[quote]groo wrote:
I think the anti porn for the reasons he purports is certainly based on his religious views. You would differ on this?
[/quote]
It’s got nothing to do with church and state.
None of that has to do with church and state which was the point I was making. However, some people don’t like Santorum because they don’t like his religion and values and that’s fine.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You mean he doesn’t want to force the Church to pay for someone’s contraception.[/quote]
No he genuinely hates birth control in general and thinks it’s harmful to women.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
And, what gay rights are those?[/quote]
He wants to reinstate DADT. Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Even as a non-Christian I had problems with several of these things. What does being a Christian or non-Christian have to with anything?[/quote]
A lot.
Why don’t you start a thread in GAL asking people about their stance on contraception and porn in general?
You must not get out much.
Oh and as for porn:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have never read Shakespeare. Just about at all. That is no pronouncement of good or bad. Simply the truth. Honestly? I’m not really interested. Maybe I should be ashamed of that, but that kind of reading just never appealed to me. I started something of his once years ago and just never could continue. I doubt I ever will. Don’t get me wrong. I understand his place in history and everybody declares what a genius he was so I’m sure he was. Just not my thing.[/quote]
It definitely needs to be approached in the right mindset, which is NOT one of casual reading.
I also do NOT think Shakespeare should EVER be read without a proper reader. The Riverside Shakespeare is excellent for containing everything you need to give the texts a proper reading with nearly exhaustive notes in the margins. Highly recommended. I’m almost certain no high schools are offering similar context in their assignments. Reading Shakespeare out of context is just a waste of time.
Shakespeare should ideally be watched first,or at the very least in conjunction with reading. He wrote plays, not books. It makes it ever so much more sense that way, especially to younger minds.
Just sayin’.
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< Us non-Christians do not have any problems with these things. If you are Christian and do not like these things, do not partake in them.[/quote]They are rotting and putrefying our country which was birthed from a Christian womb. The society we are forced to be inflicted with.
There cannot EVER be a nation wherein truly Christian and non Christian people can dwell with equal freedom. Face that right now. Christian liberty, such as that which WAS our founding as a nation and pagan libertarianism which is now masquerading as that freedom, are eternally mortal enemies and as such can never live in peace. Anybody so deluded as to believe they can has already succumbed to what is killing us.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have never read Shakespeare. Just about at all. That is no pronouncement of good or bad. Simply the truth. Honestly? I’m not really interested. Maybe I should be ashamed of that, but that kind of reading just never appealed to me. I started something of his once years ago and just never could continue. I doubt I ever will. Don’t get me wrong. I understand his place in history and everybody declares what a genius he was so I’m sure he was. Just not my thing.[/quote]
It definitely needs to be approached in the right mindset, which is NOT one of casual reading.
I also do NOT think Shakespeare should EVER be read without a proper reader. The Riverside Shakespeare is excellent for containing everything you need to give the texts a proper reading with nearly exhaustive notes in the margins. Highly recommended. I’m almost certain no high schools are offering similar context in their assignments. Reading Shakespeare out of context is just a waste of time.
Shakespeare should ideally be watched first,or at the very least in conjunction with reading. He wrote plays, not books. It makes it ever so much more sense that way, especially to younger minds.
Just sayin’.[/quote]
Completely agree.
I’d say watched, then read with a critical eye, then watched once more with a far deeper appreciation of the play.
Also I think if they’d teach King Lear instead of Romeo and Juliet you’d have a lot more interested young people. King Lear is just tremendous.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There cannot EVER be a nation wherein truly Christian and non Christian people can dwell with equal freedom. Face that right now.
[/quote]
What do you mean by this?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Oh and as for porn:
[/quote]
Well…anyone who has studied this topic cannot disagree with the above which is on Santorum’s web site. But hey this is America and there are hundreds of thousands addicted to pornography who would really hate having it taken away (if that’s even possible). Not only that I think the porno ship sailed a long time ago (would you call that “The Lust Boat?”. Santorum is a late 1950’s, early 1960’s sort of candidate when morality was actually important. That is before the pornification of the country.
At this point it’s far too late to take this stuff back. In fact, it’s almost laughable that a Presidential candidate in 2012 would even be discussing this. I wonder does he actually want to lose? You know some have a death wish, maybe Santorum knows he can’t win but want’s to go down representing what he believes to be all that is good and true. If that’s the case I admire the guy. Yet, at the same time I pray he doesn’t get the republican nomination because I’d actually like to see Obama defeated.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There cannot EVER be a nation wherein truly Christian and non Christian people can dwell with equal freedom. Face that right now.
[/quote]
What do you mean by this?[/quote]Biblical liberty is slavery to you and what you call liberty, the bible calls bondage. There cannot be public polity that allows both to flourish. You’re a moron if you think there can be. The former is what we had at our founding and what made us great. The latter is what we have now. And we are dying. For the ten millionth time. That cannot be legislated. In a free nation it must reside first in the populous and then in the magistrate. Not the other way around.
Banning pornography while leaving the heart of the nation in her debauched whoredom is an exercise in Pharisaical legalism. Some of my own beloved protestant reformers fell into this same trap.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
At this point it’s far too late to take this stuff back. In fact, it’s almost laughable that a Presidential candidate in 2012 would even be discussing this. I wonder does he actually want to lose? You know some have a death wish, maybe Santorum knows he can’t win but want’s to go down representing what he believes to be all that is good and true. If that’s the case I admire the guy. Yet, at the same time I pray he doesn’t get the republican nomination because I’d actually like to see Obama defeated.
[/quote]
This pretty accurately reflects my thoughts on the matter.
Porn isn’t going anywhere and it’s a slippery slope down the other side of the hill. Are you going to ban the internet? What could possibly be done to put that weenie, err, genie back in the bottle? (har har, I kill me) I want to believe, and almost do, that Santorum is smart enough to understand that this is not only an unwinnable battle but also chum for a media feeding frenzy. Maybe. Maybe not.
I’d like to think that he has a larger purpose behind bringing this up now, as he is. Something that has less to do with “winning” the Presidency and more to do with making a point and accomplishing a greater goal (such as forcing the left to deal with a sticky issue…it’s easy to defend free speech, not quite so simple to defend hard-core porn…).
If he is doing it as part of his election strategy, though, I think it was an amateur move. Hope that wasn’t his intention.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’d like to think that he has a larger purpose behind bringing this up now, as he is. Something that has less to do with “winning” the Presidency and more to do with making a point and accomplishing a greater goal (such as forcing the left to deal with a sticky issue…it’s easy to defend free speech, not quite so simple to defend hard-core porn…).
[/quote]
What do you mean defend “hard-core porn?”
Defend it under what terms?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Too much? What do you mean? >>>[/quote]I was agreeing about that little baby boy being way too cute. “too much” “I can’t take it”. That’s what I meant. I wasn’t jabbing you. No need for all this oversensitivity Chris. You really have your guard up with me. My fault.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’d like to think that he has a larger purpose behind bringing this up now, as he is. Something that has less to do with “winning” the Presidency and more to do with making a point and accomplishing a greater goal (such as forcing the left to deal with a sticky issue…it’s easy to defend free speech, not quite so simple to defend hard-core porn…).
[/quote]
What do you mean defend “hard-core porn?”
Defend it under what terms?
[/quote]
DUHHHHHHH…GEEEEEE I have no idea what he meant? We all know that such viewing is a very positive thing for women. It always placed them in such a positive light. It’s also positive for teens to view, it’s not like it perverts their outlook on normal sex. There is no way anything bad comes from such viewing…DUHHHHHHHH I don’t get it either…DUHHHHHHHHH I wonder what he meant.
DUH!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’d like to think that he has a larger purpose behind bringing this up now, as he is. Something that has less to do with “winning” the Presidency and more to do with making a point and accomplishing a greater goal (such as forcing the left to deal with a sticky issue…it’s easy to defend free speech, not quite so simple to defend hard-core porn…).
[/quote]
What do you mean defend “hard-core porn?”
Defend it under what terms?
[/quote]
DUHHHHHHH…GEEEEEE I have no idea what he meant? We all know that such viewing is a very positive thing for women. It always placed them in such a positive light. It’s also positive for teens to view, it’s not like it perverts their outlook on normal sex. There is no way anything bad comes from such viewing…DUHHHHHHHH I don’t get it either…DUHHHHHHHHH I wonder what he meant.
DUH!
[/quote]
Okay and?
Who is arguing that pornography isn’t demeaning to women?
Who is saying teenagers should be looking at hardcore porn?
You’re not even asking any questions that require me to defend it.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You’re not even asking any questions that require me to defend it.[/quote]
Exactly!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You’re not even asking any questions that require me to defend it.[/quote]
Exactly![/quote]
I thought you were trying to make an argument of some sort where there is an actual point of contention. Like the legality of pornography for instance.
You’ve done nothing but state the obvious.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You’re not even asking any questions that require me to defend it.[/quote]
Exactly![/quote]
I thought you were trying to make an argument of some sort where there is an actual point of contention. Like the legality of pornography for instance.
You’ve done nothing but state the obvious.
[/quote]
Because you’ve done nothing but question the obvious.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You’re not even asking any questions that require me to defend it.[/quote]
Exactly![/quote]
I thought you were trying to make an argument of some sort where there is an actual point of contention. Like the legality of pornography for instance.
You’ve done nothing but state the obvious.
[/quote]
Because you’ve done nothing but question the obvious.[/quote]
Cortes wrote
“It’s easy to defend free speech, not quite so simple to defend hard-core porn”
This after an article was posted about Rick Santorum and his goal to make hardcore porn illegal.
Anyways, it doesn’t matter. If you aren’t arguing anything contentious, there’s no point in continuing this discussion.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You’re not even asking any questions that require me to defend it.[/quote]
Exactly![/quote]
I thought you were trying to make an argument of some sort where there is an actual point of contention. Like the legality of pornography for instance.
You’ve done nothing but state the obvious.
[/quote]
Because you’ve done nothing but question the obvious.[/quote]
Cortes wrote
“It’s easy to defend free speech, not quite so simple to defend hard-core porn”
This after an article was posted about Rick Santorum and his goal to make hardcore porn illegal.
Anyways, it doesn’t matter. If you aren’t arguing anything contentious, there’s no point in continuing this discussion.
[/quote]
Unless you disagree with my point.