Who makes your sexual decisions for you?

[Ethyl]

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 afterthough 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!

This morning, I emailed this site to a theologian friend of mine who said he couldn't quit laughing as he read through this article. So sad that this organization can't correctly interpret their own scripture, but my friend thinks they reinterpret to suit their purpose. For instance, they state that "The questions about sexual practice and marriage are not matters of culture in the Bible" when, in fact, they were. They're clearly not interested in what scholars or experts on sexuality have to say marriage, homosexuality, etc. I've noticed the quotes used to "disprove" certain theories are from their own people from the LaHaye Institute, which to me only proves that scary groups like these will say anything and cloud the truth to further their own agenda.

 

[AlteredEgo]

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.

I remember being a 12 year old who was 32b-24-26, and 5'4 with long legs and long hair. I remember having the face of a 12 year old and the body of a young woman. I remember the grown men who would come on to me. I remember my mentality. Look. Sex with 12 year olds is wrong, and I'll murder any adult who fucks any of the children in my life if their fathers aren't willing or able to do it themselves. (I have my own extreme views about family structure.) Count on it.

 

[Snozzle]

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.

It's a delicate balance. As far as possible, I'd prefer that the answer to intolerant speech was more speech, not suppression. Suppressing ideas drives them underground, where you can't keep an eye on them.

I'd prefer that the only restrictions were on the equivalent of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre (which might include, eg some of their hate-and-fear-provoking allegations about gay people). And "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." (Actually a bit further away, because I want the freedom to move my nose without asking you.)

 

[DC_DEEP]

...So sad that this organization can't correctly interpret their own scripture, but my friend thinks they reinterpret to suit their purpose...
I've noticed the quotes used to "disprove" certain theories are from their own people from the LaHaye Institute, which to me only proves that scary groups like these will say anything and cloud the truth to further their own agenda.

mercurialbliss, you are exquisitely beautiful (I peeped at your profile). It is sad the way they use/reinterpret/select/disregard scriptures to their own end. Seems a bit of blasphemy, to me. And the quotes are, at the same time, annoying and humorous.

But I don't want anyone to think they don't have something going for them. As easy as it would be to dismiss them as just a fringe group, their affiliations with the groups I mentioned in the original post give them frightening power. Unfortunately, too many of us who actually see through their filthy little games underestimate (or as GW says, misunderestimate) the depth and degree of networking. Prayer/lobbying luncheons, once a month, at the House office building, for the last nine years... come on people, that is NOT insignificant. That's over a hundred "free" lobbying opportunities, and counting.

 

[Snozzle]

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.

They used to say something very similar about inter-racial marriage (they can quit bitchin' and just marry someone of the same race), when people wanted to make that legal (not so long ago in many US states).

 

[DC_DEEP]

I remember being a 12 year old who was 32b-24-26, and 5'4 with long legs and long hair. I remember having the face of a 12 year old and the body of a young woman. I remember the grown men who would come on to me. I remember my mentality. Look. Sex with 12 year olds is wrong, and I'll murder any adult who fucks any of the children in my life if their fathers aren't willing or able to do it themselves. (I have my own extreme views about family structure.) Count on it.

Yeah, BBS, what the fuck was up with Shelby's post? The neo-cons always want to throw pedophiles in the mix. My questions were about consenting adults, and he's bringing in pedophiles in other countries? CWFA does not really care about child-brides in other countries. They do care about moving back to keeping the women in this country barefoot and pregnant.

 

[Ethyl]

mercurialbliss, you are exquisitely beautiful (I peeped at your profile).

Thank you, DC

It is sad the way they use/reinterpret/select/disregard scriptures to their own end. Seems a bit of blasphemy, to me. And the quotes are, at the same time, annoying and humorous.

Yes, it is and yes, they are. My friend mentioned that it's one thing if you don't believe in God or scripture, but to take something that others value and ignore or deliberately misinterpret what has been documented by other non-religious texts as fact is despicable. I have to agree with him.

But I don't want anyone to think they don't have something going for them. As easy as it would be to dismiss them as just a fringe group, their affiliations with the groups I mentioned in the original post give them frightening power. Unfortunately, too many of us who actually see through their filthy little games underestimate (or as GW says, misunderestimate) the depth and degree of networking. Prayer/lobbying luncheons, once a month, at the House office building, for the last nine years... come on people, that is NOT insignificant. That's over a hundred "free" lobbying opportunities, and counting.

As I mentioned to someone the other day, the power of ignorance is intoxicating. Our current administration has proven that to be true, time and again. These groups have plenty going for them, they are tireless in their efforts to sell most people short, and they are supported by our government. Sigh.

 

[DC_DEEP]

...These groups have plenty going for them, they are tireless in their efforts to sell most people short, and they are supported by our government. Sigh.

to some degree, yes... but more accurate, I think, to say our government is supported by them. What I am trying to do here is encourage anyone who values their freedom (I hope everyone reads that as anyone reading this forum) to let their representatives know IN NUMBERS, that these groups represent neither the enlightened (religious or not) nor the intelligent (religious or not). I have known many christians who actually value the teachings of their holy book. Sadly, that is not the majority of self-identified christians in this country.

I am doing everything I possibly can to ensure that everyone who posts on or reads this site can continue to do so. I am doing everything I can to ensure that every citizen, gay or straight, female or male, old or young, has the freedom to choose. I am one person. The above mentioned groups are doing everything they can to ensure that my efforts are in vain. I can't do it by myself, but I won't stop trying. My life work would be much easier and effective if every person who reads this writes four letters. Every person has a federal Representative and a federal Senator for the district in which they live, plus (usually) some corresponding state representation.

Bliss, the really depressing aspect of all this is that the truly enlightened and intelligent ones are all too often just completely overcome with ennui, laziness, lack of drive and direction. The ones who take the time to write, sadly, are the ones told to do so by their preacher/church/fundie organization. So, Concerned Women tells 10,000 of their sheep to write. I convince 12 people to write. Who do you think Senator Warner is going to listen to?

Those of you in Pennsylvania, for the love of all that is good and sacred, DO SOMETHING about Santorum. He is a cancer on our beloved nation. Any others in states that have freaks like that in office (yes, I'm included and working on it) please do something constructive.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

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.

Ha, I stumbled onto the site the other day while doing a Google search on "Santorum controversy."

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=3873&department=CFI&categoryid=papers

 

[DC_DEEP]

Ha, I stumbled onto the site the other day while doing a Google search on "Santorum controversy."

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=3873&department=CFI&categoryid=papers

Ha, Dilz, I was hoping you would comment. Now that you have put in your two cents, I can say this one... although I did not see it on their website, I can just imagine the higher-ups in CWFA (whipering behind their hands to their peers) "How can we get some legislation to prevent our innocent white girls from marrying those negroes, without stirring up racial controversy?"

 

[Ethyl]

Ha, I stumbled onto the site the other day while doing a Google search on "Santorum controversy."

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=3873&department=CFI&categoryid=papers

Oh yes, the old "incest, bigamy, and prostitution" argument. Or as Bill Murray said " . . . dogs and cats, living together . . . mass hysteria!" Has anyone noticed that these groups always link homosexual males (NOT females) and incest? I wonder why we don't hear as much about the "depravity" of lesbian behavior as we do gay male behavior? Any takers?

 

[madame_zora]

Oh yes, the old "incest, bigamy, and prostitution" argument. Or as Bill Murray said " . . . dogs and cats, living together . . . mass hysteria!" Has anyone noticed that these groups always link homosexual males (NOT females) and incest? I wonder why we don't hear as much about the "depravity" of lesbian behavior as we do gay male behavior? Any takers?

Well, for one thing, MEN do commit over 90% of sex crimes, both with minors and adults, so they're not entirely off base there, but it's the fear of anal sex. Women don't have a penis, so it's seen as less to do damage with. There's even a school of thought that penetration is REQUIRED for sex, so technically lesbians can only engage in foreplay. When there's TWO evil penises being inserted into assholes, well, that's just blasphemous.

Yes folks, they actually care about WHAT hole you stick your dick in to get off. Talk about disgusting, they need to get their minds out of other people's cracks.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Ha, Dilz, I was hoping you would comment. Now that you have put in your two cents, I can say this one... although I did not see it on their website, I can just imagine the higher-ups in CWFA (whipering behind their hands to their peers) "How can we get some legislation to prevent our innocent white girls from marrying those negroes, without stirring up racial controversy?"

God bless the higher-ups at Music Television. I have little problem pulling white cunt. I'm universal and switch the script at the drop of a goddamn hat. Marriage? Nah, we take their fat daughters, but we don't want them in the long run. Fret not, we'll return them savaged and pregnant shortly.

 

[Ethyl]

Well, for one thing, MEN do commit over 90% of sex crimes, both with minors and adults, so they're not entirely off base there, but it's the fear of anal sex. Women don't have a penis, so it's seen as less to do damage with. There's even a school of thought that penetration is REQUIRED for sex, so technically lesbians can only engage in foreplay. When there's TWO evil penises being inserted into assholes, well, that's just blasphemous.

Yes folks, they actually care about WHAT hole you stick your dick in to get off. Talk about disgusting, they need to get their minds out of other people's cracks.

Penetration is required for sex? Jesus, no wonder Clinton thought he could get by with stating he had "no sexual relations". What a world, what a world . .

 

[Love-it]

I have long advocated revoking tax-exempt status for religious organizations. ...think of it as something like a windfall profits tax... or even a luxury tax or a sin tax.

I have been trying to promote taxation for all religions for years, they should be taxed on church income and on all church property holdings, they should also pay the same property taxes that businesses have to pay. There should also be full disclosure laws for religion/church portfolios. Religions have stakes in many businesses, some are church grown, controlled or owned and other positions come from donated stock. Many churches make it their business to actively solicit the weak, old and dying for donations and bequeathments.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I have been trying to promote taxation for all religions for years, they should be taxed on church income and on all church property holdings, they should also pay the same property taxes that businesses have to pay. There should also be full disclosure laws for religion/church portfolios. Religions have stakes in many businesses, some are church grown, controlled or owned and other positions come from donated stock. Many churches make it their business to actively solicit the weak, old and dying for donations and bequeathments.

Well, it's usually the televangelists who are the worst to prey on the old, the weak, and the dying. Ugh. They are just so disgusting.

Some churches are actually relatively benign, and produce some good. But they should still have the same taxes as everyone else, and yes, laws requiring their fiscal transparency would be good. I still say the televangelists, though, should have to pay additional taxes. To make up for taking the social security checkis away from frightened, addled old ladies.