First Openly Gay Congressman dies... hero or villain?

evc policy is probably related to the fact that there are minors on this site.
company policy is related to the fact that YOUR TIME IS THEIR MONEY!
people go through the back door and hide stuff from their families because they have been shamed by an unhealthy upbringing.i'm not ashamed of buying condoms. but do i brag loudly in the cvs when i go pick them up? i'm not ashamed of going to the adult store. but i don't call my mom and announce it every time. i'm not ashamed of my toys. but i do keep them in the closet. i'm not ashamed of having sex. but i don't do it in public. i'm not ashamed of looking at porn. but i don't have it on my desktop when i go to class with my laptop to take notes.i'm not ashamed, but it's really not anyone's business what i do with my time. everything has it's place and time but that time is not at work and not on evc and not sunday dinner with your grandparents. the fact that people have been convinced that they ought to be ashamed of a healthy interest in sex is not proof that there is a natural shame in sexuality. the fact that women are so ashamed of their bodies that many have never seen a gynecologist and often feel raped after a pelvic exam is not proof that they are dirty and ought to not be interested in their bodies.the fact that people do not communicate their desires and needs with their sexual partners is proof that we have a fucked up society not that there is something shameful about porn.there is no logic in your argument.

Ah, but we will apply Creation Science to this:Any scientific result that contradicts the Accepted Truth is the result of bias, lies, and sloppy research; the data must be reinterpreted to fit the Accepted Truth.Any result that is consistent with the Accepted Truth must be accepted as valid and real, the actual methodology of the researcher or other evidence not-with-standing.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

You mean there never has been a study/experiment/piece of research that hasn't aligned with the dogma and, having not algned with the dogma, is saved from being buried in a drawer somewhere.Pray..how would we ever tell? You mean that scientists don't have to eat and pay mortgages. The Truth is their prime objective - come what may?Get real CP....

This appears to be another case of wanting the joke explained to you.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Its been a hard weekend. Funny just ain't doing it for me right nowI'll get my coat...

Well, if money is good, why can't I gamble at work? Probably the same reason gambling is. Why wasn't that clear from my post? Serial killers eat food, too. Do they have a problem with food?It seems to me that the problem serial killers have is that they kill people. What you're doing is just guilt by association. Oh, I'm sorry; I didn't realize we were playing the game where we make up our own facts.

NJ writes: I think you have made your stand against pornography quite clear. However to keep saying "I am against pornography" really begs the following questions.What is pornography?Is your definition of pornography violent images associated with sex? depictions of the sexual act in a manner you don't approve of? any depitions of the sexual act? is it nakedness of white people? nakedness of all people? double beds? cleavage? on-screen kissing? liberalism? evolution? science? Without your definition, your statement becomes meaningless.Given that you could define pornography, how would one approach the problem? fines?, jail?, castration?, beheading?Also, would your definition and solution be acceptable to those who make judicial decisions concerning free speech?, the majority of voters?, evangelical christians?Are you proposing that you alone should hold the office of censor, a position that has not been held since the Roman Empire?IMO until you can answer these questions, your statements are empty complaints which are not to be taken seriously.

uhuh, thanks for proving me right, you have no clue what you are talking about. if you are going to use such a broad brush, don't swipe me on the way, i look at porn a lot, and i have a healthy love of women that doesn't make them into objects as you are claiming looking at porn does
this has nothing to do with porn this has to do with the person themselves all porn does is show a reflection of the persons psyche its because of prudes like you that they do this, this has nothing to do with depravity and more to do with the aditude that sex is wrong or dirty and leads to violence and evil somehow because minors come to this site? that porn isn't the focus of this site? the only dichotomy is the false one you are making up oh come on i can name some sickos who lived long before porno was widely avalible that people who hate porn would blame porn forever heard of ed gein? he was the insperation for psycho and buffalo bob from silence of the lambs, and he never saw porn in his life! but he skinned dead corpses to make a human skin suit and made furiture out of human corpsesyour just trying to demonize pornography to fuel your own psychosis i don't get it what does foot fetishs or being sexually aroused by people doing wierd things have to do with this at all?you are claiming that porn causes people to become devient and i'm saying the people claimed to be harmed by porn are already damaged by something else and all porn is, is a safer outlit than what they might do otherwise: namely hurt peoplewow amazingly enough your goverment link refutes your whole argument! you should be careful to sit down before you swallow that other footfrom Pubmed
The results showed that in none of the countries did rape increase more than nonsexual violent crimes. This finding in itself would seem sufficient to discard the hypothesis that pornography causes rape.there you have it folks! NJ hoasted his own patard, full stop.Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

So place a disclaimer like any other website does. If it isn't wrong then it shouldn't be a problem. You won't get fired for surfing the net at most companies. At most, you'll get a stern warning not to be unproductive on their bill. But most companies will fire you on the spot for pornography. So why do you think that is? I would be more inclined to say that its because their significant other will hurt by it. The thought is the pre-cursor to the action. My wife had a hysterctomy so no more condoms for me. But when I did buy them I didn't feel any shame for that either... Maybe its because buying condoms has nothing to do with pornography. That's because you're around like-minded people. Big surprise that you wouldn't feel it then. Go with your grandmother and then tell me if you feel the same way. Neither am I, because there is nothing wrong with sex in and of itself. They are ashamed of their bodies not for their biological urges but because television and movies place standards on their outward appearance and make unrealistic requests that gives young girls stigmas if they don't look like the airbrushed bueaty in the magazines.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

You never provided a reason in your post. What is the reason why people can't view porn at their work? Eating food helps you survive, watching porn or even having sex won't determine whether or not you live or die. Serial killers have a problem with porn. Perhaps you don't want to make the connection because you are an advocate of porn. Its not a jab at anyone that watches porn. Everyone understands the lure of pornography. It isn't like anyone is weird for enjoying pornography. I'm just saying that pornography has some consequences attached to it and its promoters should understand that. During an interview with prolific serial killer, he was asked the following question:"Do you really feel that hardcore pornography and the doorway to it, softcore pornography, is doing untold damage to other people and causing other women to be abused and killed the way you did?"To which he replied:"Listen, I'm no social scientist, and I haven't done a survey. I don't pretend that I know what John Q. Citizen thinks about this. But I've lived in prison for a long time now. And I've met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence just like me. And without exception, without question, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography." -Ted Bundy The FBI, among other premiere law enforment agencies, show unequivocially what Bundy said in plain English. Just about any profiler will tell you the same thing. There is a science to this. It isn't wishful thinking.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Not necessarily. There are different levels of porn. Soft and hardore porn, to name two levels. But nobody goes straight into extreme bondage if you know what I mean. That level of depravity grows over time. That's like asking what constitutes eating? Is mastication eating? Is the salivation glands eating? Or is it a conglomeration of things. Two terms often used in parlance for sexually explicit material is obscene and indecent. That can be a bit ambiguous, so specific meanings have to be coined out of jurisprudence.The FCC defines "Obscenity" as, "that category of sexual material that the courts have deemed to be outside full protection of the First Amendment and subject to regulation by the state. Obscene material is defined as that which appeals to the prurient interest in sex, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value ( Miller v. California, 1973)."It further defines "Indecency" as, "a term from broadcasting (radio and over-the-air television) that defines an even broader category that can be regulated -- language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities." Pornography is protected, in most cases, by the First Amendment. It does not appear that this will be overturned at any given time. However, if it were outlawed instead of simply regulated, I would say the most logical way to handle is like drug offenders. You rehabilitate the offenders and go after the purveyors, the one's making a fortune of other peoples emotions. But I'm not making a legal stance, I'm making a moral one. Any one of you is protected by law and I recognize that. I'm just giving you my personal opinion on the matter. I never mentioned censorship. Again, I'm making the point that pornography is not the no-fault answer its made out to be and that porn is often a gateway into depravity. Maybe you can answer me this one question so I can gauge your allegiance to it. How would you feel if your wife and/or daughter were in porn? Its just a job, right? Its 'just' sex, right? And if it would bother you, ask yourself why that is, especially in light if it 'just' being a normal biological urge. I think any honest person here recognizes that there is an unmistakable psychological factor associated with porn in the negative.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

So, are you offended that I would find myself in disagreement with porn because you like it? LOL! I can't argue with that. It isn't the action of porn, its what happens to the psyche that matters. First of all, a "prude" is somebody that is excessively modest, in which case, how have you determined that its in excess for me in one direction, but not excessive for you in the other? Secondly, I've mentioned several times that there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with sex, whatsoever. But there are parameters just like anything else in life. Assuming that is like assuming cars were invented for drag racing, other than their for their intent, which is for transportation. Its when something is abused for ill-gotten purposes that somnething good can be manipulated into something bad. So, please, with sugar-on-top, stop trying to derail my argument by distorting what I've been saying. Um, minors go to porn sites without their parents permission. Its called a 'disclaimer.' And cars, cameras, zebras, or telephones aren't the 'focus' of EvC either, but you don't see the Admin's fussing about that. So, again, if pornography is really no big deal, why outlaw it from this site, why ban it from children's eyes, why is it taboo at all across the globe, irrespective of culture of religious affiliations? Could it be that there really is an innate sense, perhaps instituted by God, perhaps not, that its 'wrong' to abuse one's own sexuality? Porn is just one avenue of the larger problem. Sexual immorality is really what's at heart. And that has been with us since the beginning. I already wrote about him. His mother had sex in front of him all the while hypocritically teaching him about purticanical rules and regulations. The boy obviously had a fractured psyche. As a result of this splintering effect, he developed a deep hatred for women as he projected his hatred for his mother on to them all. Yeah, that's it....... Everything! Its just what I've been saying. People that watch porn run the risk of growing calloused to it and so go from soft material to hard material. Eventually, it synthesizes into bizarre fetishes that should never be sexual to begin with-- unless of course you find it sexually appealing to be defecated on. Pshhh. Ah yes... Just give a confused teenager some porn and that'll straighten him out. Forget sports or outdoor activities, just stimulate them sexually so they won't hurt people. Fascinating thesis. No it doesn't, it says that violent and non-violent pornography have no disparity when it comes to rape. What does reflect is that rapists are into porn. Make the connection.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

What you have provided is the definition of pornography that is currently used by the US government, which obviously allows all this pornography that you are objecting to. The government definition is not what I asked for, I asked for your definition, as you seem to desire a stricter standard than currently allowed under US legal opinion.NJ writes: I am unfamiliar with such rehabilitation being commonly used for drug offenders in the US. Here in Texas, it's straight to the joint, no rehab for all but the most minor infractions that used to be ticketed offenses prior to the ascent of Reagan. Not really, you have not even provided a definition of this pornography you are railing against other than the government definition that allows what we have now. Answer my question concerning your (not the government's) definition of pornography first.

it's not a matter of being wrong, it's a matter of being illegal. they're fucking stupid? only to fundies. you know a vasectomy is more effective? why didn't you take the step to meet her in her endevours? actually, i wouldn't mind talking about it with my grandmother. but then my grandmother is a raging bitch and i don't really talk about anything with her. that's not what i'm talking about and you know it. women are ashamed of their vaginas and their vulvas. it's not because magazine covers have pictures of perfect clits either. it's because our sex organs are the source of sin.

quote:

---

You won't get fired for surfing the net at most companies. At most, you'll get a stern warning not to be unproductive on their bill. But most companies will fire you on the spot for pornography. So why do you think that is?

---

*starts a slow clap*

quote:

---

I would be more inclined to say that its because their significant other will hurt by it. The thought is the pre-cursor to the action.

---

Are you suggesting that no pagan would ever be upset that their significant other is viewing pornography?

quote:

---

My wife had a hysterctomy so no more condoms for me. But when I did buy them I didn't feel any shame for that either... Maybe its because buying condoms has nothing to do with pornography.

---

Well, I hardly see how the removal of a uterus would be less effective, but regardless, she didn't get a hysterectomy for convenience. It was for medical purposes. But, prior to that proceedure I did try to get a vasectomy, but the military made it impossible for me to be eligible with all their restrictions. Apparently I had to be over 40, have a minimum of three children, be married for over 10 years, and some other ridiculous stipulations. I guess the "my body, my choice" mantra only applies to women. hmmmm.... Well, I guess all grandmothers can't be sweet. I guess some have to be cantakerous hags. Women are ashamed of their vaginas and vulvas??? (Is there something you wanna share? Something traumatic, perhaps? Maybe you just need a good hug). I'm not sure that I've ever met a woman that was ashamed of their vaginas? Some have expressed that its unattractive because of extended labias and whatnot, but not shame. *Billy Joel plays in the background: Yeah, but she's always a women to me* Female sex organs are the source of sin....? Huh.... Well, I'm beginning to think maybe you've watched too much TBN and its given you a warped perspective on how most Christians view sex and sex organs. You might be pleased to know that Benny Hinn and those of his ilk irritate me too. Perhaps even more so than you because I get automatically associated with people like him simply because I say that I'm a Christian and so does he. Its pretty annoying.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt