You are, at least you are trying to.Who’s sacrificing any freedoms?
Ours is a secular society? Do you have any proof for that? In God We Trust is on our coins. Have you seen the various depictions of the Ten Commandments on and in the Supreme Court building? Thanks for sharing your fantasies about what “I” might do, but before I give you the list, here’s another word from our Jewish neighbors:You are, at least you are trying to.
You are in favor of censorship (e.g. banning adult book stores and porn), you are apparently in favor of banning sex toys (which people won’t be able to buy, anyway, as there would be no more adult book stores in Ed’s world), and while I haven’t seen you say so in so many words, my guess is you would favor making certain sexual ACTS (like say, gay sodomy) literally illegal. As you are no doubt aware, they once were.
Given your rants against contraception, it would not surprise me if you would ban condoms and birth-control pills were you to awake in the morn and find you’d been anointed King.
So it strikes me that if you are willing, wanting even, society to sets it’s laws vis-a-vis sexuality based on your churches teachings, how far would you go? Go to mass or go to jail? Confession or probation? 15 to life for consensual fornication? 25 to life for homosexual fornication. Write a titillating novel, get a visit from the Vice and Purity Police?
Ours is a secular society, for good reason. It is as it should be, and we do not pass laws because your God said so.
Before I respond to you, I’d like a clarification. Does this list represent legislative actions you presently endorse, and/or would enact upon being anointed King.Close all Adult Bookstores.
Sex toys? What the heck is the big deal about sex toys anyway?
Close all strip clubs.
Close all topless bars.
No porn on cable or satellite TV or radio.
Shut down all so-called “phone sex” lines.
Ban all “file sharing” sites from the internet.
Ban all obscene programming anywhere on any medium, including hand-held devices.
Ban all swinger sites and sex clubs.
Increase fines and prison time for prostitution.
Viagra and similar products to be sold by perscription only.
Birth control pills for the regulation of menstrual cycle only.
Condom ban.
Thong ban on public beaches.
If there is moral truths, they can certainly be hard to prove. Some things like murder and stealing are considered universally immoral. Gay marriage is not something that people agree on and neither side can convince the other of a moral truth. If there is a moral truth or isn’t, it doesn’t really matter because neither side can prove it is right.This isn’t a math problem where argument components are plugged in to yield the desired answer. Are there things you believe are true? If yes, then would you accept a different “true” answer? All I’m saying is that there is truth, singular.
Peace,
Ed
Indeed it is, but it was not for the first century of our existence. One could argue that it’s likely unconstitutional on it’s face, but no matter. It is a phrase that does NOT appear in our constitution, which is the founding document of our republic, and it gives us explicit freedom of (and from) religion.Ours is a secular society? Do you have any proof for that? In God We Trust is on our coins.
If they’re a 10 on the ridiculous scale, based on your list (we’ll get to that) you’re not that far behind them. An 8, perhaps.You think I might be bad? I’ve got nothing on those people.
What does this even mean? And how is it relevant to our discussion?Before you attempt to lecture me again about what ‘we’ should do, as opposed to having the freedom to act, I’ll just mention this: there is either truth or there isn’t and truth is singular, not plural. OK?
People who want to have sex without making babies. Condoms offer the added bonus of protection from disease transmission as well. In short, at some point in time, virtually everyone.Rants against contraception? And who needs contraception?
I enjoy sex. I am not going to abstain. But I do not want to make babies, nor catch nasty little diseases, so I use protection. Multiple levels of it. Chances are not reduced to 0%, but close enough for me to be comfortable.Since deciding when you have sex rests entirely with you, choosing not to have it would be the most rational choice.
How are you affected if I choose to pay a prostitute for sex? What standing do you have in the matter to declare that the prostitute and I cannot enter into a consensual transaction?Picking up prostitutes and looking over your shoulder (I’m speaking generally) would be a thing of the past.
Nah, more like a vision of an angry group that would force me to live my life by their codes. As you’ve proven by the dialog which is to come.You have this vision of the Church as this angry group that corners and beats up unruly members.
Wow, that sounds downright taliban like. See what you’re endorsing.During the 1960s, a man would appear on television to inform viewers that the Standards and Practices Department reviewed all programming to make certain it was suitable for the entire family.
Wow. Now you object to viagra ads. Is it the ads themselves, or the very existence of viagra in the first place that holds the bulk of your objection? (As a humorous side note, I almost wrote ‘erection’ instead of ‘objection’ Freudian slip, I suppose.)There were a few clunkers but they did not show viagra ads - E V E R.
Indeed.So, here we go:
Blatantly unconstitutional. Freedom of the press is guaranteed by the constitution. Are you advocating eliminating that freedom?Close all Adult Bookstores.
I dunno, you tell me, after all, you’re the one advocating banning them. What IS the big deal? Don’t want to use them, don’t, why must your wishes tell those who do that they cannot?Sex toys? What the heck is the big deal about sex toys anyway?
So consenting adults who wish to patronize a strip club and pay consenting adults who wish to strip for money should not have that right? Why not? Assuming you are not forced to patronize or work their against your wishes, what standing do you have to insist that those who wish to do so cannot?Close all strip clubs.
Close all topless bars.
Again, blatantly unconstitutional. And if you are willing to sacrifice those constitutional protections, and it seems you are, who gets to decide?No porn on cable or satellite TV or radio.
There’s still phone sex lines? I would think in light of streaming video, that would have gone away, but okay. Again, what standing do you have to ban it? How are you harmed. If I wish to pay a lawyer $500/hour to talk to me about this or that legal matter, how is that any different than paying $25/hour to talk dirty to me?Shut down all so-called “phone sex” lines.
Wow, you really are quite the budding tyrant. Now we can’t even share files. The other day, I needed to get some software to install on my work computer to prepare me to demo our new products to customers. Guess we can’t have that, now, can we? After all, we used a file sharing site to make it happen, as they were way too big to email.Ban all “file sharing” sites from the internet.
Well, first I suspect your definition of obscene and the actual legal one are quite different. That said, you would make it a crime for my wife to photograph herself nude and email it to me?Ban all obscene programming anywhere on any medium, including hand-held devices.
Wow.Ban all swinger sites and sex clubs.
Why should it be illegal to sell something that it’s perfectly legal to give away?Increase fines and prison time for prostitution.
This one you already got, as they are. That said, I don’t know why they should be. Were aspirin invented today, it would be by prescription only. I don’t understand why we should require permission to put substances into our body rather than at our own discretion, rather than the discretion of a medical flunky.Viagra and similar products to be sold by perscription only.
Tyrant.Birth control pills for the regulation of menstrual cycle only.
Ah. Now, not only do you want unwanted pregnancies, apparently you want people infected with STD’s. Come on, Ed, tell the truth, you really do think STD’s are punishments from God for inappropriate behavior, dontcha?Condom ban.
Wow. I guess that means nude beaches aren’t even up for discussion, huh? What about people who WANT to go to nude beaches, they just SOL?Thong ban on public beaches.
You do not have a clue what true human freedom is do you?Nah, more like a vision of an angry group that would force me to live my life by their codes. As you’ve proven by the dialog which is to come.
Wow, that sounds downright taliban like. See what you’re endorsing.
Wow. Now you object to viagra ads. Is it the ads themselves, or the very existence of viagra in the first place that holds the bulk of your objection? (As a humorous side note, I almost wrote ‘erection’ instead of ‘objection’ Freudian slip, I suppose.)
Indeed.
Blatantly unconstitutional. Freedom of the press is guaranteed by the constitution. Are you advocating eliminating that freedom?
I dunno, you tell me, after all, you’re the one advocating banning them. What IS the big deal? Don’t want to use them, don’t, why must your wishes tell those who do that they cannot?
So consenting adults who wish to patronize a strip club and pay consenting adults who wish to strip for money should not have that right? Why not? Assuming you are not forced to patronize or work their against your wishes, what standing do you have to insist that those who wish to do so cannot?
Again, blatantly unconstitutional. And if you are willing to sacrifice those constitutional protections, and it seems you are, who gets to decide?
There’s still phone sex lines? I would think in light of streaming video, that would have gone away, but okay. Again, what standing do you have to ban it? How are you harmed. If I wish to pay a lawyer $500/hour to talk to me about this or that legal matter, how is that any different than paying $25/hour to talk dirty to me?
Wow, you really are quite the budding tyrant. Now we can’t even share files. The other day, I needed to get some software to install on my work computer to prepare me to demo our new products to customers. Guess we can’t have that, now, can we? After all, we used a file sharing site to make it happen, as they were way too big to email.
Well, first I suspect your definition of obscene and the actual legal one are quite different. That said, you would make it a crime for my wife to photograph herself nude and email it to me?
Tyrant.
Wow.
I say again, wow.
Now you’re hitting close to the vest, Ed, as I am a swinger and my wife and I visit sex clubs frequently. Mind you, everyone involved is a consenting adult, there of their own free will. Do you seriously believe that the fact that you do not wish to participate means that myself and others who do should be prohibited from doing so?? On what grounds? Who the heck are you to tell us that we can’t do something that we enjoy?
Why should it be illegal to sell something that it’s perfectly legal to give away?
This one you already got, as they are. That said, I don’t know why they should be. Were aspirin invented today, it would be by prescription only. I don’t understand why we should require permission to put substances into our body rather than at our own discretion, rather than the discretion of a medical flunky.
Tyrant.
So you want people to have unwanted pregnancies? Or abortions?
Ah. Now, not only do you want unwanted pregnancies, apparently you want people infected with STD’s. Come on, Ed, tell the truth, you really do think STD’s are punishments from God for inappropriate behavior, dontcha?
Wow. I guess that means nude beaches aren’t even up for discussion, huh? What about people who WANT to go to nude beaches, they just SOL?
All in all, I can’t say that your comments don’t really surprise me, but they do scare me. For you are serious about what you’ve said, and you think it’s a reasonable thing to demand that people are restricted in consensual private behavior based on how you think people should live, and to be frank, that makes you dangerous. For you would, if only you could, limit the freedom of your fellow man based merely on the fact that you said so, and despite the fact that you yourself are not affected by the acts you would restrict.
The only difference between you and Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler is that they had power you lack. Thank God you lack it, for you are as dangerous to freedom as they were.
I have no idea what you mean, but my knee-jerk reaction is to ask you the same question.You do not have a clue what true human freedom is do you?
So laws and institutions can be arbitrarily changed? Not a good idea, and it does ignore the concept of truth. Man has learned about truth, but only a handful want anything goes. This is not the proper way to order a society. This is called anarchy.If there is moral truths, they can certainly be hard to prove. Some things like murder and stealing are considered universally immoral. Gay marriage is not something that people agree on and neither side can convince the other of a moral truth. If there is a moral truth or isn’t, it doesn’t really matter because neither side can prove it is right.
Check put the Advovate, the Blade, even the one in baltimore is biweekly with a distribution of 10,000.I clicked on the New York one, figuring I’d start with the biggest US city. Here is what I found:
Two weeklies, a bi-weekly, a bi-monthly. Free. Mostly online and very small.
Interesting.
You’ve played the Taliban, Hussein, Hitler cards in one post. Name calling will get you nowhere.Nah, more like a vision of an angry group that would force me to live my life by their codes. As you’ve proven by the dialog which is to come.
Wow, that sounds downright taliban like. See what you’re endorsing.
Wow. Now you object to viagra ads. Is it the ads themselves, or the very existence of viagra in the first place that holds the bulk of your objection? (As a humorous side note, I almost wrote ‘erection’ instead of ‘objection’ Freudian slip, I suppose.)
Indeed.
Blatantly unconstitutional. Freedom of the press is guaranteed by the constitution. Are you advocating eliminating that freedom?
I dunno, you tell me, after all, you’re the one advocating banning them. What IS the big deal? Don’t want to use them, don’t, why must your wishes tell those who do that they cannot?
So consenting adults who wish to patronize a strip club and pay consenting adults who wish to strip for money should not have that right? Why not? Assuming you are not forced to patronize or work their against your wishes, what standing do you have to insist that those who wish to do so cannot?
Again, blatantly unconstitutional. And if you are willing to sacrifice those constitutional protections, and it seems you are, who gets to decide?
There’s still phone sex lines? I would think in light of streaming video, that would have gone away, but okay. Again, what standing do you have to ban it? How are you harmed. If I wish to pay a lawyer $500/hour to talk to me about this or that legal matter, how is that any different than paying $25/hour to talk dirty to me?
Wow, you really are quite the budding tyrant. Now we can’t even share files. The other day, I needed to get some software to install on my work computer to prepare me to demo our new products to customers. Guess we can’t have that, now, can we? After all, we used a file sharing site to make it happen, as they were way too big to email.
Well, first I suspect your definition of obscene and the actual legal one are quite different. That said, you would make it a crime for my wife to photograph herself nude and email it to me?
Tyrant.
Wow.
I say again, wow.
Now you’re hitting close to the vest, Ed, as I am a swinger and my wife and I visit sex clubs frequently. Mind you, everyone involved is a consenting adult, there of their own free will. Do you seriously believe that the fact that you do not wish to participate means that myself and others who do should be prohibited from doing so?? On what grounds? Who the heck are you to tell us that we can’t do something that we enjoy?
Why should it be illegal to sell something that it’s perfectly legal to give away?
This one you already got, as they are. That said, I don’t know why they should be. Were aspirin invented today, it would be by prescription only. I don’t understand why we should require permission to put substances into our body rather than at our own discretion, rather than the discretion of a medical flunky.
Tyrant.
So you want people to have unwanted pregnancies? Or abortions?
Ah. Now, not only do you want unwanted pregnancies, apparently you want people infected with STD’s. Come on, Ed, tell the truth, you really do think STD’s are punishments from God for inappropriate behavior, dontcha?
Wow. I guess that means nude beaches aren’t even up for discussion, huh? What about people who WANT to go to nude beaches, they just SOL?
All in all, I can’t say that your comments don’t really surprise me, but they do scare me. For you are serious about what you’ve said, and you think it’s a reasonable thing to demand that people are restricted in consensual private behavior based on how you think people should live, and to be frank, that makes you dangerous. For you would, if only you could, limit the freedom of your fellow man based merely on the fact that you said so, and despite the fact that you yourself are not affected by the acts you would restrict.
The only difference between you and Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler is that they had power you lack. Thank God you lack it, for you are as dangerous to freedom as they were.
Perhaps, but I spent the better part of an hour plus ripping your original post to shreds, and if this is the best you’ve got in response, well, I guess I’ll chalk that up as a win.You’ve played the Taliban, Hussein, Hitler cards in one post. Name calling will get you nowhere.
This is a really good idea.Human decency act, eh?
After having read through pages and pages of your rediculous rants, caring nought for the sensitivities of others, or for the moral codes that civilised societies have been founded on and pushing an ideology based on mindless selfishness, you don’t even hit the scale.Well, I assumed it was a human scale.If they’re a 10 on the ridiculous scale, based on your list (we’ll get to that) you’re not that far behind them. An 8, perhaps.
He was pointing out how bad your grammar is.What does this even mean? And how is it relevant to our discussion?
Everyone? Just 16% of US women who use contraceptives rely on condoms. I’d guess that’s because they are unreliable. If you hope to avoid disease, keep your fingers crossed. The total number of people living with an HIV infection in the U.S. is thought to be around 1.1 million. Just over 75% of adults and adolescents living with an AIDS diagnosis are men.The main transmission route is still male to male sex.People who want to have sex without making babies. Condoms offer the added bonus of protection from disease transmission as well. In short, at some point in time, virtually everyone.
Russian roulette with your life and with the lives of others. We can irresponsibility to your list if chracter traits.I enjoy sex. I am not going to abstain. But I do not want to make babies, nor catch nasty little diseases, so I use protection. Multiple levels of it. Chances are not reduced to 0%, but close enough for me to be comfortable.
He has the same standing as any man in society. He has the same standing to make this call as any citizen who says a free and consensual transaction for drugs is wrong. He has the same right to make this call as any citizen who says a consensual transaction involving children is wrong. Conversely, what standing do you have to promote transactions that cause harm? Harm to individuals and harm to society?How are you affected if I choose to pay a prostitute for sex? What standing do you have in the matter to declare that the prostitute and I cannot enter into a consensual transaction?
Now that is self indulgence if ever there was any! “Who the heck are you to tell us we can’t do something that we enjoy?” Imagine if every drug seller and drug addict took up that cry! And from your ‘arguments’ they’d have every right to. You are a ‘swinger’, which is an indirect way of saying you are an indulgent, irresponsible, amoral, promiscuous, selfish and reckless individual who cares nothing about others and who has very little self respect, if any at all. Monkeys act this way.Now you’re hitting close to the vest, Ed, as I am a swinger and my wife and I visit sex clubs frequently. Mind you, everyone involved is a consenting adult, there of their own free will. Do you seriously believe that the fact that you do not wish to participate means that myself and others who do should be prohibited from doing so?? On what grounds? Who the heck are you to tell us that we can’t do something that we enjoy?
we definitely do not have a secular society. in the u.s. we are an extremely religious society. what he have in order to protect the free exercise of religion is a secular government.Ours is a secular society? Do you have any proof for that?
from the statistics i’ve seen, catholics are about equally split between republicans and democrats. the only reason i can see that a catholic would vote republican is that they have been duped into thinking that republicans will do more to reduce the number of abortions.Most people are dems in the north east.
Quite a list. In an ideal world, it would happen. In reality, it can’t. That’s not to say we shouldn’t strive to achieve this list.Close all Adult Bookstores.
Sex toys? What the heck is the big deal about sex toys anyway?
Close all strip clubs.
Close all topless bars.
No porn on cable or satellite TV or radio.
Shut down all so-called “phone sex” lines.
Ban all “file sharing” sites from the internet.
Ban all obscene programming anywhere on any medium, including hand-held devices.
Ban all swinger sites and sex clubs.
Increase fines and prison time for prostitution.
Viagra and similar products to be sold by perscription only.
Birth control pills for the regulation of menstrual cycle only.
Condom ban.
Thong ban on public beaches.
Ed
most are Democrats. Catholics are pretty liberal.from the statistics i’ve seen, catholics are about equally split between republicans and democrats. the only reason i can see that a catholic would vote republican is that they have been duped into thinking that republicans will do more to reduce the number of abortions.
It’s a really good idea to enact legislation that is abhorrent to the constitution in more ways than I can count? The last time I was aware, other than disclosing my lifestyle in text, it’s not in your face at all. In fact, you would have to intentionally make an effort to see it in action. Yet you would have it banned? Why?This is a really good idea.
it would prevent the rest of us having to put up with in your face immoral, hedonistic, selfish and insecure people like Seeker 2010.
While I’m still not sure what Ed’s point actually was, one thing I am quite sure it was not was pointing out how bad my grammar is. But since you brought it up, you misspelled ridiculous. Just saying.After having read through pages and pages of your rediculous rants, caring nought for the sensitivities of others, or for the moral codes that civilised societies have been founded on and pushing an ideology based on mindless selfishness, you don’t even hit the scale.Well, I assumed it was a human scale.
He was pointing out how bad your grammar is.
The question I was answering was not ‘Who needs condoms?’, rather it was ‘Who needs contraception?’. Seems a bit of a silly question, to be sure, but I stand by my answer. Virtually everyone has sex at some point in time despite the fact that at that moment in time, they don’t want to make a baby. Those people need contraception. A condom is only one of the available choices.Everyone? Just 16% of US women who use contraceptives rely on condoms.
Your point? 1 in 300 people has AIDS? Most of them are gay men who engage in risky, unprotected sex? And?The total number of people living with an HIV infection in the U.S. is thought to be around 1.1 million. Just over 75% of adults and adolescents living with an AIDS diagnosis are men.The main transmission route is still male to male sex.
Sexual activity is not nearly as dangerous as you make it out to be. If it were, I’d likely be dead by now, or at least infected with something. It’s not that I’m lucky, and it’s not that I’m good, it’s just not that dangerous.Russian roulette with your life and with the lives of others. We can irresponsibility to your list if chracter traits.
Well, first there is the question of what standing you have to tell another sentient individual what they can and cannot put into their own body, but with drugs at least you have an argument that they can be dangerous, and they can cause undesired behavior. With prostitution, you have neither argument. What harm can either you or society claim if Jane decides to sell sexual services to Tom behind closed doors?He has the same standing to make this call as any citizen who says a free and consensual transaction for drugs is wrong.
Harm to whom? To the extent that such transactions even MIGHT cause harm, it’s limited to those who voluntary participate. It is not my place to protect people from themselves, nor is it something our society should be doing.Conversely, what standing do you have to promote transactions that cause harm?
At the risk of being redundant, taking drugs and participating in promiscuous sexual activity are two very different things. Now, I would argue that both should be legal, but in our society only one of the two is. Regardless, they are not the same thing, indeed they have absolutely nothing to do with one another, so your attempt to somehow link them is completely irrelevant. Apples are not oranges.Imagine if every drug seller and drug addict took up that cry! And from your ‘arguments’ they’d have every right to.
In this logic-lacking bit of moral superiority, all you’ve done is prove that you are speaking out against something that you don’t really understand. Which is okay, I suppose, were you willing to live and let live, but seems you feel you have authority over others that really, you don’t.You are a ‘swinger’, which is an indirect way of saying you are an indulgent, irresponsible, amoral, promiscuous, selfish and reckless individual who cares nothing about others and who has very little self respect, if any at all.