• Part II: "Manos: Hands of Fate" May 09 - 11:19 am

It depraves and corrupts as well as encourages perversion and sexual violence and denigrates
sexual love.

Oh yeah? Tell that to my parents you ignormaus! They've never raped anyone, and they both still obviously love each other. Do you say anything other than Chrsitian rhetoric? EVER? My guess from reading previous posts is no.

Sax, are you saying your parents are addicted to pornography? (You might be--I have no idea)

Peter, I wrote an essay on this topic for "English". I agree--pornography has no relative use in this world.

It was more horrific than any violence in films like Reservoir Dogs or Hellraiser and I know it corrupted me, and I am fairly sure it corrupted everyone else who saw it.
No, Peter. I've seen it years ago and it never corrupted me. Why? Cuz I'm stronger than that. Nothing corrupts anyone. You'll only be corrupted by something if you let it corrupt you. Suppose I gave you several millions in pounds? Would you share it with others or keep it for yourself? Would you use it for good or evil? The choice is yours. And BTW, no, I don't have that much cash to just give to anyone. Besides, do you really think I'd tell anyone about it? Not a bloody chance!

Anyway, my take on porn is this: It's stup¡d! I saw my first Playboy when I was in the second grade, and it never bothered me, even at that young age, cuz I've always loved women (although, yes, it was a big thrill). As an adult I've seen a few porn tapes and the sex is pretty much the same on all of them. How much the people in the films are really enjoying themselves is anyone's guess but probably not too much cuz it's just a job to them. Even softcore porn is as bad in that it also shows phoney sex between two or more people, since it's all choreographed anyway, and isn't spontaneous, like it can be in real life.

However, porn can be a release for some people of both sexes, not just men. After all, I think it's been said that now more women rent porn than men, but I've no way of confirming that. Now, if a guy wants to whack off (that's wanking to you, Peter) while watching or reading porn and he doesn't go after kids or women to rape then that's one positive purpose that porn serves someone. I'd rather someone just look at it than go out raping or molesting. Besides, people who would do so are already of that inclination anyway and are just looking for some excuse to justify their motives and actions. Ted Bundy used porn as his scapegoat for why he raped and killed so many women, one of whom was a 12yo girl!

Porn isn't a justifiable excuse to doing certain behaviors like sex crimes, that adults especially know (or should) better than doing. Just looking at porn doesn't make anyone do anything. Sure, they may get ideas from it but it doesn't force them in any way to go out and do it. It's really sad that some adults can't take responsibility for their own actions and try to place the blame elsewhere, especially as ridiculous as porn. No wonder so many kids grow up to be such screwed-up adults. They've got the perfect teachers!

One last note. I'm totally against censorship, with one exception. Porn done by consenting adults shouldn't be censored, cuz if you start there then where do you end it? If one person says one thing shouldn't be allowed cuz they choose to feel offended by it, then someone else can come back saying something else shouldn't be allowed cuz they feel offended by it, and then before you'd know it we wouldn't have any freedoms anymore whatsoever. One person's dislike of looking at pix or tapes of nekkid people doing the nasty doesn't give them the right to prevent another from enjoying it. They have the right to feel offended by it, sure, but not to force someone else from never seeing it ever again. Too many have died for our freedoms and I'll be damned if I let anyone take away my rights to view or read what I wish. If no one's being harmed in any way then it's ok. Now, kiddie porn isn't protected free speech, nor should it be. It's very harmful to children. That's about the only exception to censorship that I can think of, but it's not a good excuse to get rid of all other porn that shows consenting adults.

Peter, you can't just ban something because you don't like it or one group doesn't like it.

How will you define pornography for your ban? Is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel pornographic? (It includes many completely nude figures of men and women.) Is National Geographic pornographic when it includes bare-breasted or naked people? Is a sex manual pornographic? A lingerie ad? A gynecology textbook that might excite men? What about sexy stories that don't include pictures? R-rated movies with partial nudity? Late-night sex talk line commercials?

And who will decide the above?

Gee, it's a good thing that we live here in the States where Peter can't ban anything he doesn't like.

Darn, where's that Blofeld Appreciation Society guy where you need him?

Currently, I have no intentions of banning pornography. However, I have a suspicion (which is just that--only a suspicion) that the effects of it should really be examined. Some of the more hard-core stuff has got to effect people's minds upon repeat viewings. At least I think it should be like smoking, that it should be kept out of children's hands at all costs.

What's wrong with Lust and Excitement? I mean honestly, people seem to think that if it feels good, then it must be evil.

IMO, it stems from the religious beliefs that sex is not to be enjoyed, and any kind of sexual pleasure is a sin.

Think of it this way, Japan has some of the most pornographic and violent comics (manga) in the world, and yet their crime rate is lower then America.

As long as it doesn't hurt anybody, there is no reason to ban it.

However, I do feel that it should be restricted to those with a more mature outlook (as it already is). The same way I would feel about violent movies.

Though honestly, I would rather have children watch a porno then a violent and bloody movie.

I wonder what our children would be like if instead of watching Lethal Weapon, they watch Busty Broads IV.

Think of it this way, Japan has some of the most pornographic and violent comics (manga) in the world, and yet their crime rate is lower then America.

Eek. I'm not sure if I should run, or duck and cover, or just pray that MJ never sees this. Or maybe I'm doing this for nothing, since I dimly recall that she doesn't like manga either... eh, I'll just say not to judge a culture by its forms of entertainment and leave it at that.

Because they aren't watching films with rape.

Violent movies frequently show heros commiting murder.

Pornos are usually two people just having a good time. Logically, what is wrong with two people having safe sex? What is wrong with anyone wanting to watch it?

Just like to chime in with my peronal view on this.

I'm in favor of pornography. I'm also a 20 year old guy so my opinion is tained to a degree by hormones so I would take my lightly but seriously.

I have a large collection porn related stuff. Stories, pictures, vid clips, and few DVDs. Much of it is just the fact I save a lot of stuff I read since I have a collective personality.

Either way, I don't consider my self a pervert or a deviant. And I'm sure most of my friends wouldn't either.

A lot of my stuff is brilliant photography of beautiful people. Art in a way. You can't declare all porn dirt as much as you can't call all books classics.

But to me looking at it is just another piece of media, like any other picture. Only American/English cultures have major issues with sex and nudity. ie. the human body and its actions are part of the beauty of nature.

Also the "wacking/wanking/masterbation" is another human action. Heck, even animals do it. Of course it can be addicting, but so can eating. I do so regularly (eating and the other thing, too).

In submation, Porno good, Peter bad. ;-)

God peter are you against anything fun?
A scene in one movie horrified you? No wonder you are the scared little god loving pu$$y that you are.

I'd rather see my son watching a film with two people having sex than two people trying to kill each other.

I'm no big fan of porno either, and I don't watch them. Not out of any sense of morality. It's the dammned music! I can't TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and it's great to see you again Sax.

No, Sporman's right, Matthew. I don't disagree with that. I recall seeing a movie on TV when I was visiting the grandparents in Japan, which showed an interesting sex scene (I shan't go into detail, but I found it more funny than erotic). And I was...twelve? Thirteen?

Of course, I turned down the opportunity to watch a porn movie with my brother and his four male friends...

Never met anyone so closed minded before.

Tell me peter, who decides what is pornography and what isn't? You?

I'm never heard the term "closed-minded" to describe someone that is against pornography!

Where are you getting the religious belief that sex is not to be enjoyed? Pshaw. How do you think Adam and Eve were with child? Artificial insemination?

I think sex is a beautiful act, created by God. I have no desire to watch other people performing sex, however (and I have yet to hear of safe sex being performed in a porn video). If you want to watch it, go ahead. What I am saying is that I think there should be some sort of investigation on the effects of long-term use on the mind: Ted Bundy said he was influenced to kill by it (dunno if he's right). Also, I think there needs to be stronger legislation to keep it out of children's hands. They don't need to watch it.

I'm not getting the idea that Sex is not to be enjoyed, but certain religions have said that enjoying sex is wrong. It's just like how Masturbation is supposedly a sin. I'm not saying it's true, or logical, I'm just saying it's what some people believe, and what leads to some countries (especially Puritan-founded America) that sex is a bad thing.

Now some people may say that pornography made them want to kill people, but I feel that's a pretty thin argument. It sounds just like when people blame the media, or movies, or music.

I'll ask again: Logically, what could pornography do to someone, if they were subjected to it all the time. Not Violent porn, like Sado-Masochism or anything, but the kind like your every day average joe might own.

I think too many of us were raised in a Sex=BAD kind of world. Most of us have watched Violent movies/TV/cartoons since we were kindergarteners. But most of us don't go out killing people, nor do we think it is a moral thing to do.

Pornography is fantasy, just as a movie Like Lethal Weapon is. It allows us to live out fantasies we would not ordinarily be able/willing to do.

If you want to see the long term affects to people watching porn: Look at your average american male, above the age of 30. I would wager the majority of them have at least a small porn collection.

By the way, when I said closed minded, I was referring to how Peter automatically determined that Newt was worried his "whacking off" material would be taken away.

Well I see no reason why "whacking off" should be celebrated.
That's not what I said.

I do not believe it prevents further perversion and crime, however. Quite the opposite - a sick man who sees pornography is going to want sex far more than if he had not seen it.
Speak for yourself cuz you certainly can't speak for every single man who's ever looked at porn. I've seen quite a bit of it and I'm not sick and I don't want sex any more or less than had I never seen any porn at all. Again, I'm stronger than that, but yes, not every male is. It all simply depends on the individual, and you can't say that every single person is the same, cuz they're not. Otherwise, you'll have to include yourself in that argument.

The freedom to "whack off" over a picture of a naked woman, is not a freedom anyone has died for.
Sure it is. Maybe it wasn't thought of back when we kicked your collective tea-drinking asses and won our freedom, but it has since become part of our First Amendment's freedom of expression. For some people of both sexes masturbation is a form of expression. You don't have to agree with or like that, but it's true.

I do not think either that you can use the "If you do not like it do not look at it" argument.
I wasn't. Where did you get that from?

Ted Bundy may have blamed pornography but perhaps he would not have done what he did without it.
Bullsh¡t. Like I said, if someone's of a certain inclination they're still gonna do it, no matter if they've ever seen porn in their life at all, and Bundy was very much of the inclinations to rape and kill. Shortly before Bundy's execution, in a taped interview with Dr. James Dobson, a devout christian, Bundy, knowing full well Dobson's religious views, manipulated him into thinking that he, Bundy, was adversely affected by porn, when in fact he really wasn't. He was a master manipulator, which was why he was so good at fooling so many women that became his victims. He knew he was gonna die soon so he just couldn't resist one last chance to manipulate someone else and Dobson fell for it hook, line and sinker, and unfortunately a great number of people bought it as well. Bundy had the last laugh. Hell, he even died with a smile on his face.

Apart from much of it being unavoidable, I believe it does harm those who do not use it by denigrating sexual love and encouraging immorality and lust.
Personal opinion, nothing more.

As I said, there are no advantages to pornography, so why not ban it?
Cuz again, as I've said, if you start there, then where does it end? If you choose to feel offended by porn and work to get it banned cuz of your religious views, then what's to stop me from working to get religion banned cuz I choose to feel offended by your invasive religious views and for trying to stop me from what I enjoy when it does you no harm, hmm? Of course, neither one of us can ban the other's pleasure. Not that porn's all that pleasurable to me cuz like I also said it's all pretty stup¡d anyway. But one advantage of porn is when someone's only looking at it instead of going out attacking females and children, and no, they're not gonna be influenced by porn to go out and attack females and kids.

I am arguing that it does hurt people, but helps no one.
Porn isn't inherently hurtful. It's only a safe means to engage in sex fantasies without doing certain sex acts that themselves may be hurtful. If someone feels hurt by porn it's only by their own choice. Nothing and no one can make anyone feel hurt by someone or something else. And how do you know it's hurt no one? Have you ever talked with each and every single person who's ever looked at it? No, so you have no idea what you're talking about here. Again, you're speaking for others that you have no place speaking for. The fact is that porn does help some people, maybe in their marriage or other relationships. Many couples view porn together and greatly enjoy it, and bring new spice to their relationship, so that's helpful to them. Not that you'd ever know about that, though.

I have yet to hear of safe sex being performed in a porn video
The Behind the Green Door sequel was the first porn video to show safe sex being performed in that people used condoms. Nowadays, if you watch one you'll see a sex act started without a condom, but sometime during that act a condom mysteriously appears! Then, when they're finished, it's just as mysteriously gone!

Uh, Peter? Don't go bashing NATO if you're trying to bash the US. Britain is a member of NATO, and was part of K-FOR.

In other words, to put it childishly, "I'm rubber and you're glue. What you say bounces off me and sticks to you."

Or perhaps, to put the above sentiment in a way that Peter will understand better...

"He among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."

Incidentally, Peter, just to get back to the very original post:

Caligula was produced by Penthouse films. How could you NOT realize it was porn?

But Adam and Eve WERE married!!!how can it be a sexual sin if they had sex while being married?!

As I've said, banning pornographic materials, while probably a very good thing, is a violation of the Constitution, and should not be done. However, I don't believe there's anything wrong with having pornography kept out of the hands of minors.

I would just like to thank Peter for being man enough to disregard the my opinion and say I'm trying to defend my collection from Peter.

It is quite the opposite really. I'd be glad to share with Peter.

As for my lack of argument, unless my nature theory was blocked out on your screen I thought I made a few points on my side.

But Adam and Eve WERE married!!!how can it be a sexual sin if they had sex while being married?!

Erm . . . are you sure of this? If they married before sex then who was the vicar? It couldn't have been one of their kids.

Gee... I don't know... could it have been G-D?

May I ask why Americans seem so attached to a constitution written a quarter of a millenium ago that cannot be terribly relevant to the modern day?

Because that way our government is limited, and our rights cannot be taken away like your were on 28 July with the stoopid RIP bill.

::For someone who does not find it that pleasurable you certainly know a lot about it. ;-):: Peter

Most things are not such that you can know they are bad without experience.

::Erm . . . are you sure of this? If they married before sex then who was the vicar? It couldn't have been one of their kids.:: Peter

Ok, the answer is that God married them since Eve was created to be a "help meet" for Adam. Sex couldn't have been a sin anyway at that time becuase they only had the rule to not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil anyway. Nothing else was prohibited.

::May I ask why Americans seem so attached to a constitution written a quarter of a millenium ago that cannot be terribly relevant to the modern day?:: Peter

The Constitution is the basis for our government and philosophy of behaving. It is the fundamental document by which all future laws are determined in the US.

::When it was written, guns were said to be a good thing for all Americans to carry in order to ensure no British invaders could take the country easily and that the Indians could not cause too much trouble. Neither is a problem now.:: Peter

Have you ever heard that laws can apply to more than one specific situation? The right to carry law that Texas, my home state, has, for example, is meant to help protect law abiding citizens from crime.

::Why not ban those guns and ban those with a criminal record from carrying them as well as ensuring no child will be able to use them?:: Peter

The individual states as well as the Federal Government of the US have such laws. Anyone who has committed a felony is not allowed to buy a hand gun or vote, as far as I know. When buying guns here there is a waiting period so a background check can be done on the buyer, that is, if that particular law has been repealed and I don't know about it.

::Why care what an outdated 225 year old document says when these things are, in your opinion, the right things to do?:: Peter

You can't just do that because you would have anarchy due to the slippery slope you would get into most likely.

::Yes but why choose to show them at their most digusting to others. Sex and pornography are not the same.:: Peter

Since pornography is not something one can define exactly, what do you personally call pornography, just for curiousity sake?

::May I ask why Americans seem so attached to a constitution written a quarter of a millenium ago that cannot be terribly relevant to the modern day?:: Peter

The Constitution is the basis for our government and philosophy of behaving. It is the fundamental document by which all future laws are determined in the US.

Thank you, Jwb, you put it much better than I did.

God married Adam and Eve, as others have already said.

I think sex is a beautiful thing, given by God for our use and enjoyment. I think it can only be properly enjoyed in the bonds of marriage, however. I don't have any particular inclination to watch pornography, and I think it's a disgusting moral wrong. As I've said, I think we should keep it out of minors hands and examine the effects of pornography. It cannot be banned at this time because it would be unconstitutional, and if you start playing ducks and drakes with the Constitution, you destroy the country. Plain and simple.

Just like to add to everyone's comments on Peter and The Constitution.

Peter, how can you question why we hang on to the backbone of our law that has served us when your country (England, right) is still attached to a king and queen that don't even serve much of a purpose anymore. That institution is much older than our young blood country and it's ancient constitution.

Second, why do we keep getting in these debates that keep ending up pretty much everyone against Peter. Seems kinda silly, no offense Peter.

>Peter, how can you question why we hang on to the backbone of our law that has served us when your country (England, right) is still attached to a king and queen that don't even serve much of a purpose anymore. That institution is much older than our young blood country and it's ancient constitution.

But the King and Queen don't matter. They're just ... there, I suppose. They don't really mean a d*mned thing. They certainly don't have anything like the power, for right or wrong, over lawmaking and the country as a whole as the Constitution *appears* to have over the US. Not that I'm taking sides here, it's just that I find this kind of thing interesting.

As a side note, what is the current ruling house? Is it the House of Windsor?

Yeah. Which is apparently the former House of Saxe-Coburgh Gotta (sp?).

Because that way our government is limited, and our rights cannot be taken away like your were on 28 July with the stoopid RIP bill.

What is the RIP bill?

Geez, why am I not surprised that I know more about his rights than he does. The RIP bill gave the Home Office (I believe) the right to demand the plaintext of any encrypted communication. Lost your encryption keys? Too bad -- 2 years in gaol for you. After all, if you're using crypto, you must have something to hide.

READ THE BLOODY NEWSPAPER, MATE!

For further information, check the USENET newsgroup talk.politics.crypto.

Warning, I'd read before posting... they don't suffer fools there...


MikeC: Yes.

That was kind of my point James B.

That his knocking the Constitution is pretty silly coming from a Country that treats a bunch of inbreed (sorry, but it is historically true) rich folks differently than the common man.

Peter,

When Americans go to war, they are incredibly incompetent - the common phrase is now "The Americans are only a threat if they are on your side".

I take a huge amount of offense at that. Have you ever met an American soldier? Do you know what they do for training? If you haven't THEN SHUT THE HELL UP!!!

As part of my job, I deal with various members of the US Armed Forces (I work for a defense contractor). Every single soldier I have met, from high brass on down to privates have been intelligent and competent. Don't talk out of your a** if you don't know what the f*** you're saying.

P.S. to the previous post. Fine, US Army vs. the British Army. Winner take all.

Well Britain has never had a written constitution and she has managed without anarchy for the last two milennia. I do not say you should throw away the constitution, but you should perhaps realise that the writers were only human and fallible and that putting such an inflexible document always before the national interest is not a good idea.

Poppycock! The Constitution, as constituted within US govt. is a living breathing document that, through application of common law, constantly evolves to meet the needs of society while maintaining safeguards through a system of checks and balances. It's a beautiful thing. And to dismiss it as an outdated piece of paper is to fundamentally misunderstand its role in US jurisprudence and government. And where there is a truly dynamic shift in society (such as the abolition of slavery), it is designed to handle it through amendments. But the fact that there's only been a need to modify it through amendments a handful of times over the past 200 years displays it's ability to accomodate the needs of society on a continuing basis.

::P.S. to the previous post. Fine, US Army vs. the British Army. Winner take all.

So you wouldn't be opposed to sending your army on a mission to subjugate an allied country? Thanks, pal. That's just great. ;-)
Right, now... Porn. As far as I can see, provided the pornography does not exceed certain standards of basic decency (no necrophillia, bestiality or any other of that kind of thing) and people have to actually pay money to get access to it, I don't consider it that big a deal. There's porn available on my TV right now, but I'm not watching it. It's out of bounds to children and people who'd be offended, being pay-per-view. That's absolutely fine as far as I'm concerned; I'm never going to have to see it, my (notional) kids'd never see it, so why should I care if it's on?
And if anything "corrupted" me, it certainly wasn't porn. The nearest thing to a corruptive force in my childhood was Joy of Knowledge, a part-work encyclopedia partly intended for schoolchildren.

May I ask why Americans seem so attached to a constitution written a quarter of a millenium ago that cannot be terribly relevant to the modern day?

Well, for one thing, it is sort of the SUPREME LAW OF OUR LAND!!!!!!!

And another, for the same reason you're so attached to a Bible written thousands of years ago which cannot be terribly relevant to the modern day.

And thanks, Jwb, you also put it pretty much the way I wanted to say it. So did Len. Just wanted to add this little part. :-)

**And another, for the same reason you're so attached to a Bible written thousands of years ago which cannot be terribly relevant to the modern day.**

Oooh! Good one Msmith! Wish I'd come up with that one!

Sorry JamesB... I got a tad carried away...

My point was that I strongly doubt that the prevailing opinion in the world is that "The Americans are only a threat if they are on your side".

I was just wondering if he really believed that the US military was *THAT* weak and incompetent...

::Actually, I completely agree with the last point. I just wish our PM did. You cannot muchk about with a country's constitution and expect it to be the same nation any more. If you could tell me for sure that your constitution leaves no room for doubt that pornography should not be banned then my mind would probably be changed.:: Peter

The US Constitution was written purposely vague to allow interpretation of laws by those like the US Supreme Court. I'm not sure if I can explain it in a way you would understand, but there's got to be a little vagueness to allow for easier modification of laws. Anyone else wanna help me clarify it if they know what I'm saying?

::Well I realise this may be strange to understand in your position, but generally Britons believe that the job of President is not to be given to one man.:: Peter

This is why we have 3 branches of government which sets up a checks and balances system to make sure no one group has more power than the rest.

::What sort of people would vote to see the Queen leave Buckingham Palace for the last time, climb in a taxi and go on to lead a normal life, after all she has done for my country? I think you'd have to be a pretty sick Englishman to want that. The monarchy works - there is no reason to change it.:: Peter

In regular terms, what purpose does a monarchy serve other than to increase bureaucracy? It seems kinda sad if a country needs a figurehead to look to in a war, for one thing.

The US constitution is probably the best system outline of a government this world has seen in a LONG LONG time. Simply because it is created for the people, by the people, and because of it's constant evolution. I am proud to live in a country where the freedoms excercised in the Bill of Rights are left untouched.

I've asked twice now for people to think logically (not religiously) about how porn affects people. And all that is said is that it's a sin, or Jesus said not to do it, or any number of things.

That's the other thing I like about the US constitution: Religion is not involved in it.

At the risk of alienating myself, it's hard to think logically, and religiously at the same time.

Oh, logically.

1. Logically, "monkey see, monkey do."

2. Logically, pornography offers nothing of benefit to the country except entertainment.

3. Logically, pornography is a poor substitute for the real act.

4. Logically, pornography is something you wouldn't want children to see.

Some of these are shaky, but they were off-the-cuff reasons.

And that's wrong: Religious freedom is guaranteed, and I'm certain the Founding Fathers, while they didn't envision a theocracy, obviously wanted to keep God in the picture--how can you explain every President being sworn in on a Bible?

I really don't want to get into a Britain vs. America debate--both Peter and Scott's comments about the American/British armies were really uncalled for.

Actually, the Constitution (as it exists now, and depending on your interpretation) may (that's may) not allow for the banning of pornography, due to the Freedom of Expression right. As I've said, we can't play ducks and drakes with it, though. If I remove the Freedom of Expression right to take out pornography, who's to say that seven years down the pike, someone will remove it to take out the Bible being printed?

The monarchy is like Strom Thurmond. Not indispensable, but a nice reminder that things are still the same.

I find the Bible darn relevant to the modern day. But I also find the Constitution extremely relevant (and essential for Christians!), and I understand your point. You can't dismiss something because it's old. However, both documents are relevant.

Oh, logically.

1. Logically, "monkey see, monkey do."

2. Logically, pornography offers nothing of benefit to the country except entertainment.

3. Logically, pornography is a poor substitute for the real act.

4. Logically, pornography is something you wouldn't want children to see.

Some of these are shaky, but they were off-the-cuff reasons.

And "no religion in the Constitution"--that's wrong: Religious freedom is guaranteed, and I'm certain the Founding Fathers, while they didn't envision a theocracy, obviously wanted to keep God in the picture--Washington was sworn in on a Bible, and Congress attended church after the inauguration. Obviously, times change, but I don't think anybody was really thinking about completely removing religion from all areas of public life.

I really don't want to get into a Britain vs. America debate--both Peter and Scott's comments about the American/British armies were really uncalled for.

Actually, the Constitution (as it exists now, and depending on your interpretation) may (that's may) not allow for the banning of pornography, due to the Freedom of Expression right. As I've said, we can't play ducks and drakes with it, though. If I remove the Freedom of Expression right to take out pornography, who's to say that seven years down the pike, someone will remove it to take out the Bible being printed?

The monarchy is like Strom Thurmond. Not indispensable, but a nice reminder that things are still the same.

I find the Bible darn relevant to the modern day. But I also find the Constitution extremely relevant (and essential for Christians!), and I understand your point. You can't dismiss something because it's old. However, both documents are relevant.

Ouch. I must applaud MSmith for that rejoinder about the Bible to Peter's bashing of the Constitution. *Round of applause sounds from the gallery*

Anyway, while I agree with Scott's sentiment about the US military, I really didn't think the cursing was necessary. We already know that Peter thinks all Americans are a bunch of idiotic and incompetent heathens with no morals or values. Thank you, move along.

I had plans to join the US military myself, and I don't consider myself weak or incompetent. Nor do I consider my biological father that either, who is an Army veteran.

If we can all watch the language and the flames, please. Not that I'm doing Mike's job or anything...

(Yes, I know he's already said something.)

Washington may have been sworn in on the bible, but that's because he believed in such things. If we had, say, a Jewish president, I doubt he'd be sworn in on the Bible.

While religion may be used in the US government, it is not PART of the US government.

Most of the same points you made about Pornographic movies can be made about Violent movies.

Monkey see, Monkey do.

Offers nothing but entertainment

Poor substitute for the real thing

Wouldn't want children to see it.

So why are violent movies more acceptable then Pornagraphic ones?

A Jewish president might be sworn in on a Bible, just not a NT. A Tanach on the other hand...

ScottN, why would it be called a Bible if it was only the Old Testament? Wouldn't some other Jewish word be used for it?

In English, it's a Bible. In Hebrew (not in "Jewish") it's called a Tanach (Torah-N'vi'im-Chatvim : Torah/Prophets/Writings).

Yet another imposter. Does anyone else find this funny?

I personally find it irritating.

I have to jump in here.
I'm not going to bother arguing if porn is right or wrong. I think that's up to the individual to decide. But I will say that I don't think the very existence of porn should be a question of legislation. Porn was around before legislation ever was and I suspect it will be long after the bastions of civilization have crumbled into the dust. Legislating it is pointless. It's make-work for beauracrats who have nothing better to do. Why bother putting into legislation laws that can't possibly be enforced? (Well, perhaps they could be enforced if we were living in George Orwell's 1984. Does that sound like a good solution, Peter?) It's a waste of time. I don't want to see police officers cracking down on people for watching smut while real criminals are out there robbing, raping and killing.
As for how "bad" porn is, I don't think it has any detrimental effects. I've probably seen more porn than the lot of you combined. Do I feel worse for it? No. I feel terrible for having seen parts of Jason Goes to Hell, which filled my mind with images that I didn't need there. But porn didn't put any images in my head THAT WEREN'T THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Does that make me a "bad" person? Does it mean I'm going to burn in the eternal fires of Hell just because God is uptight? I've never raped anyone and porn hasn't inclined me to do so. I find it to be an outlet, a form of expression, as stated above. And I don't think Peter has any business bitching about it. I do it in my own time, in my own room. I don't harm anyone by watching porn. So I wish people like Peter, people who aren't affected by it in any way at all, would keep their big mouths closed. It's none of your business. You puritans are peeking into everybody's bedrooms to make sure they're not sinning. All that does is prove that you're just as perverted as the sinners you're condemning. But you don't have an outlet for all that pent-up frustration because you think it's a sin! I feel sorry for you.
Also, Peter, think about this: To some, pornography is not a videotape put out by Penthouse. To some, pornography (or "wanking material" as it has been so adroitly put) can be a Sears catalogue (good source of material) or just the contents of a good imagination! And what are you going to do about that? Ban the Sears catalogue because it has pictures of women in it? Ban people's THOUGHTS?
I'm going to go and enjoy my hard-won freedoms now. And if anyone doesn't like it... too bad!

Outside of marriage sex is a bad thing.
Why? What's the proof of this? Why do two people of opposite sexes need a piece of paper and two metal rings to make sex legitimate? They don't. It's just an outdated, archaic notion that doesn't ring true so much anymore and certainly with not with everyone nowadays like it used to.

What left wing nonsense! How exactly can you express yourself by doing that?
Easy. When you're alone you're expressing your own pleasure to yourself. If you're with a lover (of the same or opposite sex) then you're expressing your love to them, and they to you. Or do you never masturbate now or ever have? Afraid of touching yourself? Do you get bad thoughts from it, or even just thinking of it? Why do you deny the sexuality that God gave you to enjoy? If you're denying it then you're denying God, and if you deny...Oh, yeah. I've already just said this. Well, it's a great argument for some of your views.

You are like these people who say democracy is under threat if government subisidies do not go to people who build lobster shaped telephones and beds covered in sh*t and then call it a work of art.
Hmm. So you can speak for me, tell me what I'm like without having the faintest idea of what I'm like at all, regardless of what I say on these boards? Not bloodly likely!

For someone who does not find it that pleasurable you certainly know a lot about it.
Well, I guess I've seen more with my openmindedness than you have with your closemindedness, plus I can admit it. Besides, there's nothing wrong with viewing porn in of itself.

...as I would probably enjoy shooting to death any burglar or rapist who broke into my home.
AHA! So you are pro-death after all, not pro-life as you've previously claimed. Why would you enjoy taking another person's life, even a criminal's? Sure, I'd have no sympathy for someone breaking into someone else's house and getting shot dead, but would I enjoy doing it myself? No. So if you say you'd enjoy killing someone who breaks into your house then you're absolutely worse than the abortion doctors or workers who themselves are there just to provide a legal service and who don't enjoy it. Do you know what that makes you? A HYPOCRITE, in true self-righteous religiously fanatical form. Pretty much kills all of your pro-life arguments over on the Abortion board, doesn't it?

Well Britain has never had a written constitution and she has managed without anarchy for the last two milennia.
So Britain is at least 2,000 years old? Wow. I didn't know that. Thanks for the history lesson.

All that does is prove that you're just as perverted as the sinners you're condemning. But you don't have an outlet for all that pent-up frustration because you think it's a sin! I feel sorry for you.
Don't waste your pity on these sort of people, DW. They're not worth bothering over.

P>Outside of marriage sex is a bad thing.
MN>Why? What's the proof of this? Why do two people of opposite sexes need a piece of paper and two metal rings to make sex legitimate? They don't. It's just an outdated, archaic notion that doesn't ring true so much anymore and certainly with not with everyone nowadays like it used to.

So sex outside of marriage is bad. Please go tell that to Abraham (Gen 16). It woud appear that the Bible promotes sex out of marriage, so we must ban it! Hey, don't blame me, I'm simply following your argument.

P>Well Britain has never had a written constitution and she has managed without anarchy for the last two milennia.
MN>So Britain is at least 2,000 years old? Wow. I didn't know that. Thanks for the history lesson.

Closer to about 1600 years. The Romans left Britain circa 400 CE.

I don't find violent movies acceptable either.

(another boo echos from the peanut gallery)

the Supreme court can interpret it to mean pornography is good, abortion is good, even when it does not follow from what the constitution says Just can't resist the politcal commentary, hmmm? The Supreme Court cannot act against the will of the Constitution, as quite honestly the Supreme Court ultimately decides what the Constitution means. The Court historically moves cautiously in these matters. And in this country the Court has not ruled pornography good or bad, or abortion good or bad they have ruled them both Constitutional. The Court does not make moral decisions, although their decisions do touch on moral issues.

It's been fun watching this debate go. I studied in grad school under a feminist scholar and her office was filled with books by people like Andrea Dworkin, who quite honestly is borderline obsessive about the evils of pornography. I remain where I usually am on these sorts of issues. Does it harm others? Can pornography been shown to have harmed others? Just because sexual predators are attracted to pornography does that mean pornography causes sexual predation or simple that if you're a sexual predator of course you're going to seek out sexual material?

I don't know the evidence either way for any of these questions. To be honest, I've seen research that clearly shows both. That almost always means more research is needed. It's all well and good to say "pornography causes a Ted Bundy" or "pornography prevents more Ted Bundys" but until you find the peer-reviewed research to back up that claim that's all it is.

I know, science in a religious thread. But really if you object to pornography on religious grounds there's no real argument there, is there? So you object. I respect that. I also live in a country where your personal religious views are irrelevant to me.

Thanks Mark. I suspect there is a relation between sexual predation and pornography. The question becomes then, is it a CAUSAL relationship? That is, does reading porn cause one to become a predator, or do predators simply tend to view more porn.

Consider this: Anyone who eats pickles is going to die. Therefore pickles cause death. There is definitely an error in this logic. There is a relationship, but it is not causal.

But during the Roman occupation the Roman system of government controlled the local tribes and made them select governors and such that would follow orders from Rome.

It wasn't an independent country during the Roman Occupation.

::The trouble is that it means the Supreme court can interpret it to mean pornography is good, abortion is good, even when it does not follow from what the constitution says.:: Peter

One must take the bad of a situation with the good of it.

::What is wrong with a national leader who is above politics?:: Peter

Nothing as long as you put no real value as a leader in that person, more than an emotional liking. A government leader cannot lead if they are not involved in the government. Thereby they are not a government leader, but a figurehead. It's just unnecessary in that way.

::So sex outside of marriage is bad. Please go tell that to Abraham (Gen 16). It woud appear that the Bible promotes sex out of marriage, so we must ban it! Hey, don't blame me, I'm simply following your argument.:: ScottN

There are things, according to probably almost every Christian religion, that were only allowed in the Old Testament for the purposes of populating the planet after the flood, for one example, even though that's not what you were talking about, that were done away with by the time of the New Testament. The purpose of the allowing it was completed.

Oh, so the US existed before 1776?

Britain, as an independent unified monarchy, did not exist as such until the mid 400s. I will stand my ground on that.

Genesis 16 is the story of Abraham and Hagar's relationship, which is portrayed as BAD.

Ohhhh...I'm now a paranoid heathen with no morals and no values. Sorry, not taking over Matthew's job. Look elsewhere.

I am not making accusations or implications, Peter. That's exactly how you treat Americans. And Japanese. And French. And Arabs. And anyone else who doesn't fit into your little rose coloured world.

I wouldn't be talking about superiority complexes, if I were you. It's a bad thing for the pot to call the kettle black.

Oh my God! Peter has opened my eyes! Everything that deviates from the norm is WRONG!

From now on, I will advocate hatred towards the following deviants.

People who don;t like sci-fi
Religous people
People are are not overwieght
People who use the word bugger

That's all for now. More defects will be listed later.

Peter: In case you weren't noticing, I was attempting to show how ridiculous your opinion that anything that devaites from "the norm" is bad.

To Everyone: I regret to infrom you that I will be leaving again. Not due to the offensie that Peter has caused me, but because of time. You see, where I work, a large portion of our employeess are in school. As a result, I've been given extra hours and inconvenient shifts to make up for their lost time. As a result, I have to bail out on many of my regular activities. I've given up my daily game of X-Men vs. Street Fighter at a local arcade, as well as leaving religous Musings. I mean, with SO many posts a day, how can anything less than a superhuman keep up with it all? I've also had to drop out of several role-playing campaigns. Hopefully when summer starts again you'll see me back here, with fresh arguments to to Peter's stances, but until then, I bid you adieu.

Re: My post on the RIP (6 Sept)

Peter,

You can find out more about the RIP (Regulation of Investigatory Powers) Bill here.

*Holds up a hand, and starts ticking things off* Japanese are sadistic and savage. Americans are incompetent and less than intelligent. French are immoral adulterers. Non-Christian societies are without value, and just plain wrong. Americans should kill themselves off because Vermont legalised civil unions. Any society that supports a woman's choice, even if the religion does not believe in life at conception, is hedonistic and promiscuous. Anyone who is pro-choice is a murderer. The American government is also screwy because it's wrong to believe in the Constitution (it's so irrelevant in today's modern society), but it also does not support only the Bible (because it's older than the Constitution, but somehow is relevant). Our President is a left wing liberal. We are a bunch of capitalist pigs.

You're right; dunno what I was thinking. It's not like you're performing your own online version of a witch hunt or anything.

Maybe he was a witch hunter in a past life in colonial America, MJ. You know, like maybe one of them extremely religious preachers who saw evil in practically everything, and condoned so many "sins" while secretly committing more than a few themselves.

Japanese were sadistic and savage during World War Two. I see no evidence of that any more.
I'm sure they were also sadistic and savage prior to WWII. It didn't just pop up in the last fifty years. Unless we all carry some strange sadism DNA?

Generation X of Americans is not perfect (I was not 100% serious about the rest of what I said, but bombing innocent people hundreds of times is not particularly competent).
Oh, and of course, everyone else is sooooooo perfect.

The French have more adulterers than any other country (which is why they have their reputation).
Why you care about how the French enjoy their extramarital affairs is really beyond me. It's not like I saw Dmitri, and just said to myself, "He's an adulterous Frenchman!"

Non Christian societies are better than secular societies, and have a great deal of value, though some are wrong to do things like legalise polygamy.
Says who?

If Americans decide to kill each other off state by state then they should do it in reverse alphabetical order (you know this was a joke, Machiko, you put LOL on your response).
Because you apparently thought I lived in Vermont, when I live in a state at the beginning of the alphabet.

Any society that requires a huge proportion of the population to commit abortion every year is promiscuous and hedonistic (the US and UK certainly qualify).
Again, says who?

Anyone who commits abortion has killed their living baby boy or girl.
Prove it's murder, by secular reasoning.

The decisions of the Supreme Court should not be put before the national interest, but where the constitution is clear, what was written should be upheld.
Uh-huh. And that's why it is irrelevant hundreds of years later in this more modern society?

The Bible sets out moral values that have civilised this planet. Morality cannot change over time and so there will never be a year when "Thou Shalt Not Steal" is wrong, in which case the Bible will still be relevant in a million years time.
Of course, pre-Bible times were all filled with savages who never thought murder or theft was wrong then.

Your President is a left-wing liberal, and an adulterous cruel one without conscience, too.
Opinions, opinions. He's a better choice than Dubya.

The last sentence I cannot defend against because I do not believe it. It would make no sense for me to say that; I love capitalism.
But capitalism is evil!

Why these views make me anti-American or racist I do not know.
Gee, I don't know either.

Conservative views = medieval witch-hunter reincarnated as self-loathing gay/egomaniac straight.

Mark2 never said medieval. He said colonial. Wrong time frame there, bud.

See Everyone! Orginized religion has killed this man! When he was a child they probably made him read te bible at age two, and baptised him before he had the choice to believe. I feel for that lttle boy inside of him crying let me out Peter, which peter shoves back inside. Oh well.....
By the way, I think that the equation is more like this: Demanding childhood+Brainwashing=foolish guy who cannnot regard anything that isn't right-wing propaganda, or in hatred of those who don't share his beliefs. Sounds like a familiar fellow to me. I dare not mention his name. Only I will say this:Sieg Heil! But I geuss I could be wrong. He could be doing this purly for the laughs, and to ruffle our feathers.
Now If you'll excuse me. I have to try to find some shelter from peter's impending nuclear shockwave of nonsense, and I have to d some moderating. Those Mst3K fans. you just never know what wacky mental meanderings they might come up with next.

(The Haunting Torgo Theme plays as the moderator has absolutely no idea how to respond to the latest insult fest)

This moderator knows how to respond. I don't know what you expect to hear from other people, Peter, when you post deliberately inflammatory opinions. While no one should be attacking anyone else's character, it's no wonder that there is a series of posts violently disagreeing with Peter's opinions, as his opinions are put in such a way to draw fire.

Put a big target on your back, someone will shoot at it.

Peter: Why do we call you evil? If it lloks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck...

Peter: Why do we call you evil? If it lloks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck...

Who is this we? I've never once called Peter evil. Misguided, yes. Underinformed, yes. But never evil. That's a word everyone could do well not to throw around too lightly. Otherwise, it becomes meaningless.

Believe me Brian, worrying about Peters visciousness about your friends and family doesn't get you anywhere. Believe me, I know.He is just a product of his brainwashing,(as stated above, that's my latest theory,).

Reminds me of that old Kids in the Hall sketch with Kevin MacDonald and Dave Foley. "Eeevil! Eeevil!"

I have never heard Peter say he was a Christian. I have him heard reference God, morality, and the Bible, none of which guarantee Christianity. From his comments on Political Musings, I took him not to be a Christian.

Brian and Wes: while I understand why Peter is rallying the forces against him--yes, Virginia, those are inflammatory posts you post, Peter--it's beyond foolish to take personally the comments by an anonymous stranger online. Criminey, I'm never likely to meet Peter, or anyone who knows Peter. While I'll counter his arguments when I disagree with them (so far every time, a new record for me) it's just plain silly to be personally offended.

Just photons on glass, folks.

Who is Virginia?

Virginia was a little girl near the turn of the century who wrote a letter to the New York Sun asking whether or not there was a Santa Claus. (Other kids had told her there wasn't, and she wanted to find out for sure.) Nobody there knew quite how to handle it, so it got passed down to people in lower and lower positions, eventually hitting the guy that delivered the mail. He wrote a response ending in the now-immortal line, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He lives in the hearts and minds of all who believe." (Or something. I'm kinda fuzzy on the second sentence.)

And that, children, is what class is like when the English teacher runs out of things to do before Christmas.

Japanese were sadistic and savage during World War Two.
Again, your wording makes it sound like you mean the entire country of Japan, instead of just the military at that time.

Non Christian societies are better than secular societies...
Um, you DO realize that this sort of contradicts itself, don't you? "Non-Christian" and "secular" are pretty much the same, or damned similiar, at least. If'n ya don't believe me, then just look up secular here.

Any society that requires a huge proportion of the population to commit abortion every year is promiscuous and hedonistic (the US and UK certainly qualify).
Speak for your own country. The US doesn't require anyone to get abortions. We just legalized the right for women to choose and get an abortion. There's a huge difference. Look into it.

Anyone who commits abortion has killed their living baby boy or girl.
According to whom? This is just a matter of opinion, and what makes one opinion any more or less valid than another?

Conservative views = medieval witch-hunter reincarnated as self-loathing gay/egomaniac straight.
You've really got a nasty habit of taking things everyone says here the wrong way, Dick. I mean, Peter. Will you please, just once, stop reading into our posts what isn't there, ok?

I disagree with the idea that all religious societies are better than all secular societies. The U.S. is secular in its government, as opposed to, say, India and I know which one is more prosperous, and which one is so poor every flood kills thousands of people trapped in shanty apartments.

It isn't just an opinion; it is a fact. It is science. The unborn child is a living creature. Killing him or her is murdering a baby.

Show us the <Morgan-speak>peer-reviewed scientific research that says this, then.</Morgan-speak>

MikeC: Some of these are shaky, but they were off-the-cuff reasons.

Okay, first of all, Spornan asked how porn affects people. He never asked for "reasons." (reasons for what, I don’t know. Reasons why it should be banned?) But let’s go with it anyway...

MikeC: Logically, pornography offers nothing of benefit to the country except entertainment.

This implies that anything legal should have a benefit to the "country," which is absurd. Things can have benefit to an individual. A plastic cup that I drink water from doesn’t benefit "the country," it benefits me. A rusty old metal canister sitting in the street has nothing of benefit to offer the country. We simply throw it away or recycle it. We don’t ban it. I don't see why something has to be so grand in scope to be legal. Also, why do you phrase it in such a way to imply that entertainment isn’t enough? Violent movies have no benefit to the country. Pauly Shore movies have no benefit to the country. Hell, movies in general have no benefit to "the country." They’re around because people enjoy them.

Logically, pornography is a poor substitute for the real act.

Putting aside the fact that this is a matter of opinion (one which I admit I share), especially if you’re in prison, or so embittered by failed relationships that you’ve sworn off relationships (at least for the time being), again, you’re using the Astroturf logic that anything that is a used a substitute (poor or otherwise) for something more desirable should be banned. I think veggie-burgers are a poor substitute for the real thing. Does that mean we should ban veggie-burgers?

Logically, pornography is something you wouldn't want children to see

So is sex. Does that mean we should ban sex when we can simply close the bedroom door? On a similar note, can’t we simply do with pornography what we already do? Namely, restrict it to adults?

All your "off the cuff" reasons aren’t logical at all. According to your logic, we should ban anything that doesn’t offer some huge, nation-wide benefit, is a poor substitute for something else, or want to keep away from children, which is silly. We ban things that are HARMFUL, Mike. It’s called the Clear and Present Danger Clause to the First Ammendment. Maybe you’ve heard of it. Yes, I know some of you might want to get all smart alecky and say airplanes are harmful when they crash and knives when used to stab people, but obviously, those things are not inherently dangerous when restricted to their intended purpose,and it’d be impossible to ban all such things that have a dangerous application. As far as the notion that pornography is harmful because it causes sex crimes, there is no evidence to that effect, and what evidence there is indicates it’s not true.

MikeC: And "no religion in the Constitution"--that's wrong: Religious freedom is guaranteed, and I'm certain the Founding Fathers, while they didn't envision a theocracy, obviously wanted to keep God in the picture--Washington was sworn in on a Bible, and Congress attended church after the inauguration. Obviously, times change, but I don't think anybody was really thinking about completely removing religion from all areas of public life.

Luigi Novi: And what exaclty do you think these things imply? I wouldn’t infer much from mere tradition and custom in and of itself. Besides, the religiousness of the Founding Fathers has been grossly exaggerated. Washington, contrary to the myth propagated by Parson Weems (the same dude who came up with the cherry tree story), wasn’t a Christian. He was a Deist. According to historian Paul F. Boller, While he did believe in religion as a basis for morality, he didn’t believe in conventional Christianity. He was not given to praying on his knees nor to referring to Jesus in public or in private, nor did he take communion. Freemasonry was more important to him than religion (as it was to many leaders of that time), because it offered a surrogate religion complete with ritual, mystery, and fellowship but "without the enthusiasm and sectarian bigotry of organized religion."
---Similarly, Thomas Jefferson called himself a "Unitarian," while Ben Franklin said, "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." A lot of people are under the impression that these guys were devoutly Christian, which they were not, and that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation, which it simply was not. So would you still want religion in the Constitution or "public life" if it were a religion other than Christianity, Mike?

Outside of marriage sex is a bad thing.

So do you feel Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn are going to hell? Or do you see their relationship as similar to commonlaw marriage?

MikeC: I don't find violent movies acceptable either.

Luigi Novi: So we should ban them? And what about Pauly Shore movies? Or Adam Sandler movies? They have no "national benefit." Should we ban them?

Mark Morgan: I don't know the evidence either way for any of these questions. To be honest, I've seen research that clearly shows both. That almost always means more research is needed. It's all well and good to say "pornography causes a Ted Bundy" or "pornography prevents more Ted Bundys" but until you find the peer-reviewed research to back up that claim that's all it is.

Luigi Novi: There’s been plenty of research into the subject, and the only bit of it that supposedly says pornography causes aggression is usually from organizations that already believe this, and set out to confirm it, rather than look at from a dispassionate, unbiased point of view.

Luigi, I've never been in favor of banning pornography in the first place. My reasons were "reasons why porn is useless or harmful." They are pretty shoddy reasons--as I said, they were off-the-cuff.

The entertainment thing shows that first, porn does not have anything BENEFICIAL to the country, meaning it is not essential, and thus can be limited, regulated, and studied without problems. I don't think that everything must be beneficial and essential to be legal--I do think there must be a point. Something that's just pure entertainment but is harmful to people (the effects of porn) must be at least regulated, and possibly banned.

The substitution thing is also like the above. The very nature of porn is watching sex, primarily, or at least nudity. There are obscenity laws in some states (they are rarely enforced). This was more of a lead-in...

You're absolutely right on the child thing. AND THAT PROVES MY POINT! I am not in favor of banning pornography--I am STRONGLY in favor of keeping it out of the hands of kids, something THAT IS NOT DONE IN THIS COUNTRY.

I've yet to see a well-rounded examination of pornography's effects on people. I've heard things from conservatives that say it does, and I've heard things from liberals that say it does not. My main point is that if you grow up in a house filled with rampart violence and sex, according to some social theories, you will be more inclined to live a life with violence and sex. Why, then, do we allow children to watch unlimited amounts of violence and sex?

Washington at the very least was a strongly religious man. I've heard people say he was a deist. I've heard people argue that he was a Christian (Anglican). Jefferson, yes, he was a deist.

I've never wanted Christianity or any other religion in government. That's why we have religious freedom and separation of church and state. But we don't throw the baby away from the bathwater. Religion, all religions, have an influence on society, and I'm certain that they were always intended to.

Kurt and Goldie, aside from making a lot of bad movies, yes, I think they're sinning. I don't know about their spiritual state, so I don't want to comment about their eternal destination. But common-law marriage seems a lot of bull to me.

I don't find violent movies acceptable. That's me personally speaking, just to prove that I'm not a hypocrite, as people at the time were trying to make me appear to be. And just as with porn, I think we should regulate violent films and television and video games as well. However, just as with anything, it's really up to parents.

I also really don't appreciate having my comments taken completely out of context, and having it appear that I was in favor of banning pornography. Read the comment that follows after my "logical reasons."

What I am in favor of is high regulations that keep porn out of the hands of minors (under 21, in my opinion); an objective, public study on the effects of pornography; and action taken if it proves that pornography has a harmful influence on people. Right now, I'm not in favor of banning it because you can never totally eradicate it anyway.

What I am in favor of is high regulations that keep porn out of the hands of minors (under 21, in my opinion)

So you can vote for President and get sent to die in a Godforsaken place in Southeast Asia that doesn't want you there, but God forbid you see naked women and drink beer.

Sorry, but I think that would make the situation worse, rather than better. I personally we ought to just make 17 the standard minimum age for everything - driving, voting, the draft, legal posession of porn, and drinking. It would at least be consistent.

These are my ideal ages.

Driving: age 16 (makes sense)
Voting: age 18 (you've received a high school education--you understand stuff--you also have two years to vote before the Army can ship you off)
Draft, Porn, Drink: age 21 (these are big things that require maturity [not that driving and voting aren't, but they're a little more important]

Um, I'd actually say that driving requires more responsibility and maturity than anything except possibly the draft. I mean, you're in control of a two-ton brick hurtling through the air at speeds of up to 70 miles per hour, capable of reducing anything you run over to a fine paste. You've got to be in full and total control of yourself at all times, otherwise someone (possibly you, possibly not) is going to get hurt.

On the other hand, pornography cannot directly affect anyone other than the person who watches it, and unless you're into something *really* bizarre, it also doesn't lead to something like 40,000 deaths per month. Unlike driving.

Ideally, I wouldn't have a draft at all. Seems like an all-volunteer military would be many times more efficient.

VOTING requires less maturity than porn or draft? I don't think so, Tim....

Well, the draft, yeah! I figure you have to be mature enough to not let the country get beat by the Cubans. Porn also requires maturity, in my opinion. Maturity to realize that this is all fake, and should not be copied in real life. And from what I've seen of most teenagers, they don't quite have that level of maturity.

I agree, Matthew, that driving requires responsibilty. But we at least have driver's education now, at least in my state a plan that gradually gives more responsibilities to the young driver, and there are teenagers that need a car before age 21. On other hand, there is no "porn education" (except for sex ed, which isn't mandatory), and it is not essential to have before age 21.

An all-volunteer military is great on paper, but what happens if nobody joins?

MikeC: The entertainment thing shows that first, porn does not have anything BENEFICIAL to the country, meaning it is not essential, and thus can be limited, regulated, and studied without problems.

No, things that present a clear and present danger of harm are "limted or regulated," not things that merely does not have anything "beneficial" to the country. You state that your reasons are shoddy, yet you repeat them here. (Or are you merely trying to clarify your previous post, and don’t literally believe such a thing now? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, Mike.)

Porn is regulated because our society is very unenlightened when it comes to children and sex, and feels that for children to get their information on sex from porn might be harmful (which I don't entirely disagree with), not because it has nothing "beneficial."

Mike C: The substitution thing is also like the above.

Luigi Novi: I’m afraid I don’t follow. What do you mean by "substitution"?

MikeC: There are obscenity laws in some states…

Luigi Novi: And they are utterly draconian, unconstitutional and I despise the unenlightened trash that has no understanding of personal freedom or the basic human right to expression and privacy, and creates and enforces such laws.

MikeC: (they are rarely enforced).

Luigi Novi: Depends on your definition of "rarely." The media simply doesn’t report such things. They didn’t report the Planet Comics case in Oklahoma City where two store owners where arrested merely for displaying adult comics FOR ADULTS in their store, and lost their business, their livelihood, their life savings, years of their lives, (and in the case of one of them) their marriage, just because some self-appointed moralista from the Religious Reich took it upon themselves to target them. The media also didn’t report the Mike Diana case in Florida, where a guy who made some amateur comic book, Boiled Angel, filled with sex and violence, which he photocopied and gave out only to friends, was arrested and charged with a whole shitload of bogus charges, after he was set up by someone (an ADULT, not a minor) who ASKED for a copy. It was a amateurishly drawn thing, and because it included cherubs (which the TPTB decided qualified it as child pornography), he was not only convicted, his sentence included taking an ethics in journalism class (even though he’s not a journalist, the book was not a news piece, and he never slandered nor libeled any real person), he has to register with local police as a SEX OFFENDER!, he can’t have contact with kids (despite the fact that he was never accused by anyone of a sex offense), and—get this—is FORBIDDEN TO DRAW anything with nudity IN THE PRIVACY OF HIS HOME!!! The police have the right to enter his home and see what he’s drawing, and if he so much as draws, for example, a nude model, he’s back in jail.

I don’t know how rare it is, Mike, but these two cases ALONE were a travesty, and I’m outraged that such a thing occurred in this country in this day and age. I don’t care if it’s two cases or two hundred (and it’s probably more than that latter anyway).

MikeC: You're absolutely right on the child thing. AND THAT PROVES MY POINT! I am not in favor of banning pornography--I am STRONGLY in favor of keeping it out of the hands of kids, something THAT IS NOT DONE IN THIS COUNTRY.

Luigi Novi: Perhaps then I misunderstood what you said above about banning things "not beneficial." Perhaps you could clarify with examples.

MikeC: I've yet to see a well-rounded examination of pornography's effects on people. I've heard things from conservatives that say it does, and I've heard things from liberals that say it does not.

Luigi Novi: Perhaps I’m biased, but the studies I’ve read about seem fairly clear, and besides, the notion that porn causes aggression defies logic and reason. You’d think Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione, Larry Flynt and Al Goldstein would’ve been accused by now of multiple counts of rape if this were true. I’ve seen plenty of porn, and I’ve never raped, attacked, or harassed women. I was disgusted when I saw a story on a network newsmagazine (Primtime Live or Dateline, I guess, maybe 20/20?) featuring a woman who videotaped how men on the street constantly harass her with lewd remarks. I’m not like that. So if there is a causal relationship between porn and behavior, the evidence I see suggests we should have more of it.
I’ve heard the guys who use porn actually tend to be the guys who have the most favorable views on feminism and women’s rights. I’m probably in that lot myself.

MikeC: My main point is that if you grow up in a house filled with rampart violence and sex, according to some social theories, you will be more inclined to live a life with violence and sex. Why, then, do we allow children to watch unlimited amounts of violence and sex?

Luigi Novi: Agreed.

MikeC: Washington at the very least was a strongly religious man. I've heard people say he was a deist. I've heard people argue that he was a Christian (Anglican).

Luigi Novi: He was a member of the Episcopalian Church, according to pages 362-366 of James W, Loewen’s book, Lies Across America What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong.

MikeC: I've never wanted Christianity or any other religion in government. That's why we have religious freedom and separation of church and state. But we don't throw the baby away from the bathwater. Religion, all religions, have an influence on society, and I'm certain that they were always intended to.

Luigi Novi: Again, I need clarification. What, in the religion-in-government question, is the metaphorical baby, and what’s the bathwater? That idiom is properly used (as I understand it) to represent coming up with a solution to a problem that eliminates both the undesired element (not the poster) and ones that are NOT undesired, kinda like the phrase "scorched earth." So what is the problem, and what is the UNDESIRED thing that you don’t want religion to be thrown out with?

As far as that fact that religions always intended to have an affect on society, I’m not sure what you mean by this, or what you feel this fact means. Sorry, if I’m being repeatedly obtuse here, but the metaphor seems kind of vague. Yeah, religion wants to have an affect on society (anyone who promotes ANY idea wants their idea to affect society in some way). So what effect do you feel religion should have, particularly vis a vis atheists and agnostics in society?

MikeC: Kurt and Goldie, aside from making a lot of bad movies, yes, I think they're sinning. I don't know about their spiritual state, so I don't want to comment about their eternal destination. But common-law marriage seems a lot of bull to me.

If they love one another and are in a committed relationship (theirs is an rare example of a Hollywood couple whose relationship seems long-lasting), how is that sinning? If they aren’t religious, how can it be sin? Marriage today is legally formalized with nothing more than a piece of paper. Where was Adam and Eve’s marriage license written on? Perhaps you feel vows given by a priest are more important, but then would you argue an atheist or agnostic couple have to seek out a priest in order to be together? A given act has to be harmful to someone, or to perhaps society in order to be wrong, and I see no harm in two people in a loving relationship, simply because they don’t have a couple of rings on their fingers or a paper filed in a courthouse.

MikeC: I don't find violent movies acceptable. That's me personally speaking, just to prove that I'm not a hypocrite, as people at the time were trying to make me appear to be. And just as with porn, I think we should regulate violent films and television and video games as well. However, just as with anything, it's really up to parents.

Luigi Novi: Makes sense. I’m curious though, as to what regulations you feel should be administered for video games, especially ones in arcades and other venues that kids frequent without their parents.

MikeC: I also really don't appreciate having my comments taken completely out of context, and having it appear that I was in favor of banning pornography. Read the comment that follows after my "logical reasons."

Luigi Novi: Sorry. I ususally review posts that I want to respond to, but I guess in my zeal, I might’ve missed it. I have to admit, though, I still do find some of your comments unclear, as I’ve stated in this post.

MikeC: What I am in favor of is high regulations that keep porn out of the hands of minors (under 21, in my opinion)…

These are my ideal ages.

Driving: age 16 (makes sense)
Voting: age 18 (you've received a high school education--you understand stuff--you also have two years to vote before the Army can ship you off)
Draft, Porn, Drink: age 21 (these are big things that require maturity [not that driving and voting aren't, but they're a little more important]

Luigi Novi: This sounds reasonable on its face, but under closer scrutiny and deliberation, some questions pop up in my mind. What about the basic age of legal adulthood? You left out sex. And marriage. Should people have to wait until they’re 21, or is 18 okay? (I assume you feel it should be 21, because it makes no sense to argue one should be 18 to have sex, but 21 to view pornography. And if you do feel this way, do you feel marriage should also be legal only at 21? I assume so, since again, it makes little sense to say you can get married at 17 (16 in some states I think), have sex at 18, but not view pornography until 21.

Ultimately, any of these age limitations (not just yours, Mike, but even the ones we have now) are barely enough to address issues of maturity, because maturity and age don’t translate into one another. There are people well over 21 that should not drive or drink, and the apathy shown by so many at Election Day shows people are too dumb to even know how important voting is, let alone be old enough to be allowed to do so.
---I also find the manner in which these proposed age laws of yours address the effects of minors doing different inappropriate things to be a bit odd. A sixteen year old flipping through his dad’s copy of Playboy is far less dangerous than a sixteen year old whose never driven a car and decides to steal his dad’s car and go for a joyride.

MikeC: …an objective, public study on the effects of pornography; and action taken if it proves that pornography has a harmful influence on people. Right now, I'm not in favor of banning it because you can never totally eradicate it anyway.

Luigi Novi: Sounds good to me.

ScottN: VOTING requires less maturity than porn or draft? I don't think so, Tim....

Luigi Novi: Yeah, I think voting is a serious thing. Now if only they can make a similar law for people running for President, perhaps one requiring basic language skills...

MikeC: An all-volunteer military is great on paper, but what happens if nobody joins?

Luigi Novi: You don’t go to war, period. If there aren’t enough people in the country impassioned enough about their government’s policies to fight in a given war, then to me, that means the country doesn’t want the war, and Congress should take heed of that. They are, after all, supposed to reflect the will of the people.

Besides, we have an all-volunteer military now, don’t we? Is there any shortage of personnel?

No there isn't. But we're not at war now. That's why there's a draft--to ensure we have an army in case of sudden attack (World War II, anyone?).

Luigi, let me try to clarify. My reasons are shoddy; I was just trying to clarify some of my positions. Basically, at this time, porn is not a clear and present danger. I would like a study to see if it is any sort of danger--an objective one. Since it is just entertainment, and entertainment at this time is regulated by the government or other third-party sources (movies, TV, music), it must be regulated, and kept out of the hands of minors, in my opinion. There is nothing in pornography that is essential or beneficial (as we have both agreed) that minors need to be viewing.

The Mike Diana case was indeed a travesty--although I could get someone I know in a lot of hot water. Wink wink. The Planet Comics case is different--if there are state obscenity laws, then these people were clearly breaking them. If you don't like the laws, vote 'em out of existence, don't break them now.

I don't ban things that aren't beneficial. I limit and regulate them. For instance, movies aren't beneficial--I thus have no qualms about keeping young kids out of R-rated and NC-17 films. Sex education is beneficial--I would heavily promote having this taught to minors (not the kind of sex ed they have today, mind you).

My feelings on porn are not that they cause aggression or sexual violence in people that don't normally show it. My feelings are that they increase it gradually in people that already show those feelings. And, of course, you don't have to view porn to have those problems--I know a few people, sans porn, that are lewd and crude on their own.

The "baby from the bathwater" thing is like this. In our country, we keep religion separate from the government--benefiting both parties (that's the bathwater part). Some people have interpreted this to mean that religion should have no bearing at all in public society. I don't believe that at all (that's the baby part). Sorry if I mixed metaphors.

People should not be afraid to have religion be a part of their public lives. In school, teachers are paranoid about mentioning religion. No, we shouldn't have mandatory school prayer or forced Bible study. But why not an intelligent discussion about religion? In TIME magazine the other day, I saw a letter blast John Ashcroft for having Bible studies at the Justice Department, saying it would affect how he promotes people. I don't agree with that at all. In workplaces, religion has been banned from discussion. Why?

Regarding marriage, I don't believe that a "priest" (Catholic version of said priest) has any power. According to the Bible, all believers are all priests. I see your point about technicalities, but marriage in the Christian community is more than just a piece of paper. It's an expression of commitment, love for the spouse and God, and is a living vow. But wait--what about the agnostics and atheists? Well, it's really petty to talk about sins with them, isn't it? They don't believe in sin. That sort of expresses how things are, and you're right, for non-Christians, there is nothing really important about the piece of paper that is a marriage license. That is why I believe you will never get a non-Christian to agree that something is a sin unless that person becomes a Christian (i.e. accepts Jesus Christ). Do you understand?

I'm fine on how video games are regulated today. Arcade games should just be supervised so that totally inappropriate games aren't being played by really young kids.

I totally agree on your comment on ages. There are a lot of just plain dumb folks that I would never want driving, voting, defending our country, drinking, or looking at "Playboy." We don't have a perfect society, we never will. Just look at all those people that complained about Dubya being President. One person I met complained about it, and then admitted he and his friends didn't vote. DUH!

21's my ideal age for marriage, sex, and porn (maybe lower porn to 18 or 19). Ain't gonna happen though.

If you don't like the laws, vote 'em out of existence, don't break them now.

I'd like to vote to remove certain of my State and Federal laws (*cough*DMCA*cough). How do I do this?

Seriously, I think you're a bit naive and idealistic here (which may not be a bad thing). But by your argument, MLK should have worked through the system (voted the laws out) to remove Jim Crow laws. Sometimes it doesn't work, especially when the politicians are corrupt or bought (MY OPINION -- especially re DMCA), or trying to win brownie points (blue laws).

There's a big difference between MLK and people selling adult comics.

Also, Scott, I guess I am rather idealistic, which probably isn't a good thing for a Christian. Or is it?

MikeC: The Planet Comics case is different--if there are state obscenity laws, then these people were clearly breaking them. If you don't like the laws, vote 'em out of existence, don't break them now.

Luigi Novi: One of the forms of civil disobedience to break them. Such laws are themselves an obscenity. Besides, I’m sure you’ve heard you’re share of "silly laws" that people compile in books and articles for humorous purposes, many of which are still on the books. Should me and my wife or girlfriend abstain from oral sex, even in the privacy of our own home if we happen to live in a state with anti-sodomy laws? The obscenity laws are bullsh*t. The cops who arrested those two guys, and the prosecutors who persecuted them should be taken out and shot in public.

MikeC: I don't ban things that aren't beneficial. I limit and regulate them.

Luigi Novi: No, you don’t. You limit and regulate things that are potentially HARMFUL. Semantics, perhaps, but true. For a child to see a certain R-rated, NC-17-rated or X-rated movie could be HARMFUL. That’s why we don’t let them see them, not because they’re "not beneficial." Donuts have no nutritional value. They are of no benefit to the country. They aren’t regulated or limited, at least not the by law. The law simply takes no view on donuts at all.

MikeC: Regarding marriage, I don't believe that a "priest" (Catholic version of said priest) has any power. According to the Bible, all believers are all priests. I see your point about technicalities, but marriage in the Christian community is more than just a piece of paper. It's an expression of commitment, love for the spouse and God, and is a living vow.

Luigi Novi: So if Kurt and Goldie have expressed their love and commitment to one another, why is it wrong?

MikeC: But wait--what about the agnostics and atheists? Well, it's really petty to talk about sins with them, isn't it? They don't believe in sin.

Luigi Novi: I’m sure they believe in right and wrong, Mike.

MikeC: That is why I believe you will never get a non-Christian to agree that something is a sin unless that person becomes a Christian (i.e. accepts Jesus Christ).

Luigi Novi: You seem to be focusing on the technical definition and origin of the word "sin." I’m not. I’m simply using the generic concept of right and wrong. Obviously, if an organization with rules says this act is a sin, then it is. What I’m asking is why you think Kurt and Goldie’s union, such as it is, is wrong.

MikeC: I'm fine on how video games are regulated today. Arcade games should just be supervised so that totally inappropriate games aren't being played by really young kids.

Luigi Novi: Which ones do you feel are inappropriate?

MikeC: 21's my ideal age for marriage, sex, and porn (maybe lower porn to 18 or 19)

Luigi Novi: Aha.

MikeC: There's a big difference between MLK and people selling adult comics.

Luigi Novi: Why? I feel I have the right to sell whatever I want to to consenting adults. Telling me I can’t sell a vibrator, a copy of The Tin Drum, or Huck Finn is just plain wrong, period. If you don’t want to read Morbus Gravis or Cherry Poptart, fine. What give you the right to tell me I can’t read it? And what happens when mainstream comics like Elfquest, or Spawn, which are not adult comics, but have adult themes are targeted (which they have)? An issue of Elfquest featured a character giving birth, and it wasn’t very explicit, but someone thought it was pornographic.

Mike, why do you feel that a believe in freedom of expression and the right to privacy and read or view what I want to is any less important than the right to be treated equally under the law?

The Planet Comics case is different--if there are state obscenity laws, then these people were clearly breaking them. If you don't like the laws, vote 'em out of existence, don't break them now. MikeC

Seriously, I think you're a bit naive and idealistic here (which may not be a bad thing). But by your argument, MLK should have worked through the system (voted the laws out) to remove Jim Crow laws. Sometimes it doesn't work, especially when the politicians are corrupt or bought (MY OPINION -- especially re DMCA), or trying to win brownie points (blue laws). ScottN

One of the forms of civil disobedience to break them. Such laws are themselves an obscenity. Besides, I?m sure you?ve heard you?re share of "silly laws" that people compile in books and articles for humorous purposes, many of which are still on the books. Should me and my wife or girlfriend abstain from oral sex, even in the privacy of our own home if we happen to live in a state with anti-sodomy laws? The obscenity laws are bullsh*t. The cops who arrested those two guys, and the prosecutors who persecuted them should be taken out and shot in public. Luigi Novi

There are always two ways to react to a law you disagree with. Comply with it until you manage to change it, or ignore it. But if you ignore it, you should be prepared for the consequences. True followers of Passive Resistance, like MLK, St. Paul, and Gandhi did not try to avoid jail time and other consequences of their action, even when those consequences were all out of proportion to the "crime." (Maybe even especially when the consequences were all out of proportion -- it's the best way to focus attention on the injustice of it all.)

Luigi, I can see your point. But say, would you advocate the selling of child pornography? The street hawking of pornography to children? The close proximity of a sex/porn shop to a school? I hope you would not--that's the sort of thing I am for outlawing via obscenity laws, to clarify my point. Perhaps we do not need the laws eliminated, but rewritten to punish the real obscene offenders.

We regulate donuts via the FDA, if you want to be petty. But, yes, I admit I wasn't very clear. You express how I wanted to say it--I want to limit and regulate pornography because it is potentially HARMFUL.

I don't recall Kurt and Goldie expressing their love and commitment (perhaps in private?). That's something different than just saying "I love you." They're not against marriage, either, because I remember in 1992 Kurt was considering getting married to Goldie.

You'd be surprised on a lot of people won't even talk about right or wrong, and have totally different conceptions. I'm sure Goldie and Kurt don't consider what they're doing is wrong.

Wrong? I think it's wrong because I believe it perverts God's conception of love and marriage. The biblical ideal marriage is one that not only promotes love for each other, but love for God (that is why the Christian marriage is two-fold--the couple express vows to stay faithful AND holy). I don't see that in Goldie and Kurt's life. I wouldn't expect to, being that I don't think they're Christian.

I feel that video games that feature nudity or totally explicit violence are inappropriate. I'm afraid I haven't been in an arcade in a while; I don't know the new titles. I like "Frogger." That's a good one.

I'm all for freedom of speech. But I don't think the Constitution's main intent was to protect pornographers (reminds me of that "Simpsons" episode in which Shelbyville and Springfield discover the towns, and Shelbyville reveals that his only reason for going was that now he can marry his cousin). HOWEVER, while I am not in favor of pornography, I don't believe in banning it. But right now, there are laws on the books about it, and like Tom said, you have to accept them or fight them and face the consequences.

(I do get sick though when a guy that makes a living selling pornographic pictures of kidnapped and abused children cites the First Amendment. Gimme a break.)

JUST to clarify myself--I am not in favor of banning our outlawing pornography. I am in favor of regulating it and studying it. I am in favor of keeping it out of the hands of minors. I am in favor of banning and prosecuting child pornography and its sellers.

Well, on a topic less about pornography and more about obscenity, Luigi's comment about someone calling a birth scene in a comic "pornographic" reminded me of something else that really makes me angry. Why is breastfeeding basically considered obscene in America? I've heard that you can be arrested for nursing in public. That is flat-out the stup!dest thing I have ever heard.

What could possibly be more natural and less obscene that feeding a baby? Something is very wrong with a society that can't see the difference between that and a man who "flashes" schoolgirls for his own sick pleasure.

Does anybody think that breast feeding should never be done in public, and if so, why not?

At the store I work out, management has set a bench in the ladies' restroom for nursing mothers to feed their babies. And I did hear of one store that asked a customer to leave 'cause she was breastfeeding. 'Cause someone else complained.

As I understand it, it's considered obscene by some (twisted and idiotic) individuals because they consider it only in the view of exposing breasts. Nothing about the whole nurturing part in their minds...after all, there IS that artificial stuff called formula.

Personally, I have no objection to breast feeding in public. And kudos to the women who don't give a •••• about society's discomfort in the face of their child's health.

The cops who arrested those two guys, and the prosecutors who persecuted them should be taken out and shot in public.
Nahhh. That's too quick and easy, Luigi. Better to make 'em suffer awhile first.

MikeC: But wait--what about the agnostics and atheists? Well, it's really petty to talk about sins with them, isn't it? They don't believe in sin.

Luigi Novi: I’m sure they believe in right and wrong, Mike.
Well, I know I do.

MikeC: That is why I believe you will never get a non-Christian to agree that something is a sin unless that person becomes a Christian (i.e. accepts Jesus Christ).
I find it offensive when christians presume to speak for us agnostics and atheists, and telling us that the only way to agree with them is to become christian, and that's just not right (you know, that little thing in the First Amendment about infringing on someone's freedom from religion). You call it sin, we simply call it wrongdoing. Two different words for the exact same thing. "Sin" is a religious term for wrongdoing, that's all, so to say nonreligious people can't agree on what's sin with a religious person is totally bogus. Not only do we agree on what is wrong in lots of cases, but in some others we don't, such as sex outside of marriage. That's not wrong. It's human nature. It's your right not to agree with it and that's completely fine, but I don't agree with the christian view on sex outside of marriage. Besides, it's none of their business anyways.

Juli, check outA Current Summary of Breastfeeding Legislation in the U.S. for more on that subject. It's very informative.

MikeC: Luigi, I can see your point. But say, would you advocate the selling of child pornography?

Luigi Novi: No.

MikeC: The street hawking of pornography to children?

Luigi Novi: No.

MikeC: The close proximity of a sex/porn shop to a school?

Luigi Novi: Depends on how "close" you mean. With regards to sex shops, I think their windows should be opaque, and not be allowed to display sexualy explicit or suggestive material in their windows. This is actually one instance where I would limit one’s right to advertise such things, and if anyone criticized me for it, I’d point out two things: 1. Children should not see such things, and I think doing this with the shops in Times Square, NY would’ve been better than closing them down or running them out with that whole bullsh*t 40% law. 2. If you have "Adult Book Store" or "XXX" on your store, you don’t need advertisement anyway. People know what’s in there.

MikeC: I hope you would not--that's the sort of thing I am for outlawing via obscenity laws, to clarify my point.

Luigi Novi: I agree with you.

MikeC: We regulate donuts via the FDA, if you want to be petty.

Luigi Novi: In what way? Does the FDA say anything about donuts in particular? Or does it merely set regulations on food products sold or served in general? I could be mistaken, but I don’t think the FDA says anything about junk food.

MikeC: I don't recall Kurt and Goldie expressing their love and commitment (perhaps in private?). That's something different than just saying "I love you."

Luigi Novi: I wasn’t aware they had to declare it to anyone other than themselves.

MikeC: You'd be surprised on a lot of people won't even talk about right or wrong, and have totally different conceptions. I'm sure Goldie and Kurt don't consider what they're doing is wrong.

Luigi Novi: Nor do I. No one’s being harmed by their relationship, nor does it have any detrimental effect on anyone, so it’s not wrong.

MikeC: I think it's wrong because I believe it perverts God's conception of love and marriage. The biblical ideal marriage is one that not only promotes love for each other, but love for God.

Luigi Novi: So there’s some magical threshold on which one side is wrong, and the other right? They’re wrong now, but they slip on a couple of rings and put their John Hancocks on a license, and BANG!—they’re okay? You seem to put a lot of emphasis on the formalization of the whole thing, to the exclusion of their feelings for one another, and the manner in which they’ve maintained the the strength of their relationship.

MikeC: (that is why the Christian marriage is two-fold--the couple express vows to stay faithful AND holy). I don't see that in Goldie and Kurt's life. I wouldn't expect to, being that I don't think they're Christian.

Luigi Novi: If your feeling of right and wrong takes place vis a vis one’s relationship with God and their faith as a Christian, why are they wrong if they’re not Christian? And if they were of a religion that didn’t require formalization of marriage, would that be better?

MikeC: I'm all for freedom of speech. But I don't think the Constitution's main intent was to protect pornographers

Luigi Novi: It was to protect unpopular or controversial forms of expression, which pornography is. You’re arguing that "this specific thing" or "that specific thing" wasn’t singled out by the Constitution, nor in the Founding Fathers’ minds when they wrote it. Well, Mike, NOTHING was. They never mentioned flag burning, 2 Live Crew’s dirty rap lyrics, The Tin Drum, Huck Finn, The Satanic Verses, Andrew Dice Clay, pornography or ANYTHING by name. Just out of curiosity, what do you feel its "main intent" was?

MikeC: I do get sick though when a guy that makes a living selling pornographic pictures of kidnapped and abused children cites the First Amendment. Gimme a break.

Luigi Novi: I’ve never heard of such a thing. Was there any such person who actually did this?

MikeC: JUST to clarify myself--I am not in favor of banning our outlawing pornography. I am in favor of regulating it and studying it. I am in favor of keeping it out of the hands of minors. I am in favor of banning and prosecuting child pornography and its sellers.

Luigi Novi: Ditto.

juli k: Well, on a topic less about pornography and more about obscenity, Luigi's comment about someone calling a birth scene in a comic "pornographic" reminded me of something else that really makes me angry. Why is breastfeeding basically considered obscene in America? I've heard that you can be arrested for nursing in public. That is flat-out the stup!dest thing I have ever heard.

Luigi Novi: Ditto, Juli.

Juli K: Does anybody think that breast feeding should never be done in public, and if so, why not?

Luigi Novi: Hey, I’m all for it. I’d make it mandatory for Jeri Ryan or Jennifer Love Hewitt.
---
---
---
---
---
---
Even if they don’t have a baby with them.
---
---
---
---
---
---
Or even if they didn't have kids at all.
---
---

That was very informative, Mark. Thanks.

For anyone who doesn't want to read it, the basic point of the article is that if a woman has the legal right to be in a place, she also has the legal right to breastfeed in that place.

Over half of the states have enacted breastfeeding legislation. According to the article:

"It is important to remember that women have a right to breastfeed in public whether there is a law or not. The purpose of legislation is NOT to legalize it, but to clarify the fact the fact that women have the right to breastfeed in public, or that it is not a criminal offense, such as indecent exposure."

These laws are also meant to give the mother tangible ammunition if someone should try to prevent her from breast feeding.

So, the store that asked the nursing mother to leave was definitely NOT within its legal rights, Machiko. As for having a bench for breastfeeding in the restroom, well, I wonder how the store manager would like to eat HIS lunch in the restroom? Restroom indeed! Yech! Ptoooi!

As for the "sin" vs. "wrongdoing" thing, I'm one agnostic who considers them two very different things. The way I look at it, "wrongdoing" is something that hurts other people/society, while "sin" is something that goes against God. As I am not religious, sin really has no relevance to me, so I don't think what Mike has said is so incorrect or offensive.

I'm trying to walk the thin line here. Most atheists/agnostics don't talk about sin, they talk about right and wrong. I never meant to say that atheists/agnostics don't have morality--it's just that perhaps their conception of morality is different than Christians. Sorry if I misinterpreted myself.

I find nothing wrong with public nursing. Frankly, I wish I'd see it more of that than mothers ignoring their babies.

Mark, I was saying "You have to be a Christian to have right and wrong." I was saying "Most likely you won't agree with me until you become a Christian." Does that make sense?

Luigi--No, no, I wasn't making myself clear on marriage. The formalization stuff--that won't make it right, in my opinion, because it's still two people living together without Christ. The biblical viewpoint is that it's not like sins are set little points that you have to avoid breaking--it's that we're born with sin, and thus have already broken all of the rules anyway. That's the necessity of Christ. So pretty much, it doesn't really matter what they do if they don't know Christ, according to the Bible (I'm trying not to be too nihilistic here--but that's what it boils down to--this is an overly simplistic, but apt summary). So, no, it wouldn't be better if they were of another religion, because they still wouldn't know Christ.

Also, the "main intent" of the Constitution--darned if I know, I wasn't around then, and didn't know the Founding Fathers. I don't THINK the intent was to protect pornography--that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used to do so now.

The example about the child pornographer came from a guy that spoke to our church--he's an anti-pornography activist or something. There was some court case involving a child pornographer (perhaps it was a distributor [it might have been online too, which opens up another can of worms], meaning he could get away with it easier), and I believe he got off via "freedom of expression" laws (and if it was online, I could understand why he got off--don't like it, but understand it). The activist guy went up to the dude, and said "How would you like it if someone was distributing pictures of YOUR kids?" The dude said "That's not a fair question."

I apologize if I'm not making myself clear. From a Christian viewpoint, it's extremely difficult to talk about morality and "right and wrong" without bringing in "religion" and Jesus Christ. Bear with me.

I think I see where Mike is coming from. Take the Kurt & Goldie situation-what they're doing is not wrong from a societal viewpoint, but from a strict Judeo-Christian viewpoint, it is a sin, as it is against one of the Ten Commandments. If they are religious people, living together without marriage would be a sin, but if they aren't then there's no problem with it as there is no law against it. (I hope I'm not confusing anyone. The thoughts are clear in my head, but I can't seem to get the words out clearly. Must be the heat!)

(Paul Reiser mode on)

This is what I'm saying!

(off)

It's really hard to explain myself here. To me, it is wrong because of my religion and morals. To others, who do not agree with my religion or moral sense, it seems perfectly fine. I disagree. That's what it pretty much boils down to.

Luigi's comment about someone calling a birth scene in a comic "pornographic"

In a similar vein, when NBC ran "Schindler's List", some stoopid id10tic Congresscritter was upset because someone might watch it for the (very few, and definitely in context) nude scenes.

Yeah, we all get off on watching the Holocaust.

Sorry if I misinterpreted myself.
Don't be, Mike. Your posts were perfectly clear.

Look at it from another angle.

Mike, do you eat pork? From my point of view, you're sinning, but from your's it's perfectly legit. Same thing for Kurt&Goldie.

ScottN: By ScottN on Thursday, August 09, 2001 - 01:04 pm:

Luigi's comment about someone calling a birth scene in a comic "pornographic"

In a similar vein, when NBC ran "Schindler's List", some stoopid id10tic Congresscritter was upset because someone might watch it for the (very few, and definitely in context) nude scenes.

Yeah, we all get off on watching the Holocaust.

Yeah, I remember that. What infuriated me about this was the blatantly dishonesty and lack of sincerity in his motives. (Must've been reelection time). He tried to clarify his point subsequently by saying he feared that this would lead to further instances of nudity on television.

Sure. Showing Schindler's List uncensored would lead to showing Jerry Springer uncensored.

Juli, you're welcome. All I did was look up "public breastfeeding" on Yahoo and that was one of the first few sites that popped up. I admit that I only read a very small portion but could still tell that it was very informative, so instead of suggesting you look it up on a search engine I just thought I'd send you that one site. Glad you enjoyed it.

Mark, I was saying "You have to be a Christian to have right and wrong." I was saying "Most likely you won't agree with me until you become a Christian." Does that make sense?
Yeah, it does, thanks.

Sure. Showing Schindler's List uncensored would lead to showing Jerry Springer uncensored.
Well, finally! Otherwise there's no point in watching nekkid white trailer trash throttle each other for the amusement of millions of people with no lives.

Anyone see on the news the other day that married couple who got busted for selling kiddie porn and now the Feds are going after the customers, many or most of whom paid with credit cards. Oh, yeah, no one'll ever find out who those people are. Sure. Anyway, in a twist that those women who regularly b¡tch about sexism will appreciate, is the reverse sexism of the arrest, where the hubby got a 1,335 year sentence while the wifey only got 14. Gee, why the discrepancy? Give 'em both 500 years. Either way, neither's gonna taste freedom ever again. Here's one story on it from CNN.com, and here's a related one, from Indonesia.

Mike, do you eat pork? From my point of view, you're sinning, but from your's it's perfectly legit. Same thing for Kurt&Goldie. ScottN

Not quite the same thing Scott. There are laws in the Jewish Bible that are about good and evil and which apply to all righteous peoples, and laws of ritual purity which apply only to the Jews. A gentile who eats bacon, or a cheeseburger, or even a bacon cheeseburger is not in violation of the dietary laws, since they don't apply to him. If he is not violating the law, he is not sinning.

I do understand your point, however, and it is the closest analogy I can think of as well. If only it were just the Christian interpretation that it did not apply to non-Jews, it would be the perfect example.

My real point is since, from my point of view, the NT is just paper, Mike is sinning. From his point of view, he's not.

The question becomes then, in the context of the Kurt&Goldie, who's point of view should apply, and why?

Scott, there are a few ways to look at it.

In a prosaic, pragmatic sense, I am not in favor of outlawing relationships such as Kurt and Goldie's.

In a moral sense, I believe it is morally wrong.

In a religious sense, I believe the two need Jesus Christ first anyway.

Mike, quit while you're behind. 'Kay? You're not going to win on this one. Kurt & Goldie love each other, and that is ALL that matters.

Although I wish we would stop using them as examples. What about Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins? 13 years with out marriage. Joy Behar (The View) and her boyfriend Steve. 18 years without marriage. Stign adn what's-her-name (I always forget), lived together for what, 12 years before they decided to get married? Frankly, I'm in neither category when it comes to marriage. If the woman I love wants a wedding and a priest and all that, I'll do it. If she's like Goldie Hawn or Susan Sarandon however and doesnt believe in 'marriage' in the typical relgious/governmental sense, that's okay too, as long as we're HAPPY.

In whose eyes is it "all that matters?" Perhaps in man's eyes, yes, but not in God's eyes. I only used Goldie & Kurt as examples because someone already did too.

I must admit, however, that I don't find them as annoying as people that continually marriage and divorce. At the very least, have some respect for those marriage vows!

Well, if ya want at least 2 positive examples of longtime marriages between celebs then look no further than Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward, and the late Jimmy Stewart and his wife, Gloria. They're two of the extremely few Hollywood couples that have stuck with each other thru thick and thin. These days when celebs date or marry I never expect it to last so I'm never surprised when they break up after so many months or years. Of course, I don't really care, either.

And what about Blythe Danner and whoever she is married to? I remember a piece on them saying that they were married for a long time.

Mike: I believe that would be director Bruce Paltrow, father of Gwenyth.

Woah Machiko changed her mind about having a kid really quickly.

BTW, I hope you aren't going to do one of those loony feminist things and refuse to take his name. Don't burden your kids with Herb Morgan-Jenkins or Maud Jenkins or something when any family should have a universal surname until the marriage of the daughter.

Another long time celebrity marriage: Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy.

Who?

Yeah, Margie, I'd forgotten those two. Paul and Linda McCartney also had a pretty long, good marriage. Now he's engaged again. Or did he get married yet?

Thankyouverymuch, Peter, but I think I shall name my child whatever the child's father and I agree on.

Whether that be Morgan, Jenkins, or Jenkins-Morgan.

As for me, I'll take whatever darn name I want, and fie on you for telling me otherwise. 'Cause it ain't your business what I call myself.

Thanks ever so much for your caring opinion, though. I'll take it into consideration with all the thought it deserves.

::MarkN: the late Jimmy Stewart and his wife, Gloria.::

Waitaminute--Jimmy Stewart's wife's name was Gloria? This isn't the same Gloria Stewart that played the old Rose in "Titanic" was it? Was that Jimmy Stewart's WIFE?

By the way, I'd also add Gregory & Cecilia Peck, and Roy Rogers & Dale Evans.

Waitaminute--Jimmy Stewart's wife's name was Gloria? This isn't the same Gloria Stewart that played the old Rose in "Titanic" was it? Was that Jimmy Stewart's WIFE? Cap

No, Gloria Stuart (different spelling) is the widow of Arthur Sheekman.

Captain Obvious: Waitaminute--Jimmy Stewart's wife's name was Gloria? This isn't the same Gloria Stewart that played the old Rose in "Titanic" was it? Was that Jimmy Stewart's WIFE?

Luigi Novi: Gloria Stuart, who played Rose in Titanic, was actually born Gloria Stewart. Jimmy's wife was born Gloria Hatrick McLean. I first assumed Titanic Gloria changed her name because of Actors' Guild rules forbidding two people using the same exact name (singer Vanessa Williams had to add the middle initial "L" for the same reason, since the African actress from New Jack City and Melrose Place had that name), but the only thing I found on Jimmy's wife's resume was that she played herself on The Jack Benny Program in 1950 and again on an episode of Password in 1964.

Given that, Mark, I'm not sure if Jimmy's wife could be considered a "celebrity." The woman from Titanic appeared in well over 66 movies and TV programs.

Well, she was married to one, Luigi, but if ya wanna be really picky about it...

...but then that is what we're here for, ain't it?

And BTW, when are we gonna A.) get back on the subject of this board and B.) start posting on Part II again, hmm? I mean, c'mon, people, m'kay?

M'gay.

Well, the easiest way to get people to post on Part II would be to disable the posting on Part I
(hint hint moderator).

No estoy moderator ahora, Senores Scott y Mark N.

Again, Mike, you'll have to find someone else with which to satiate your particular sexual proclivities. (If you don't get my meaning there then go to the Euthanasia thread.)

Over to Board Two now, nothing to see here.

yes, that was another deliberate "double-meaning". I mean, look at what board this is. Hehheeehee.

Hey, fugofflh, copper, I know my rights!

Hiccup!

Yeah, yeah, ye fluthered gom! Let's jus' get ye to a nice cell and letcher sleep it off now, shall we? 'At's a good lad.

(Vomits all over O'Leary's shoes): BLAHAAAHAUUUAHAHGGHGHGH!!

The sidewalk's for regular walkin', not fancy walkin'! Simmer down and I'll let you go!

Aye, so thet's the way ye wants ta play it, eh? 'Appy ta oblige!

proceeds to beat the living shite outta the airlocled bowsie, Luigi

Now, any more outta ye and I'll dunk ye in the bean-jacks at the station meself!