Who makes your sexual decisions for you?

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by DC_DEEP, Jul 10, 2006.

  1. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Be prepared, this may go on for a while. But if you enjoy sex and sexuality, there may be some threats lurking out there where you least expect them.

    A non-sex-related headline in The Washington Post this morning caught my eye. As I was reading the story, an organization was mentioned, then the founder... "Dr." D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Ministries - and also The Alliance Defense Fund (the group in the news), The Center for Christian Statesmanship, and The Center for Reclaiming America for Christ. For those of you who don't know of Coral Ridge Ministries, it is a televangelical front, basically a fund-raising monster machine to promote fundamentalist political action. It, and its offshoot groups, and its affiliates, are playing upon peoples' beliefs and fears, using distorted facts and completely fabricated "data." It insidiously promotes many of the hate-based philosophies of other groups such as Westboro Baptist Church. Insidious? Yes, because it quietly does its work, without the in-your-face hellfire-and-brimstone militant tactics of Westboro, thereby garnering more trust, acceptance, and tolerance.

    "Dr." Kennedy's Center for Christian Statesmanship sponsors monthly "luncheons", in the Cannon Caucus Room (part of the US Capitol Complex)... yes, ladies and gentlemen, they do use the House of Representatives office building for these meetings. This has been going on, monthly, since 1998. And the agenda being presented obviously reflects the interests of the Coral Ridge Ministries and its affiliates. Those affiliates include, but are not limited to:

    Citizens for Preservation of Constitutional Rights
    Community Defense Council
    Corporate Resource Council
    Advocates International
    Americans United for Life
    American Liberties Institute
    Christian Law Association
    Christian Legal Society, Center for Law and Religious Freedom
    Federalist Society
    Focus on Family
    Family Research Council
    Concerned Women for America
    James Madison Center for Free Speech
    Judicial Watch
    DOMA Watch
    Justice Fellowship
    Liberty Legal Institute

    Many of these do, indeed, sound enticing. But their mission statements tell a different story than the names tell. I put three of those in bold print, because they are especially well-funded, especially anti-rights political action groups. Most of these organizations get their funding by playing on the religious sympathies of their victims. Most of their agendae include getting religion into law, local all the way up to federal. At the top of the list for all these groups is to completely dismantle any vestiges of seperation of church and state.

    If you value your right to choose your sex partner(s), or surf the web freely, you absolutely must know what is going on behind the scenes. If you don't look at any other websites, Please Please Please at least look at www.cwfa.org or http://www.family.org or http://www.frc.org or http://www.alliancedefensefund.org .

    This is no small movement. They do not want you to have the right to choose much of anything. They want their religion to be your law. Do you?
     
  2. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
    DC--thanks again for keeping us posted on these issues that certainly impact us all. I have a pretty full day, but will be back to research a bit later this evening (hopefully).
     
  3. joystick

    joystick Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I think you have it backwards. Focus on the Family is great. I puchase their materials all the time. Great subjects on raising a family and family values. And they don't want to tell you what to think, but it is the other way around. If you don't condone gay and abortion actions, you must be a bigot. If you had to raise kids, the focus on the family has some of the best materials. The have a Judeo-Christian believe.
     
  4. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Joystick, please explain to me why you don't understand the difference between "I don't believe in it, so I won't do it" and "I don't believe in it, so I will do everything in my power to ensure that you don't do it."????

    Can you explain to me, other than quoting the bible, what interest you have in my bedroom? Why it is anyone's business what I do with another consenting adult? If it is your belief that one man and one woman make up a marriage and the ideal environment for raising children, that's fine. For you. Is it your belief that you have any right or obligation to make personal decisions for me that affect no one but me?

    I have never, not once, advocated infringement of your right to practice your religion in as far as it only concerns you. How do you justify a group that proposes to dictate private behavior between consenting adults? I don't have sex in public, I don't force anyone to have sex against their will. How does that affect you, personally?
     
  5. ETA123

    ETA123 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    If they had their way, this web site you are posting on would not exist, as it is the antithesis of what they stand for and preach.
     
  6. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Don't worry, ETA. I doubt I will get a response to the questions I asked. No original thought - Joystick no doubt can't have an original thought, and relies on Focus on the Family to make important decisions for him.
     
  7. Shelby

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,159
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    in the internet
    Call me a troll if you wish (cool new avatar, eh?), but my actual intention is merely to provoke discussion.

    Many people here seem completely perplexed that some segments of society choose to be unaccepting of their chosen lifestyle.

    Yet I'll predict some of these very same people are probably uncomfortable with these folks.

    Why?
     
  8. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    What part of the difference between consenting adults and 12-year-old children do you not understand, Shelby? I am not asking anyone to participate in "my chosen lifestyle". Just to stay out of my private business. For that matter, I went through the same process to choose homosexuality that you went through to choose heterosexuality.

    "Hmm, I'll be going through puberty soon. Gay, straight... straight, gay... which will I choose? Oh, ok, I'll choose to be gay." It just does not work like that.
     
  9. Shelby

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,159
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    in the internet
    You take it as a given that sex with twelve year old children is wrong. Some cultures do not. In some cultures the somewhat arbitrary age rule has nothing to do with it. Sex begins with menses.

    Some fundies take it as a given that homosexuality is wrong. As does all of Islam.

    I'm just trying to explore the difference.
     
  10. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    I take it as a given that children are not equipped to make some decisions for themselves. Other cultures are not my concern, at least not in this thread. Sex beginning at menses? Boys have menses? That's news to me.

    If the fundies take it as a given that homosexuality is wrong, that's fine, then they should not be homosexuals (that's a whole other thread.)

    You are using typical tactics to confuscate the issue. I am in the United States of America. We have a document, here, called The Constitution. That document guarantees that I have certain rights. These pseudo-religious organizations are intent on withholding those rights from a segment of our society.

    In case you have missed the point, Shelby, I have simply asked what is the logical interest any of these groups have in my private sexual behavior with another consenting adult? I am not Muslim; the Islamic view does not concern me. I am not Christian, the christian view does not interest me. In the Constitution, I am guaranteed freedom from their persecution. Am I not?
     
  11. Shelby

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,159
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    in the internet
    Nowhere have I stated my personal beliefs on the issue of gay marriage. I was merely hoping to illuminate the fact that what's 'right' varies depending on who's talking.

    To respond more directly to the intent of your thread, I think it's good to be aware that this kind of stuff is going on. However, I think your cause would be better served by selling it to the middle than trying to do battle with the far right. The lunatic fringe, unfortunately, will always be with us on both sides.​
     
  12. ClaireTalon

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,947
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Puget Sound
    Normally I'd say these groups are the less dangerous, the less you pay attention to them.

    Unfortunately, that isn't true. I can't get out of the headshaking whenever I see what nutjobs are sailing under the freedom of speech flag and broadcast their rather dubious views to the masses, unfiltered. I can underline the things DC said, they distort facts, and use their own ways of interpreting statistics to lend their views a seemingly rational and scientific background. This makes them even more dangerous, because this apparent seriousness makes them attractive and credible to the public, except for some individuals who are cautious enough to scrutinize these publications.

    In cases like these, I think the freedom of speech should be restricted to opinions and views that don't endanger the democratic foundations of the state with radical or extremist ideas. This is, in fact, done in a number of European countries, where it works rather well, at least they have less problems with extremely conservative or extremely left-wing activists spreading their thoughts to the masses.
     
  13. Lordpendragon

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,880
    Likes Received:
    1
    We call it liberal democracy - we learnt the very hard way what happens if you let a group with fundamentalist ideas get into power.

    From this side of the pond your right wing christians are a frightening spectacle.
     
  14. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Thanks, Claire. Just so everyone understands, think for a moment about what website you are reading at this exact moment. Think for a moment if you have ever had sexual contact with another person to whom you were not married (in any context, even your high school sweetie, that's covered too.) These are things that these groups seek to extinguish.

    The inane assertion (Concerned Women for America) that they don't want to limit the right of gays to marry, just to eliminate the right to marry the person of their own choice... well, it's just inane. Their claim is that if a gay person wants to marry, they can quit bitchin and just marry someone of the other gender.

    Anyone reading this post, regardless of their beliefs in a religion or not, should understand: these groups are doing their best, right this very moment, to unplug any website with any connection to sex or sexuality (except their own, where the only acceptable mention is "sex between a legally married male-female couple is a beautiful thing, intended for the purpose of procreation.")

    Shelby, I do not recall making any mention of your own private views/beliefs on any kind of sexual issues. You brought up the other-country issues, you brought up the under-age issues, you brought up the Judeo-Christian-Mohammedan issues. I'm trying to make people aware of exactly what is going on, and exactly what is at issue, at risk.

    Claire illustrated perfectly what is so insidious about this whole thing. Each one of these groups, by itself, seems fairly innocuous, fairly impotent. But they are working together, they are using the same kinds of tactics used by the usual hate groups to garner support, amass enough finances to ramrod their agenda through legislative bodies. The problem ends up being one where these guys are screaming more loudly than anyone else that if they cannot have control over my life, then I am oppressing their religious freedom. They are screaming loudly enough, and waving enough green around capitol hill, that they have the full attention of the legislators. See, that's what really gets me. If I want them to leave me alone in the privacy of my own home with the consenting adult of my choosing, then I am treading upon their first amendment rights to freely exercise their religious views - namely, their religious view that my sex life is their business in the first place.
     
  15. ClaireTalon

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,947
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Puget Sound
    And exactly that is where I'd bring the leverage to bear on. These groups pay their serious appearance with money they raise through TV shows, public appearances, ads in newspapers/magazines, and by fundraising with apt communities. If they are legally banned to do so because of their dangerous tendencies, their financial support is limited, and further steps to quell them can be taken. The problem is that they have already gained enough influence through biased congressmen and lobby groups, let alone a biased president, to trash any bill that could endanger their position of power.
     
  16. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    I have long advocated revoking tax-exempt status for religious organizations. In fact, televangelists should have a special tax. They cannot possibly show any tangible benefit (like a local church that also runs soup kitchens or the like) to the donors; they obviously exist for the sole reason of being a very-much-for-profit organization - playing on emotional insecurities of already vulnerable persons. No exemption for any church, additional tax for televangelists... what effect do you think that would have, Claire? Before anyone jumps on the additional tax thing, think of it as something like a windfall profits tax... or even a luxury tax or a sin tax.
     
  17. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    I just realized that the link I put in for Concerned Women for America does not work. It is: http://www.cwfa.org .

    Concerned women for America is working to shut down ALL websites that they think offend their delicate sensiblities and distribute obscenity. Your right to read this website is at risk.

    Their agenda is truly frightening. Read their mission statement. Prove me wrong.
     
  18. Ethyl

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,476
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    495
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Philadelphia (PA, US)
    This group in particular makes me ill. According to them i'll never fully experience total femininity until I marry:

    Because of the differences between them, a womanÂ’s femaleness is by definition the potential for motherhood-the experience and relationship in which a woman normally finds a joyous and unique fulfillment. But she has no capacity within herself alone to realize that possibility. She needs her male companion for that.

    http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9249/CWA/family/index.htm

    I feel so incomplete. :puke:
     
  19. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    As well they should, my dear.

    Funny thing, when they start quoting scripture to make their point, the part that they conveniently leave out is that Eve/female was, apparently, an afterthought by god, not an original part of his plan. Of course, I don't agree with that, but then again I don't believe in the bible. But in my studies, that was definitely the impression I got:

    Adam created - Genesis 2:7
    Eden created, Adam placed in the garden - Gen 2:8
    Trees created - Gen 2:9
    Rivers created - Gen 2:10
    God starts thinking about creating woman - Gen 2:18
    Beasts of the field and birds created, Gen - 2:19
    Adam names all the animals - Gen - 2:20
    God takes Adam's rib, creates woman - Gen 2:21,22.

    Again, the lunatic fringe chooses carefully to advance their agenda. This is not a gay rage, it's a human rights and freedom rage. They have their sights set on you, too, unmarried sexually active heterosexual women and men!
     
  20. Snozzle

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,436
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    33
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    South Pacific
    Verified:
    Photo
    Leaving aside abortion (too divisive), what's to "condone"? I'm gay and so is my man. Are you saying we should split up? Or just stop having sex? May we sleep in the same bed? What the hell business is it of yours or Focus on the Family's to "condone" or not?

    "Judeo-Christian" is very much a marriage of convenience, when Jews and Christians were literally at each others' throats for centuries. Basically it's "Old Testament christians" who talk about "Judeo-Christian". For them, much of the New Testament (especially the Gospels) might as well never have been written.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted