than their families.
The emotional toll is similar to that of living with an alcoholic or drug addict if what I witnessed was any indicator.
There are tons of people that can watch porn for a laugh or turn on and not even think about it the next day, I realize this, especially since back in the day me and some buds would kick on down to the Body Shop or I'd catch a show with my buds or a girlfriend. I've left those days long behind with no ill effect.
It's just things I've seen in this past couple of years with those that shouldn't have uncorked that particular genie that troubles me about porn.
generalgrog wrote:
The fact is, that the homosexual agenda has attempted to hijack the civil rights legacy and try and make the claim that homosexuality is a thing you are born with similar to someone being born a racial minority. Yes I know there have been "scientific" studies attempting to claim a " gay gene".
Civil rights don't have to be about the color of one's skin.
generalgrog wrote:
I know there are people on here that are sexual perverts and they don't like being called out on it. That doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me honest, and someone who will not be accused of being an enabler. Hopefully being honest will help someone come to the realization that they can change.
Well, no, it makes you judgmental. Given how often you have criticized me for analyzing your words for insight into your person, you're standing on very shaky ground. Especially if you're going to use the word "know", very sloppy.
But hey, I'll be glad to return the favor if you continue your righteous tune.
generalgrog wrote:
I have said this before but it bears repeating to the new folks. You can love the sinner but hate the sin. I can be disgusted by the homosexual act but love the homoesexual. What howard and melissia are trying to do, is equate opposition to what I believe to be sexual perversion, to hatred. And that is wrong, and quite unfair.
Not really. The "hate the sin, love the sinner" argument is bogus at the best of times. It relies on the presumption that homosexuality is a perversion, or abnormal. And, be that as it may, people are essentially a collection of characteristics, some more important than others. Generally, and this seems to be supported by just how fervent the opposition to homosexuality is in some circles, sexuality is considered one of the more important ones. Arguing that a fundamental characteristic of a given person is worthy of hate is not tacit to hating that person, or at least a very large part of that person, is just a lame attempt at a dodge.
In short, its moral hand washing of the very worst kind.
Edit: For embarrassing alcohol inspired transposition.
The fact is, that the homosexual agenda has attempted to hijack the civil rights legacy and try and make the claim that homosexuality is a thing you are born with similar to someone being born a racial minority. Yes I know there have been "scientific" studies attempting to claim a " gay gene".
Scientific studies have determined that sexuality is most likely a result of chemical levels during foetal development in the womb and genetics. Source here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19955753
If it were a choice then there would be evidence that the environment in which a child has grown up affects their likelihood of "choosing" homosexuality. So far no study has found any evidence that this is the case.
generalgrog wrote:Show us all the gem where I say I am "disgusted by gay people".
Right here:
generalgrog wrote:homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/510/233388.page
Look at the bolded parts of this, especially. Statements like this piss me off more than almost anything else. They are spiteful, hateful, ignorant, and disgusting comments that frankly are utterly indefensible.
You are a homophobe, and have repeatedly stated you are such. If you want to say you've changed, that's fine (I wouldnt' believe you for an instant), but don't say you never said these kinds of thigns.
The fact is, that the homosexual agenda has attempted to hijack the civil rights legacy and try and make the claim that homosexuality is a thing you are born with similar to someone being born a racial minority. Yes I know there have been "scientific" studies attempting to claim a " gay gene".
I know there are people on here that are sexual perverts and they don't like being called out on it. That doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me honest, and someone who will not be accused of being an enabler. Hopefully being honest will help someone come to the realization that they can change.
I have said this before but it bears repeating to the new folks. You can love the sinner but hate the sin. I can be disgusted by the homosexual act but love the homoesexual. What howard and melissia are trying to do, is equate opposition to what I believe to be sexual perversion, to hatred. And that is wrong, and quite unfair.
Anyway we are getting kind of off topic...again.
GG
That is fine GG as long as you are ready and willing to allow people to question your own actual morality.
fair is fair...
Problem is we have people that say all manner of offensive, hateful and exclusatory things and then want to hide behind a moral/religious shield as an excuse. If you are willing to use that shield then it is fair game to be attacked in turn.
Where other men like to stick their fun parts is no business of anyone other than said men. The fact that it is such a major issue quite frankly bewilders me. If you think homosexuality is wrong, then don't engage in such activities yourself. But do not presume to tell others how to live their lives. The fact so many conservative Christian politicians, Mr. Santorum included, feel that it is their duty to force their own morals upon the rest of the country is disgusting and reprehensible.
GG, why do you feel the need to tell others that what they do is wrong? Why are you not satisfied with simply refraining from homosexuality yourself? (Not trying to stir the pot, just simply curious.)
A Town Called Malus wrote:If it were a choice then there would be evidence that the environment in which a child has grown up affects their likelihood of "choosing" homosexuality. So far no study has found any evidence that this is the case.
For example, homosexual parents have not been proven to raise homosexual children more often than heterosexual parents. The child is usually less ashamed about their sexuality whatever they end up being ,but the actual occurrence of sexuality doesn't change.
Not that you'd hear anything like this if you're busy listening to the delusional hacks that spout non-sense like the "gay agenda".
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:My friend just got really messed up and tried to witness me and then I see this thread.
I understand all these words, but the meaning of the sentence as a whole eludes me...
Is witnessing evangelising? Or something similar?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
The fact is, that the homosexual agenda has attempted to hijack the civil rights legacy and try and make the claim that homosexuality is a thing you are born with similar to someone being born a racial minority. Yes I know there have been "scientific" studies attempting to claim a " gay gene".
I know there are people on here that are sexual perverts and they don't like being called out on it....
...You can love the sinner but hate the sin. I can be disgusted by the homosexual act but love the homoesexual. What howard and melissia are trying to do, is equate opposition to what I believe to be sexual perversion, to hatred. And that is wrong, and quite unfair.
By what authority or experience are you qualified to judge someone a pervert?...
Have you been reading some Kraft-Ebing? 'Cos you don't seem much more up to date than he was.
We need to find Santorums gay lover and fast! I seriously dont get WTF these prudes problems are TBH. Dont they think thats impeding on peoples freedoms to tell them "NO! YOU CANT DO SOMETHING!!"
generalgrog wrote:I know there are people on here that are sexual perverts and they don't like being called out on it. That doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me honest, and someone who will not be accused of being an enabler. Hopefully being honest will help someone come to the realization that they can change.
I would break the posting rules if I responded to this in the manner I would like. Gay people are not 'sexual perverts' and 'calling them out on it' does actually make you a bigot not 'honest'. I have quite a few gay and bisexual friends... your post is just horrible.
generalgrog wrote:I know there are people on here that are sexual perverts and they don't like being called out on it. That doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me honest, and someone who will not be accused of being an enabler. Hopefully being honest will help someone come to the realization that they can change.
I would break the posting rules if I responded to this in the manner I would like. Gay people are not 'sexual perverts' and 'calling them out on it' does actually make you a bigot not 'honest'. I have quite a few gay and bisexual friends... your post is just horrible.
Even though you and people like you would like to make people believe it's bigoted to call homosexuality sin, you may as well call me a bigot vs porn perverts too. And I guess in your world I am also a bigot towards adulterers and liars, and thieves.
But when I call homosexuality sin all of sudden the brainwashing kicks in.. you call me a bigot.
generalgrog wrote:But when I call homosexuality sin all of sudden the brainwashing kicks in.. you call me a bigot.
I'm 'brainwashed' because I don't consider homosexuality to be 'wrong' like hurtful, criminal actions like paedophilia or theft? What a sad joke. May I ask who brainwashed me?
What's a 'porn pervert'? People making porn, people who use too much porn, or anyone who has ever used porn?
You can say one thing about Santorum, he is not a president who will unite this country of social issues. Not that it seems like this country can be united anyways... I would also like to point out my gay uncle and his long time partner have done nothing harmful to people around them or society in general.
generalgrog wrote:But when I call homosexuality sin all of sudden the brainwashing kicks in.. you call me a bigot.
GG
the term brainwashing, unfortunately, is bitterly ironic.
It seems to imply that you're arguing from a well articulated position supported by empirical evidence and solid theories, and that we're basing our arguments on a simple message based on personality, faith, or fear.
Except, you know, it's really the opposite.
It's fine to argue from faith. I, like dogma, feel that there's a limit to how much you can "hate the sin" while claiming you love the sinner, but that's a matter of degree. I just don't feel that you can argue from faith while accusing those arguing based on evidence that we're brainwashed.
generalgrog wrote:
But when I call homosexuality sin all of sudden the brainwashing kicks in.. you call me a bigot.
GG
YOU are the one apparently brainwashed (assuming your not just a troll):
You have every right to base your life and beliefs on unfounded religious fairy tales and superstitions if you so choose, but just like bigfoot and the lochness montser, not everybody believes in the same myths as you...
generalgrog people like you that insist on spouting hatred and claim justifiction based upon a collection of old fables do very little to convince me that religion isn't just a socially accepetd form of mental illness...
I am willing to leave people to believe whatever they want to believe, but as I already stated: when you try to post/spread hatred and then hide behind a religious shield, then you have made it (your religion) fair game for the same kind of pointed discussion as the topic at hand...
witnessing = evangelizing/converting/absorbing into the hive mind.
generalgrog wrote:
But when I call homosexuality sin all of sudden the brainwashing kicks in.. you call me a bigot.
GG
You're not a victim here. You are attacking what many people believe they are the same as what you believe you are. Suppose I started saying it was wrong to be a straight white male because some code you owe no allegiance to says so; I'd probably not come off so well to you, and there's a reason for that.
generalgrog wrote:The fact is, that the homosexual agenda
Is a deranged, disgusting delusion dreamed up by paranoid minds and demagogues trying to rabble-rouse through fear.
generalgrog wrote:Yes I know there have been "scientific" studies attempting to claim a " gay gene".
The fact taht you put the words scientific in quotes shows that you don't know a damned thing that you're talking about.
generalgrog wrote:I know there are people on here that are sexual perverts and they don't like being called out on it. That doesn't make me a bigot
No, you're a bigot because you constantly hate-monger.
Normally I can't agree with Melissia on her posts about anything-here, I fully agree with her, 100%. GG, the only brainwashed person on here is you-you've been brainwashed by the nutcases among religion (not to assume all people of religion are nuts) to believe certain things because you don't understand them. Go live in a cave with no access to the internet or world-you'd be doing us all a favor. Melissia and Howard have BOTH posted quotes from you, and you've gone on to say "well, they misunderstood that one-find another one that says I'm a bad person." I'm paraphrasing of course, but your denial has spread over the past page and a half. I have no respect for you-not because you hate porn, but for your hatred of homosexuals. I have some good friends who prefer relationships with people of the same sex-they aren't bad people, they just don't love who you think they should love.
And your attacks do make you a hate-monger. We don't need people like that in this world. If anything, I believe that less homosexual marriages end in divorce (percentage-wise) because they fight so much harder to have that marriage. Do I have actual statistics? No. But I know a few gay/lesbian couples and NONE of them have had divorces. Meanwhile I have plenty of friends who have been divorced at least once, and I've dated a girl who was divorced-we were both 24 at the time. Normally, I love to laugh and throw in a witty remark, like The Emperor telling Luke his hate has made him powerful...but I don't have any desire to waste humor on someone like you. I suppose you deny a woman the right to have an abortion if she's raped too, don't you?
And I'm a Christian myself, but you know what? Your post about believing in the Bible totally is absolute bullgak. The Bible was written by man-it's fallible. It is not accurate. How do you explain the finding of the Book of Judas, where he goes on to tell the world that Jesus ORDERED Judas to hand him over? Oh, wait, the Bible doesn't cover that-it covers Judas being a traitor. He does what God and Jesus will him to do, against his own will, and when it's found, it's ignored because we have a perfect view of the Bible and Heaven forbid that view gets skewed by an honest telling. Use it as a guide, but do not for a second believe it's perfect. It isn't.
I detest ignorant people who try to push hatred on others for something they don't understand.
generalgrog wrote:Even though you and people like you would like to make people believe it's bigoted to call homosexuality sin
Because you ARE a bigot, looking down your nose at all the supposed "perverts".
If you want to vomit out such trashed arguments as "brainwashed", I'd argue that you were brainwashed into your disgusting hateful bigotry.
Want to know what's a sin? Pride's a sin. Your pride in not being a "pervert" makes you just as much a sinner as the supposed "perverts" you spout hate at. Probably moreso-- pride is supposed to be the worst of the varied sins.
I admit that I'm full of unbridled rage and anger at... well, it's not directed at anything really. It's just there. I struggle to control it every day. It's tempered my world view, I know that I'm an imperfect little bastard of a woman and, as easy as it is, I shouldn't hate people for who they are. But you're making it really fething hard, t obe sure.
This threads gone way off topic and GG has said this a gak load of times before, so much In fact even Im bored of it, so lets just accept that a great many Evangelical American conservatives see things his way and move on eh?
Im going to say this. GG
Only one being get to stand in judgement, God. You have no right to judge others. Let he without sin cast the first stone.
If you ever ate shrimp you commited sin. If you didnt burn a divorcee at the stake you commited sin. If you ever looked at a women without pure intent you will be doomed to hell for all eternity.
What im saying is things change GG. That bible was not made by god. It was made by man. Men who are fallible.
mattyrm wrote: This threads gone way off topic and GG has said this a gak load of times before, so much In fact even Im bored of it, so lets just accept that a great many Evangelical American conservatives see things his way and move on eh?
Yeah. They also want to support Israel, hoping that it gets in to a major war so that it'll start the apocalypse (and then be destroyed while the Christians go "aaah!" and get in to heaven, but only the proper Christians, not those other filthy sinner Christians who don't agree with them on every minor point of faith).
It's something that should make Israelites nervous, but I dunno if many of their politicos really seem to get it. Or perhaps they just don't care.
Many Christians are good people capable of recognizing where the stories of their faith are metaphorical, and where some things said by fallible human beings thousands of years ago are now in conflict with things we've learned since. Some of said Christians have posted in this thread. Let's not lump them all in with GG.
Heck, let's not be too harsh on GG. He has some hateful and destructive ideas, but he does seem to be working from a position of sincerity and honesty, and hopefully will eventually think his way out of them, as no doubt Christ would want.
generalgrog wrote:
Even though you and people like you would like to make people believe it's bigoted to call homosexuality sin, you may as well call me a bigot vs porn perverts too. And I guess in your world I am also a bigot towards adulterers and liars, and thieves.
Well, maybe not the latter three, though I suspect my facility for lying isn't something you would consider laudable, but I would say you're obstinately intolerant (ie. bigoted) with respect to homosexuals, and people involved with porn.
As an aside, related to my statements about pride:
Johnathan Edwards wrote:If on the proposal of the question [Are you humble?], you answer, “No, it seems to me, none are so bad as I.” Don't let the matter pass off so; but examine again, whether or no you don't think yourself better than others on this very account, because you imagine you think so meanly of yourself. Haven't you a high opinion of this humility? And if you answer again, “No; I have not a high opinion of my humility; it seems to me I am as proud as the devil”; yet examine again, whether self-conceit don't rise up under this cover; whether on this very account, that you think yourself as proud as the devil, you don't think yourself to be very humble.
It is a common problem amongst the pious-- they are humble and they are proud of it.
Essentially, saying "I'm proud of being Christian" is itself a sin.
Another quote on the insidious nature of pride as a sin....
C.S. Lewis wrote:During my afternoon “meditations,”—which I at least attempt quite regularly now—I have found out ludicrous and terrible things about my own character. Sitting by, watching the rising thoughts to break their necks as they pop up, one learns to know the sort of thoughts that do come.
And, will you believe it, one out of every three is the thought of self-admiration: when everything else fails, having had its neck broken, up comes the thought “what an admirable fellow I am to have broken their necks!” I catch myself posturing before the mirror, so to speak, all day long. I pretend I am carefully thinking out what to say to the next pupil (for his good, of course) and then suddenly realize I am really thinking how frightfully clever I'm going to be and how he will admire me...
And then when you force yourself to stop it, you admire yourself for doing that. It is like fighting the hydra... There seems to be no end to it. Depth under depths of self-love and self-admiration.
Melissia wrote:No, you're a bigot because you constantly hate-monger.
I don't think GG is a hate-monger.
Broadly, there are two types of people that make the "hate the sin, love the sinner" argument. The first is someone that genuinely hates homosexuals, and has found a convenient way of disguising that hate in polite society. The second is someone who is genuinely made very uncomfortable by homosexuals, but doesn't want to think of themselves as a homophobe.
How does someone being gay affect him?
Here is the answer. It doesnt. Plain and simple. It doesnt affect him. He just doesnt like the the world doesnt fit his narrow view.
Perhaps it's semantics, but in my mind being a hatemonger (or anything -monger really) is about what you say and do, rather than what you think and feel.
Just out of curiosity, where in the bible does it say that God doesn't like homosexuals? I'm genuinly interested. Or is it one of those things passed down from back in the day of the romans?
It's described as an abomination in Leviticus, which is in the old testament. A lot of things are abominations worthy of death according to Leviticus (including cutting your beard and working on the sabbath), and per Christianity those restrictions are supposed to be replaced by Jesus' new covenant, but you will find some flavors of Christians who reference them out of ignorance or because they like them.
In the new testament IIRC it's the gospel of Paul that primarily speaks ill of homosexuality.
Johnnysd wrote:Just out of curiosity, where in the bible does it say that God doesn't like homosexuals? I'm genuinly interested. Or is it one of those things passed down from back in the day of the romans?
Justinian to be specific.
Emperor Justinian was trying to use homosexuality as a scapegoat to attack enemies and to blame for earthquakes.
Many of the most popular translations suffer from translator bias, so you see things like "neither female prostitutes nor male prostitutes should sell themselves in a temple" (a common practice in those days) is turned in to "prostitutes or sodomites" which is translated in to "male or female homosexuals".
ifStatement wrote:It's got some bs line about how a man shouldn't lay besides another
... in a woman's bed. Because a woman's bed is apparently sacrosanct and a man laying with another man in a woman's bed defiles it.
The crimes of Sodom are those of failing to practice proper hospitality to a guest, not of homosexuality.
Im christian, And im going to admit the bible says alot of stupid stuff.
Like the only meat you can eat or Ox, Sheep and goat.
I take out of it the stuff jesus would want us too. Basically 2 things
1: Dont harm Another
2: Do what you can to help others.
alarmingrick wrote:And whatever happened to "love thy neighbor" and "judge not"?
OYG, Christians make my head hurt....
It's not all of us, just the idiots who make the rest of us good Christians look bad
The problem is all you "good christians" that stand around and LET these types speak for you and your faith.
You should be out protesting them and voting them out of office and seperating yourself from them instead of standing by and letting them say what they say.
It's more complicated than that, ifstatement, but essentially yes. Modern translations were often translated several times, reworded, and so on, often for political reasons. The KJV bible for example modified several sections to provide mention and condemnation of witches.
Johnnysd wrote:Just out of curiosity, where in the bible does it say that God doesn't like homosexuals? I'm genuinly interested. Or is it one of those things passed down from back in the day of the romans?
The old Romans had a fairly hedonistic Attitude from the things I've read, and it seemed like pretty much anything was alright in the later stages of their empire.
The leadership of the Christian roman empire weren't intolerant so much as they thought an easy way to get rid of enemies was to ban homosexuality on religious grounds, therefor hey wrote decrees altering the interpretations of specific bits of text, such as the Sodom bit.
Melissia wrote:The leadership of the Christian roman empire weren't intolerant so much as they thought an easy way to get rid of enemies was to ban homosexuality on religious grounds.
You have some funny guys in the States. Our presidential candidates are much more dull.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:They had one credible candidate, one I might even have considered voting for, Huntsman.
I heard he was pretty decent indeed.
Isn't the problem that you've got like two real political parties ? So each side has to accept and deal with its nutcases at the risk of seeing them actually gather support like Jolly Rick to the detriment of moderates, who end up "squeezed" in the grey area.
Well back on the sheer stupidity of santrum(seriosuly i love bashing him) here is what he said of feminists
"Feminists have destroyed all notion of the conventional family, They have taught women that professionalism success is the key to happiness"
It's quite amazing to me the crazy upside down, mixed up world we live in now, where people call right, wrong.... and wrong, right. We live in a world where strait people would rather shackup and have babys out of wedlock then get married and homosexuals want to get married, we live in world where people basically bragg about being peeping toms(internet porn) and want people to think that this is "just normal behavior". 100 years ago maybe even 50 years ago people used to have shame. We are reaping the wirlwind of the social reformation (read disaster) of the 1960's.
I for one will not apologize for being "on the Lords side".
I do love you all..even though your hate for whats right has blinded you to the truth.
I was really tempted to make a facetious joke about "this crazy, upside down world" where black people can marry white people, and a woman is allowed to accuse her husband of rape. Where women are allowed to vote and a black person can become President of the United States. The kind of backward, anti-progress and anti-human rights thinking required to decry those things is the same as decries homosexuals being treated like decent human beings.
But it's not really a joking matter.
I don't hate much of anything, aside from harm done to innocent people. GG, your attitude (and that of people like you) towards homosexuals is directly responsible for the suicide deaths of a lot of homosexual teenagers. That is evil in the world. Their deaths, not the people they love or are attracted to. And your blindness is abetting and promulgating this evil.
GG, your religion forbids you to judge, yet you do it anyway. Mine has no such prohibition, so I am not a hypocrite when I judge you as a person propagating evil in the world. I hope one day you wake up to it and amend your ways. Hopefully before you teach your children to hold homosexuals in contempt, and to mistreat them.
generalgrog wrote:It's quite amazing to me the crazy upside down, mixed up world we live in now, where people call right, wrong.... and wrong, right.
"What I believe is the truth, all else is false; empirical evidence be damned."
I said before that I would return the analytic favor if you continued to be self righteous, so here goes:
You need to feel you have access to truth. But not truth in the sense of knowing that uncertainty exists, but truth in the sense that you can answer any possible question. I will support this argument hearkening back to comments you have made regarding your prior status as a strident atheist, which essentially an inversion of your present belief set.
generalgrog wrote:
We live in a world where strait people would rather shackup and have babys out of wedlock then get married and homosexuals want to get married, we live in world where people basically bragg about being peeping toms(internet porn) and want people to think that this is "just normal behavior".
I would certainly rather shack up, though the sex is better if you have feelings for the person. I hate children, though, so that's not the objective. And, really, whether or not someone is married has no bearing on their regard for their children. It is possible to have very supportive, unmarried parents.
As to "peeping toms" there is a clear difference. A person showing you their naked body intentionally is not the same as doing the same by accident. If that distinction did not exist, then looking at your wife when she is not wearing clothes would make you a "peeping tom".
generalgrog wrote:
100 years ago maybe even 50 years ago people used to have shame. We are reaping the wirlwind of the social reformation (read disaster) of the 1960's.
Oh, people still have shame, its just directed at different things.
I imagine, for example, that you would not express these views in unvetted company.
generalgrog wrote:
I do love you all..even though your hate for whats right has blinded you to the truth.
I'm sorry, but I actually laughed at this. Let me explain why:
You're essentially arguing that anyone who does not agree with you is blind. This is, of course, a variant on "people are sheep" argument. The reality here, as in the issue of sheeple, is that you love yourself, and what you want others to be, and not the people in question.
I consider this position disgusting. Its one of the few arguments I have a visceral reaction to.
generalgrog wrote:It's quite amazing to me the crazy upside down, mixed up world we live in now, where people call right, wrong.... and wrong, right. We live in a world where strait people would rather shackup and have babys out of wedlock then get married and homosexuals want to get married, we live in world where people basically bragg about being peeping toms(internet porn) and want people to think that this is "just normal behavior". 100 years ago maybe even 50 years ago people used to have shame. We are reaping the wirlwind of the social reformation (read disaster) of the 1960's.
I for one will not apologize for being "on the Lords side".
I do love you all..even though your hate for whats right has blinded you to the truth.
Peace.
GG
Loads of marriage end in divorce, many unmarried couples stay together for life. Children are raised well by single parents, gay and straight parents, being married does not ensure a good home environment for children. All families are different, and different people make for happier families and better kids. It's not about their genders or how many there are or whether they are married. Where you see hate for anything contrary to your 'norm' or 'the truth', I see greater acceptance for the love between people in all sorts of diverse relationships.
If you think people and families of 50 or 100 years ago were some sort of ideal we should aim for again you have a very simplistic and idealistic grasp of history. Things weren't better then, people just stayed quiet and kept up appearances. Beaten partners and homosexuals stayed in sham marriages because of the 'shame' from society. Using prostitutes even within marriage was hardly uncommon and people suffering sexual abuses were told to stay quiet or be 'shamed'.
Just because divorce is more acceptable and people are able to have same sex or single families does not mean that things are worse than years ago. Where you think that people 'had shame' and acted more appropriately, what they did was simply hide away and make everything look much happier than it did. It's sad that you want to live in a world where people put on false pretences and live sham lives to satisfy some 1950s ideal where everyone gets married to a member of the opposite sex before having children. Because that obviously makes people happier and better, even when that isn't what they want.
generalgrog wrote:It's quite amazing to me the crazy upside down, mixed up world we live in now, where people call right, wrong.... and wrong, right. We live in a world where strait people would rather shackup and have babys out of wedlock then get married and homosexuals want to get married, we live in world where people basically bragg about being peeping toms(internet porn) and want people to think that this is "just normal behavior". 100 years ago maybe even 50 years ago people used to have shame. We are reaping the wirlwind of the social reformation (read disaster) of the 1960's.
I for one will not apologize for being "on the Lords side".
I do love you all..even though your hate for whats right has blinded you to the truth.
Peace.
GG
It's a crazy, upside down world when people need to feel guilty because their parents use emotional (and often other kinds of) abuse as a tool to shape them into having certain beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs are true or not; when people aren't allowed to exist and to breathe without checking a list of rules that only an invisible man is supposedly there to enforce, yet the only one who EVER enforces them is a bunch of real, physical, scientifically measurable people who spew hate and expect everyone to share their standard, denying freedoms while expecting protection for their own.
Is the love of "what's right" really supposed to lead to you alienating yourself? Does that make ANY SENSE whatsoever?
generalgrog wrote:It's quite amazing to me the crazy upside down, mixed up world we live in now, where people call right, wrong.... and wrong, right. We live in a world where strait people would rather shackup and have babys out of wedlock then get married and homosexuals want to get married, we live in world where people basically bragg about being peeping toms(internet porn) and want people to think that this is "just normal behavior". 100 years ago maybe even 50 years ago people used to have shame. We are reaping the wirlwind of the social reformation (read disaster) of the 1960's.
Mannahnin wrote:More tolerant than the pagan Roman Empire?
The pagan Roman Empire had their share of intolerance as any Christian of the time would tell you.
I'm not familiar with any evidence to conclusively demonstrate that the Empire was more or less tolerant when the Emperors were Christian or Pagan. I do know that when they were pagan they tolerated many cults, including Christianity.
The main source of conflict between the pagan Roman Empire and the early Christians was in the issue of Imperial Divinity vs. Monotheistic Dogma. In short, Christians didn't believe in deified Emperors, and the more egotistical Emperors called that Treason Agaisnt The Empire.
Viewing porn is nothing at all like being a peeping tom. The people who make porn EXPECT others to view them; indeed, if no one looks, they make no money and that's the whole point. The peeping tom, on the other hand, is not gratified by seeing nudity and sex, but is gratified by seeing it when the people he is looking at DON'T KNOW he is looking at them. Porn does little for the peeping tom for that reason.
As far as I'm concerned, there is ONE rule for Christianity: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Everything else in the Bible needs to be tempered by how it interacts with that rule. Acting hateful makes you non-Christian. Period.
If for some god-forsaken reason this man makes it all the way, I'm going to absolutely love having the chance to organize incredibly obscene, but legal and relevant protests.
generalgrog wrote:It's quite amazing to me the crazy upside down, mixed up world we live in now, where people call right, wrong.... and wrong, right. We live in a world where strait people would rather shackup and have babys out of wedlock then get married and homosexuals want to get married, we live in world where people basically bragg about being peeping toms(internet porn) and want people to think that this is "just normal behavior". 100 years ago maybe even 50 years ago people used to have shame. We are reaping the wirlwind of the social reformation (read disaster) of the 1960's.
I for one will not apologize for being "on the Lords side".
I do love you all..even though your hate for whats right has blinded you to the truth.
Peace.
GG
Loads of marriage end in divorce, many unmarried couples stay together for life. Children are raised well by single parents, gay and straight parents, being married does not ensure a good home environment for children. All families are different, and different people make for happier families and better kids. It's not about their genders or how many there are or whether they are married. Where you see hate for anything contrary to your 'norm' or 'the truth', I see greater acceptance for the love between people in all sorts of diverse relationships.
If you think people and families of 50 or 100 years ago were some sort of ideal we should aim for again you have a very simplistic and idealistic grasp of history. Things weren't better then, people just stayed quiet and kept up appearances. Beaten partners and homosexuals stayed in sham marriages because of the 'shame' from society. Using prostitutes even within marriage was hardly uncommon and people suffering sexual abuses were told to stay quiet or be 'shamed'.
Just because divorce is more acceptable and people are able to have same sex or single families does not mean that things are worse than years ago. Where you think that people 'had shame' and acted more appropriately, what they did was simply hide away and make everything look much happier than it did. It's sad that you want to live in a world where people put on false pretences and live sham lives to satisfy some 1950s ideal where everyone gets married to a member of the opposite sex before having children. Because that obviously makes people happier and better, even when that isn't what they want.
I agree with Treesong here. Members of my religion have the unfortunate tendency to grossly idealize the past. Some of my fellow believers view the 1940's-1950's as a "golden age" for American society, when Christian morals flourished and the nuclear family thrived -these people have also never read the Kinsey Reports on human sexuality, and if they did, they would be in for a shock. Some Christians I know basically worship the Puritans, whilst ignoring the fact that the Puritans kept slaves, among other unsavory things. Still, I shouldn't judge my fellow Christains, even if I do find them infuriating.
Also, someone on here said that we sane Christians should call out those in our ranks who are destroying the reputation of our faith. And he is totally right. Except, it won't happen anytime soon. Why? Because every time a Christian comes out in public support of gay marriage, legalizing marijuana or anything else that insidious groups like Focus on the Family don't support, we get either (1) ignored by the media or (2) we get slammed by those in our faith who are willing to help the agenda of big Christian groups.
Really, Christians in the US have all forgotten one key thing from the New Testament: the ability to unconditionally love others is our religions highest calling. Another mistake is this: the Bible treats sexual transgressions as the least bad of all possible transgressions. Instead, Christ specifically said that intellectual elitism/snobbery and religious bullying are the most vile offenses you can commit against a fellow human being. This is ironic, as this is exactly what groups like Focus on the Family are doing...
I could talk about all this for ages, but I will simply say this: the state Christianity in the US is toxic, and activist groups who attempt to force their religious ideals down the throats of nonbelievers are only doing massive harm.
Vulcan wrote:The main source of conflict between the pagan Roman Empire and the early Christians was in the issue of Imperial Divinity vs. Monotheistic Dogma. In short, Christians didn't believe in deified Emperors, and the more egotistical Emperors called that Treason Agaisnt The Empire.
Viewing porn is nothing at all like being a peeping tom. The people who make porn EXPECT others to view them; indeed, if no one looks, they make no money and that's the whole point. The peeping tom, on the other hand, is not gratified by seeing nudity and sex, but is gratified by seeing it when the people he is looking at DON'T KNOW he is looking at them. Porn does little for the peeping tom for that reason.
As far as I'm concerned, there is ONE rule for Christianity: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Everything else in the Bible needs to be tempered by how it interacts with that rule. Acting hateful makes you non-Christian. Period.
The fact that it appears in pretty much every major religion is testament to it's worth. If you look through all the religions and find the things they have in common then you've got a better guide for living your life than if you just look at one and follow it blindly, in my opinion.
generalgrog wrote:We live in a world where [...] homosexuals want to get married
News flash: This ain't new.
generalgrog wrote:we live in world where people basically bragg about being peeping toms(internet porn)
Porn is not the same as peeping. It's ignorant and misleading to claim it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:I do love you all..even though your hate for whats right has blinded you to the truth.
You claim it is through HATE that I would wish to see the love between people flourish? I know what hate feels like, I know full damned well, through all the many faults of my personality. I can assure you, gg, thatthisain'thate. It looks nothing like hate.
The scariest part of all of this is that GG actually believes he's right in being intolerant and we're all wrong for accepting other peoples' lives. The good book (that's the Bible, GG, if you aren't sure) tells us to love our fellow man. If you cast him out for being who he is, how are you loving him? Actions speak louder than words-if you preach hate against people different from you, but then claim to "love us all," you're nothing but a false piece of trash. I'll risk a ban for this-if you were a real Christian, you'd accept people. You're in the same camp as the West Burroughs Baptist Church. Tell me, did you hold your picket sign up high at the soldiers' funerals and tell the mourners they deserved death for fighting for a nation that supports homosexuality, or did you tell every nerd they were going to Hell when you picketed ComiCon because apparently all comic fans worship Superman? You and your ilk give religion a bad name. Accepting their differences will make you a better human, cause you're a pretty disgusting one right now. Mods, if I need a ban, go for it, but my message still stands-a person preaching such intolerance needs to know they're wrong.
Man, I'm on the same side of the fence as Melissia. Never thought I'd see the day
Mannahnin wrote:More tolerant than the pagan Roman Empire?
The pagan Roman Empire had their share of intolerance as any Christian of the time would tell you.
I'm not familiar with any evidence to conclusively demonstrate that the Empire was more or less tolerant when the Emperors were Christian or Pagan. I do know that when they were pagan they tolerated many cults, including Christianity.
In most history books I've read, the Christians were singled out for persecution. I know the Romans would tolerate other religions and would embrace some elements of different beliefs, but Christians were on the short list for elimination for a time.
Various Roman emperors were only too happy to try to exterminate them.
I don't know why everyone dislikes generalgrog. I like him. I like him very much. Just want you to know GG that while your praying for me I'm dreaming of you
Not saying this about anyone person, but threads like this one are great for "people watchers".
You get to see so many sides and facets of people on subjects like this that you many never working
with folks or at your LGS.
OT:
GG, enjoy that creepy, little minded place bro.
People like you are what drove me away from the church.
All smiles and Love until someone turns their back, and the
judging begins.
To Love someone would also invole not judging them. You don't
have to embrace their beleifs, but also not let their views cloud your
ability to see them as an equal, and whole as they are.
The hysteria in this thread is what is scary. I mean come on manny.. "People like me" are the cause of homosexual suicide? Really?
Melissia rather than continue to go back and forth with you on this issue..I would rather refer you to experts..you can come down hard on me if you want to, I can take it, but there is help for you here.
To think that I had a game of the D&D board game with some friends of mine that have a friend who happens to be a Lesbian, and was a very nice person..and we never had an issue. She wouldn't say that I hated her. We went through the whole evening without a problem, and I would play games with her again if the opportunity arose. I would also tell her what I thought about homosexuality if she asked me my opinion.
The problem here is that we are on the internet, and it real easy to turn something like this, into a witchhunt.."Crucify the Christian" because he said some hard things we don't like to hear.
Anyway..this thread is out of control. So I'm done here until the next witch hunt.
Y'know. I remember this. Some puritans wouldnt let the bride married until she could prove whe was fertile. How would you do that? Well get her pregnant by the would be husband.
Yup children out of wedlock.
Funny also. Its been barely a century and a half sense we got the idea of marriage as anything more then an economic arrangment. When industrialization came then love entered to fray of marriage. You want t know what people thought then? Marriage is going to end.
Right know. If you are going into a commitment you better know you can do it right. Know that your love can beat it.
I know someone. Her religion said get married fast. She did. She was pregnant within months. Then the husband got back on drugs and they divorced. You have to know what you are getting into.
generalgrog wrote:The hysteria in this thread is what is scary. I mean come on manny.. "People like me" are the cause of homosexual suicide? Really?
Melissia rather than continue to go back and forth with you on this issue..I would rather refer you to experts..you can come down hard on me if you want to, I can take it, but there is help for you here.
To think that I had a game of the D&D board game with some friends of mine that have a friend who happens to be a Lesbian, and was a very nice person..and we never had an issue. She wouldn't say that I hated her. We went through the whole evening without a problem, and I would play games with her again if the opportunity arose. I would also tell her what I thought about homosexuality if she asked me my opinion.
The problem here is that we are on the internet, and it real easy to turn something like this, into a witchhunt.."Crucify the Christian" because he said some hard things we don't like to hear.
Anyway..this thread is out of control. So I'm done here until the next witch hunt.
GG
Your the only Christian I hear claiming to be being "Crucified".
The problem here is that we are on the internet, and it real easy to turn something like this, into a witchhunt.."Crucify the Christian" because he said some hard things we don't like to hear.
Anyway..this thread is out of control. So I'm done here until the next witch hunt.
The problem here is that we are on the internet, and it real easy to turn something like this, into a witchhunt.."Crucify the Christian" because he said some hard things we don't like to hear.
Anyway..this thread is out of control. So I'm done here until the next witch hunt.
GG
trying to be a martyr much?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hyd wrote:Forgive me, I'm not a regular and I have to ask.
So, this GG dude, he's really a very, very successful troll, and everyone knows but you're all playing along, uh ?
Matthew 22:37-40 wrote:‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Gay marriage is about love.
Wade Kach, left scrambling for a seat in a packed committee hearing last month, found a spot near the witness table.
"I saw with so many of the gay couples, they were so devoted to one another. I saw so much love," said Kach, a member of the House of Delegates. "When this hearing was over, I was a changed person in regard to this issue."
What is this to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace that love? The world is barren enough, it is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those few very precious emotions, that enable us, all of us, to go forward. Your marriage only stands a fifty fifty chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel, and how hard you work, and here people are overjoyed at the concept of just THAT chance, all this work for JUST the hope of having that feeling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIIcaDDyd_I
GeneralGrog gladly and fervently denies the love that the Lord demands of him.
generalgrog wrote:The problem here is that we are on the internet, and it real easy to turn something like this, into a witchhunt
Attacks reported on Ugandans newspaper 'outed' as gay
Several people have been attacked in Uganda after a local newspaper published their names and photos, saying they were homosexual, an activist has told the BBC.
Frank Mugisha said one woman was almost killed after her neighbours started throwing stones at her house.
He said most of those whose names appeared in Uganda's Rolling Stone paper had been harassed.
Last year, a local MP called for the death penalty for some homosexual acts.
The proposed Anti-homosexuality Bill sparked an international outcry and a year later has not been formally debated by parliament.
Homosexual acts are already illegal in Uganda and activists say the gay community still lives in fear.
"We have got people who have been threatened to be thrown out of work, people who have been threatened by their own family members, who want to throw them out of their own houses," said Mr Mugisha of the Sexual Minorities Uganda.
In the past, the government has accused homosexual groups of using claims of harassment to seek attention and funding, but this was strongly denied by Mr Mugisha. Moral fabric
Giles Muhame, editor of the two-month-old Rolling Stone paper, denied that he had been inciting violence by publishing the names next to a headline which read "Hang them".
He said he was urging the authorities to investigate and prosecute people "recruiting children to homosexuality", before executing anyone found guilty.
He also said he was acting in the public interest, saying Ugandans did not know to what extent homsexuality was "ravaging the moral fabric of our nation", and he vowed to continue to publish the names and photographs of gay Ugandans.
It has so far identified 15 of the 100 names it said it would reveal.
The BBC's Joshua Mmali in Kampala says a newspaper that was barely known in a country with a poor reading culture, has now grabbed international headlines, while attracting wide condemnation from gay and human rights groups.
Mr Mugisha said he had written to both the Ugandan Media Council and police asking them to take action against the Rolling Stone but had not had any response.
The police said they had not received any formal complaints of any attacks.
Lavender Scare: U.S. Fired 5,000 Gays in 1953 'Witch Hunt'
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES March 5, 2012
Joan Cassidy, 84, has the U.S. Navy in her blood. Her father and mother, a proud Yeomanette, served active duty in World War I. Her brother and sister were in World War II.
By 1953, Lt. j.g. Cassidy, then 26, was head of a Navy intelligence division with highest-level security clearances.
But while serving in Pearl Harbor, she resigned from a promising career and joined the Navy Reserve, forced to throw away her dreams because she was a lesbian.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower that year declared homosexuals a threat to national security and ordered the immediate firing of every gay man and lesbian working for the U.S. government.
The State Department fired hundreds of gay men and women, calling them sexual "perverts" who would be vulnerable to blackmail; 5,000 government workers, including private contractors, were publicly exposed and sent packing.
"It was a witch hunt," said Cassidy, who lives in a senior housing complex in Centreville, Md.
"I thought to myself, what if somebody goes digging around and finds out, I would lose everything," she said. "I wanted it so badly, but it scared the living daylights out of me."
Now, a new film, "Lavender Scare," explores this untold story, a dark chapter in U.S. when the government worried "more about homosexuals than communists."
"We were supposed to be in touch with the Russians," said Cassidy, who was among several other eyewitnesses interviewed in the documentary.
Based on the book by David K. Johnson, the documentary was produced and directed by Emmy Award-winner Josh Howard, a former "60 Minutes" producer. It is his first independent film.
The title of the film is a reference to the color lavender, which is often associated with the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.
"There was a conspiracy of silence," Howard, 57, said. "Many had deals with the government and resigned for medical reasons because they didn't want to talk. The government didn't want to talk because people would question why their hired them in the first place."
The documentary, which is expected to be ready for the film festivals this fall, also includes one of the last interviews with Frank Kameny, a Harvard-educated astronomer, who was one of the first gay rights activists and died in October.
Kameny, considered to be "grandfather" of the modern gay rights movement, was working for the Army Map Service on classified missile projects in the hopes of being an astronaut when he was fired.
Four years before the Stonewall riots in New York City, Kameny led pickets at the White House in 1965 to protest the government firings. He petitioned the Supreme Court, which ultimately refused to hear his case.
Only in 1995 was that order rescinded by President Bill Clinton, who also instituted the controversial military policy, "don't ask, don't tell." Congress voted to end the policy last year.
"Chilling stories like Joan Cassidy's underscore the fear that these people lived with every day, afraid of losing their jobs, and all the people who never tried to fulfill their dream because they knew they were not going anywhere," said Howard, who is gay.
Cassidy said she watched the "witch hunt" unfold as the Office of Naval Investigation began its crusade to cleanse the civilian service of homosexuals.
She said many of her friends were called in: "They sat behind the big lights and started grilling them, saying, 'We know you're a homosexual, because your partner is in the next room.' She told us, 'You might as well confess.'"
Her moment of clarity came while looking out her window when she saw 15 to 20 Navy women -- "in those terrible gray, seersucker suits" -- and realized they had been rounded up for firing.
"They had been identified as homosexuals," she said. "They had their heads held high and their shoulders squared and it made me shiver."
Their parents would receive the dreaded letter: "We are sending your homosexual child home," she said.
Up until that point, Cassidy never frequented lesbian bars, because it was too dangerous. Gossip could destroy a career.
She had learned that she had been identified by an enlisted woman. "I had never said a word to them," she said. "I don't know what it is that I did -- or how I walked or held myself. But word spread quickly."
Lesbians were careful to only socialize at private parties, and often with gay men for protection from scandal, women on one side and men at the other. She remembers a time when they heard a knock at the door, and women scrambled to change their seats.
"It was automatic," Cassidy said. "We'd be guy, girl, guy, girl, with our hands on the guys and their arms all around us."
Progress has been made but, director Howard said, "There are still battles to be fought."
President Obama is considering an executive order to create anti-discrimination policies for private government contractors.
"That would be huge, particularly in these times of outsourcing," he said, citing a UCLA Williams Institute study estimating that a half-million gay people work in private companies who do business with the government. Thirty states still have no anti-discrimination laws.
Howard said that learning this history is important, because the mass firings set the stage for the homophobia that still persists today in schools and in the workplace.
As for Cassidy, she would have stayed on in active duty. "I loved the Navy," she said.
"There are so many people who have no idea what that time was like," she said. "They have no idea of the kind of fear ... They made us feel as though we were below consideration."
But Cassidy and Howard acknowledge significant progress in LGBT rights since the McCarthy Era firings. Gay marriage is legal in seven states and the District of Columbia.
Cassidy is now living proof of new societal attitudes. She and her same-sex partner of 13 years were legally married in Washington, D.C.
The tragedy of what happened 59 years ago was, Cassidy said, "that every one of us had joined the Navy because we were so proud of our country and wanted to serve."
You are not being persecuted, as much as you wish to believe that is the case.
Hyd wrote:Forgive me, I'm not a regular and I have to ask.
So, this GG dude, he's really a very, very successful troll, and everyone knows but you're all playing along, uh ?
It's not for real, right ?
... Please
GG is not a troll, he is very consistent on this issue.
generalgrog wrote:The problem here is that we are on the internet, and it real easy to turn something like this, into a witchhunt.."Crucify the Christian" because he said some hard things we don't like to hear.
You don't come across as a very 'christian' Christian, you come across as extremely unpleasant and bigoted. You aren't being 'crucified' for being a christian, there are lots of christians on this thread, you are in fact having your prejudices laid bare and it is *you* who doesn't like it.
You're right, you've said things I don't like to hear. I don't like it when people call homosexuality 'wrong' and proceed to draw equivalent comparisons to nasty abusive things like paedophilia. Or when they spout nonsense about how homosexuals can be cured and have their 'lives turned around' like it's a disease or perversion they can learn to stop indulging in.
The fact that you played a game of D&D once with a lesbian at the table and restrained yourself from saying anything judgemental doesn't change much. I'm sure if you told her what you thought of her 'lifestyle', or directed her to some of your online writings, I suspect she may not be too quick to play with you again.
generalgrog wrote:The hysteria in this thread is what is scary. I mean come on manny.. "People like me" are the cause of homosexual suicide? Really?
Absolutely. Your attitude relegates them to the status of second-class citizens. You condemn their loves and natural desire to have relationships with the people they're attracted to. In so doing, you tell them that they are lesser human beings, and teach your kids to treat them so. Kids who then abuse their gay (or ones they perceive as gay) peers in school, leading to those suicides. If those kids were loved and accepted, they wouldn't want to kill themselves.
generalgrog wrote:The problem here is that we are on the internet, and it real easy to turn something like this, into a witchhunt.."Crucify the Christian" because he said some hard things we don't like to hear.
All of the other Christians here are disagreeing with you. Your self-deception here is very sad.
What I will never understand is the fundamentalist Christian hard-on for homosexuality - surely there are worse things, things that are more contrary to Christian teaching, going on everyday around the world? You never seem to see them up in arms about poverty, famine, disease and war, millions of people dying...
... no, it's gay people just doing their thing, or dudes whacking-off to nudie pictures, basically minding their own business, that bother blatant closet-jobs like Santorum. The guy needs to get some perspective.
I think the problem here is that some Christians are worried about a slippery slope.
If you'll all get into the way-back machine, The Catholic church considered the theory of helio-centrism (earth goes around sun) to be heresy. Why? Due to biblical passages. Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc.[51] (stolen from wiki)
If the bible were wrong about the earth and the sun, what else could it be wrong about?
Well, time passes, and we've all seemingly moved on from the horrible revelation that the bible might not, in fact, be 100% literally true.
Still, I think it's a common thread we see again today. You see it in opposition to evoultion, and you see it most vociferously in the anti-gay movement. Gay Marriage is really the first time governments have legitimized lifestyles and behaviors that are specifically (depending on how you read them) forbidden by scripture.
So, if we as a society were to reject, and flat out contradict, the Scripture as our moral basis, whatever will become of us?
Much like most Christians accepted that sometimes poetry is poetry, I think most secular folk accept one or more reasonable codes of morals. Ones that preclude, say, child molestation, while allowing for hot man on man action between consenting adults.
It's easy to hate those with blind faith, but I rather pity them. they're like grown men riding a bike with training wheels, because they don't have the confidence to keep balance.
As for those who wonder why the GBLT movement never just "gives up because it lost", an argument which is used by many of the oppositions whenever a vote is passed against the movement.
To which I would ask wouldn't you fight to hell and back for the sake of your love and your family? People assume that GBLT love is not as "pure" as "straight love" and then get surprised whenever GLBT couples work so hard for the sake of their loves...
Well assumptions aside, Muslims have a much sterner view of homosexuality.
This is from wikipedia.
LGBT topics and Islam are influenced by both the cultural-legal history of the nations with a large Muslim population, along with how specific passages in the Qur'an and statements attributed to the prophet Muhammad are interpreted. The mainstream interpretation of Qur'anic verses and hadith condemn homosexuality and cross-dressing. In this, Islam resembles socially conservative interpretations of other Abrahamic religions such as Judaism and Christianity.
The Qur'an cites the story of the "people of Lot" (also known as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah), destroyed by the wrath of God because they engaged in "lustful" carnal acts between men.
Eminent scholars of Islam, such as Sheikh ul-Islam Imam Malik, and Imam Shafi amongst others, ruled that Islam disallowed homosexuality and ordained capital punishment for a person guilty of it.[1] Homosexual activity is a crime and forbidden in most Muslim-majority countries. In the Islamic regimes of Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, North Sudan and Yemen, homosexual activity is punished with the death penalty. In Nigeria and Somalia the death penalty is issued in some regions.[2] The legal punishment for sodomy has varied among juristic schools: some prescribe capital punishment; while other prescribe a milder discretionary punishment such as imprisonment. In some relatively secular Muslim-majority countries such as Indonesia,[3] Jordan and Turkey this is not the case.
By contrast, homoerotic themes were present in poetry and other literature written by some Muslims from the medieval period onwards and which celebrated love between men.[4]
Polonius wrote:Still, I think it's a common thread we see again today. You see it in opposition to evoultion, and you see it most vociferously in the anti-gay movement. Gay Marriage is really the first time governments have legitimized lifestyles and behaviors that are specifically (depending on how you read them) forbidden by scripture.
Is that really true though? Scripture supports slavery, and was used to argue in its defense. Even just talking about marriage, IIRC traditionally Christianity also forbids interfaith marriage, marriage of atheists, as well as divorce and remarriage. I don't see GG protesting against any of those.
Polonius wrote:Still, I think it's a common thread we see again today. You see it in opposition to evoultion, and you see it most vociferously in the anti-gay movement. Gay Marriage is really the first time governments have legitimized lifestyles and behaviors that are specifically (depending on how you read them) forbidden by scripture.
Is that really true though? Scripture supports slavery, and was used to argue in its defense. Even just talking about marriage, IIRC traditionally Christianity also forbids interfaith marriage, marriage of atheists, as well as divorce and remarriage. I don't see GG protesting against any of those.
And because. Hating gay people is now the only acceptable form of prejudice.
Dont worry. Within ten years we will be a regulat sodom and gommorah. And i look forward to that.
Polonius wrote:Still, I think it's a common thread we see again today. You see it in opposition to evoultion, and you see it most vociferously in the anti-gay movement. Gay Marriage is really the first time governments have legitimized lifestyles and behaviors that are specifically (depending on how you read them) forbidden by scripture.
Is that really true though? Scripture supports slavery, and was used to argue in its defense. Even just talking about marriage, IIRC traditionally Christianity also forbids interfaith marriage, marriage of atheists, as well as divorce and remarriage. I don't see GG protesting against any of those.
Scripture, particularly the old testament, supported the idea that slavery was a necessary evil. It also speaks at great lengths on the joys of freedom. I'm not sure, but I doubt there's positive law saying that slavery is good, or that abolition is a sin.
Interfaith marriage is not, as far as I know, mentioned in the scriptures
Divorce is, if only because it was considered by Joseph after finding out that his new wife was pregnant, and not by him!
I found this: 1 Corinthians 7:13
13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.
This shows that divorce happens, and that interfaith marriages happen. In Corinthians, one of the dourest books of the bible.
Polonius: In regards to divorce, Malachi 2:16 from the NIV bible.
"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.
The NLT bible has it even stronger:
"For I hate divorce!" says the LORD, the God of Israel. "To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty," says the LORD of Heaven's Armies. "So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife."
Mind you, this is probably a translation error or an intentional bias in translation. The NLT bible is notoriously biased and differs greatly from the original text.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for slavery, Genesis 9:25-27 was used as one of the justifications.
"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. "
Y'know I haad this teacher the gave a simple theory about the fear of gay people.
Its because it a man taking on the position of a women(no offense ladies) And sense our society still subconsciously think men are superior to women its demeaning. And if a man acts like a women then women can act like man and then the whole sexist order that keeps the world going arund(aka family values) is thrown outta whack.
It was alot more complicated but i dumbed it down so i didnt have to type it all.
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
Deuterotomy 7:1-4
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations--the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you-- and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.
Melissia wrote:And finally for interfaith marriages:
2 Corinthians 6:14
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
Deuterotomy 7:1-4
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations--the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you-- and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.
A lot of people back then that married idolaters ended up worshipping idols and falling away from God. Solomon was a prime example of someone who took up idolatry. It was even worse in his case since he was the king of Israel and therefore a major influence on his people.
Melissia wrote:I was at one point. I just consider myself nondenominationaly religious at the moment, claiming allegiance to no faith or denomination.
Ok! I consider myself a nondenominational, non-church going Christian, for all that it matters. This way, I can think more freely about religion and theology without the fetters of a particular church/denomination.
generalgrog wrote:
The problem here is that we are on the internet, and it real easy to turn something like this, into a witchhunt.."Crucify the Christian" because he said some hard things we don't like to hear.
Not really. I know several people who, if you expressed the things you have expressed in this thread, would happily deprive you of your teeth. In particular telling someone that their sexuality is akin to a disease, and offering "help" (read: psychological conditioning), is more likely than not to end in some kind of confrontation. If anything, the internet is protecting you.
I'm not quite so violent, I would just laugh at you smugly, explain why you're wrong, and why you exhibit delusional behavior in your line of argumentation. Basically what I do here.
I mean, really, if your immediate response to disagreement is to claim a witch hunt is on, you aren't really interested in conversation or debate, but in conversion. It is, as Polonius stated before, an argument from faith; something which does not permit you to invoke such ideas.
In short, no one is saying anything negative about you because you're a Christian, they're saying negative things about you because of the views you hold, and are further (correctly) attributing those views to your particular brand of Christianity. Your immediate recourse is claim you're being persecuted because, in another turn of bitter irony, you're being told things you don't like to hear.
I stand educated. Maybe it's just the way I read what you've written, but it seems you think anyone who supports Romney or Santorum is as extreme as the definition.
Relapse wrote:I stand educated. Maybe it's just the way I read what you've written, but it seems you think anyone who supports Romney or Santorum is as extreme as the definition.
1. I don't think I mentioned Romney.
2. And you, like generalgrog (who thinks saying homophobic and hateful things doesnt make him a hateful homophobe) seem to be implying that supporting a christofascist like Santorum wouldn't in effect make you a Christofascist by proxy...
I wouldn't vote for a deluded, lying hatemonger, because, in addition to having moral objecting to his platform and not wanting to help him succeede, I wouldn't want to be seen as in league with such a vile excuse for a human being either.
"Feminists have destroyed all notion of the conventional family, They have taught women that professionalism success is the key to happiness"
While I'm all for women working, society has shifted and now it seems that men are marginalized, particularly in religions despite the historical bias. Most of religion seems to be held and propagated by women. Indeed in Scotland Islam is the religion women are joining in the greatest numbers.
Also in reference to homosexuals/gays/queers/sodomites/whatever I do believe that Jesus spoke more about corruption and greed / social issues than about homosexuals. But rich politiicans want to keep their lootz.
Relapse wrote:I stand educated. Maybe it's just the way I read what you've written, but it seems you think anyone who supports Romney or Santorum is as extreme as the definition.
1. I don't think I mentioned Romney.
2. And you, like generalgrog (who thinks saying homophobic and hateful things doesnt make him a hateful homophobe) seem to be implying that supporting a christofascist like Santorum wouldn't in effect make you a Christofascist by proxy...
I wouldn't vote for a deluded, lying hatemonger, because, in addition to having moral objecting to his platform and not wanting to help him succeede, I wouldn't want to be seen as in league with such a vile excuse for a human being either.
Your mileage may vary...
Actually, you did mention the wingnut vote in relation to a sentence mentioning both Romney and Santorum, implying that you put anyone who votes for Romney in the same boat as Santorum.
You are just full of the generalizations and steryotyping, aren't you, by calling me a Christofaciast? Maybe I don't like the way Obama is setting either me in my later years, or my children up for a massive depression that'll make the one in the 30's look tame.
You appear to have some serious blinders on and are no better than GG in the way you form your self rightious opinions about people.
Splendid. I get so few opportunities to break out the Malleus Maleficarum.
Less talkey, more torchey!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:As for those who wonder why the GBLT movement never just "gives up because it lost", an argument which is used by many of the oppositions whenever a vote is passed against the movement.
Strangely enough, this is not something I have wondered about.
generalgrog wrote:
The problem here is that we are on the internet, and it real easy to turn something like this, into a witchhunt.."Crucify the Christian" because he said some hard things we don't like to hear.
My problem with this argument has always been the same thing, why on earth is it a "hard thing we don't like the hear"? It doesn't REALLY bother me, I don't particularly mind hearing it. I'm a straight white male, what do I care if GG and his friends have a go at gay people?
I'm self centred, if its not gonna affect me personally, I'm not going to bothered about it THAT much other than mild annoyance that people can be so short sighted. So putting this whole argument forward is exactly like putting the "its merely a life style choice" argument forward.
And that does annoy me, because what they are basically saying is "Hey, we could all go for some cock every once in a while.. but we choose not to!"
In a nutshell, the obvious fact that all men don't secretly harbour a desire to grab their ankles next to a dumpster out the back of a gay nightclub every once in a while proves that your sexuality is not a matter of choice. Its not a sexual preference, its a sexual orientation, and you have feth all say in the matter.
Making hating gay people, about as sensible as hating people with brown eyes or ging...
Relapse I don't think I have stated any endorsement of Obama, so not sure why you keep acting like I have.
You want to assume lots of things, but let's stick to what I have actually posted.
As for calling you a Christofascist, I said that if one supports and/votes for a Christofascist then you have willingly associated yourself with him. Point being: your choices and what they stand for reflect upon one's self. I didn't call you anything, I made the point that you will be seen by many as guilty by association.
rag. I can't imagine how stupid you have to be to see any enviable traits in this man.
