NationStates Jolt Archive

I've gotta ask, was the pun intentional?

Hah! Stole the OP!

Anyways, the answer is simple. Tell them they can't do that. If they continue to try, send in the troops to enforce it.

Some dickbag Utah legislator has proposed a bill that would place new Utah anti-porn legislation above the constitutional protection for free speech by rendering it immune to being reviewed and overturned by any court including the US Supreme Court.

If Utah really wants to be free from the US constitution they should secede. I would be happy to see them go. They want a Mormon theocracy? Let 'em have their mormon theocracy. Let them also do without federal funding as well.

http://www.xbiz.com/article_piece.php?cat=40&id=16615

They can't. To try to make a state law exempt from the constitution is unconstitutional. :p

Let them do so without an ocean access PORT as well...
The idiots are landlocked.

I've gotta ask, was the pun intentional?

Hah! Stole the OP!

Anyways, the answer is simple. Tell them they can't do that. If they continue to try, send in the troops to enforce it.
Yes it was intentional.

What the hell is wrong with jolt these days anyway?

What the hell is wrong with jolt these days anyway?

Perhaps the jolt server is moving at relativistic speeds. :)

I don't see why people are so opposed to the idea of a community (or state in this case) deciding, by a fair democratic process, that they don't want pornography in thier community.

It's a rather absurd stretch to protect pornography under freedom of the press anyway. The stuff is destructive, addictive, not informative in the least, and serves no constructive purpose what-so-ever.

And if you don't like the law, vote with your feet, move out of Utah.

I don't see why people are so apposed to the idea of a comunity (or state in this case) deciding, by a fair democratic process, that they don't want pornography in thier community.

It's a rather absurd stretch to protect pornography under freedom of the press anyway. The stuff is destructive, addictive, not informative in the least, and serves no constructive purpose what-so-ever.

And if you don't like the law, vote with your feet, move out of Utah.

Then don't read it. WHo are you, or anybody else to tell me what I can and can't read or write?

Then don't read it. WHo are you, or anybody else to tell me what I can and can't read or write?

Well, I for one find the idea that pornography being a kind of "speech" is pretty amusing.

US Rep. Chris Cannon. This has nothing to do with Utah, except for the fact that that's where he was elected. It will prevent the Supreme Court from interfering in all state pornography laws, not merely those in Utah.

But yes, it is insane.

I've gotta ask, was the pun intentional?

Hah! Stole the OP!

Anyways, the answer is simple. Tell them they can't do that. If they continue to try, send in the troops to enforce it.
What exactly are the troops going to do to enforce it? Drop pornographic leaflets? Paint women on the sides of their vehicles like the Air Force used to?

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/announcement.php?f=1235&a=101

They've been updating things lately and time-slippage has occurred. How grave the slip is seems to depend on which of the entrances to the forums you use (forums.jolt.co.uk or forums2.jolt.co.uk or forums3.jolt.co.uk...).
Saw that before, but thanks for the translation. Had no idea what it meant- being a Luddite and all.

What the hell is wrong with jolt these days anyway?

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/announcement.php?f=1235&a=101

They've been updating things lately and time-slippage has occurred. How grave the slip is seems to depend on which of the entrances to the forums you use (forums.jolt.co.uk or forums2.jolt.co.uk or forums3.jolt.co.uk...).

What exactly are the troops going to do to enforce it? Drop pornographic leaflets? Paint women on the sides of their vehicles like the Air Force used to?

I see it as fairly simple. Tell whoever's producing/distributing porn in Utah to keep on doing so. If police try to stop them, send in the army to put a stop to it.

true, I still don't understand how it recieves freedom of speech. Personally I like that Utah is doing this. Porn devalues the importance of relationships and makes sex look as if it nothing when in fact sex should be part of the emotional connection you have with your partner. The US and Europe are oversexed which is why they have divorce rates and other relationship problems.

Porn isn't actually the issue at hand here. The issue at hand is whether Utah should be able to shield their laws from the Supreme Court.

Saw that before, but thanks for the translation. Had no idea what it meant- being a Luddite and all.

See, you slipped - forums.jolt.co.uk, no?

Well, I for one find the idea that pornography being a kind of "speech" is pretty amusing.
true, I still don't understand how it recieves freedom of speech. Personally I like that Utah is doing this. Porn devalues the importance of relationships and makes sex look as if it nothing when in fact sex should be part of the emotional connection you have with your partner. The US and Europe are oversexed which is why they have divorce rates and other relationship problems.

I don't see why people are so apposed to the idea of a comunity (or state in this case) deciding, by a fair democratic process, that they don't want pornography in thier community.

It's a rather absurd stretch to protect pornography under freedom of the press anyway. The stuff is destructive, addictive, not informative in the least, and serves no constructive purpose what-so-ever.

And if you don't like the law, vote with your feet, move out of Utah.
Because, well, who decides what is pornography? The idiots of Utah could decide that the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition is porn. They could decide certain novels are porn because of a few pages of sexually explicit material. They could decide certain movies or television shows are pornographic.

Also what about the rights of the minority? If a black person is living in a state that decides to institute segregation should he be forced to leave or should the rights of the minority be protected? Remember, this nation was founded as a place where minorities persecuted in their old nations could come and be free, not where they could set up new systems to persecute others.

In addition, porn is neither destructive nor addictive. It can also be informative. Many porn magazines have articles in them. I have read articles about crime, steroid use, and other subjects before in Hustler magazine. You've got to have something to do after rubbing one out to the pictures.

Porn devalues the importance of relationships and makes sex look as if it nothing when in fact sex should be part of the emotional connection you have with your partner.

What a load of bullshit. Have you ever even had sex? Because I find it hard to believe, what with the silly naivety with which you say "sex should be part of the emotional connection you have with your partner." Ridiculous. And who the hell would you be to force this "emotional connection" on anyone?

true, I still don't understand how it recieves freedom of speech. Personally I like that Utah is doing this. Porn devalues the importance of relationships and makes sex look as if it nothing when in fact sex should be part of the emotional connection you have with your partner. The US and Europe are oversexed which is why they have divorce rates and other relationship problems.
Each person has the right to place whatever level of value he or she sees fit on sexuality. Who the fuck is anyone to tell me how much I should value relationships? Oh, and BTW, the most liberal states in the US have the lowest divorce rates. Clearly repressive, prudish behavior is poison to marriage.

is it a coincidece that all the stupid things are happening in america? I think not.

is it a coincidece that all the stupid things are happening in america? I think not.

Look again. :p

is it a coincidece that all the stupid things are happening in america? I think not.

Careful, Pole. You really shouldn't be throwing bricks...

Porn isn't actually the issue at hand here. The issue at hand is whether Utah should be able to shield their laws from the Supreme Court.
states have rights. People are different in different states which is why in places like Vermont and Mass gay people can get married, while in a place like Alabama this would not happen. States should have more flexibility in laws that the Federal government has no place deciding.

Careful, Pole. You really shouldn't be throwing bricks...
im not.

See, you slipped - forums.jolt.co.uk, no?
Yes, might change to 2 or 3 see if that helps.

Thanks.

states have rights. People are different in different states which is why in places like Vermont and Mass gay people can get married, while in a place like Alabama this would not happen. States should have more flexibility in laws that the Federal government has no place deciding.

And where is the state's right to announce that this law cannot be challenged by the courts? Isn't it the Supreme Court's place to decide what is constitutional or not? If the law is constitutional, what have they to fear? If it isn't it shouldn't be passed.

states have rights. People are different in different states which is why in places like Vermont and Mass gay people can get married, while in a place like Alabama this would not happen. States should have more flexibility in laws that the Federal government has no place deciding.
There are many things neither the federal government or the states have any business deciding. Who you can marry and what you can read are among those things.

What a load of bullshit. Have you ever even had sex? Because I find it hard to believe, what with the silly naivety with which you say "sex should be part of the emotional connection you have with your partner." Ridiculous. And who the hell would you be to force this "emotional connection" on anyone?
Of course I have and every time it has been with someone I really cared about. I wouldn't just have sex with some random girl because I just wouldn't feel right. It would lose its value.

Porn devalues the importance of relationships and makes sex look as if it nothing when in fact sex should be part of the emotional connection you have with your partner.

That's the business of those who watch it. You have no right to interfere.

true, I still don't understand how it recieves freedom of speech. Personally I like that Utah is doing this. Porn devalues the importance of relationships and makes sex look as if it nothing when in fact sex should be part of the emotional connection you have with your partner. The US and Europe are oversexed which is why they have divorce rates and other relationship problems.

While I find the idea of pornography being speech silly, what Utah is doing is trying to get around the Supreme Court.

im not.

Yeah, that's why the EU had to threaten Poland with suspension of votes due to its stance on civil liberties and freedom of speech... really, Poland doesn't even have legal abortions. Which is like so 50 years ago. So, talking about "all the stupid stuff happening in the US" really is throwing humongous bricks when done by someone from Poland.

Of course I have and every time it has been with someone I really cared about. I wouldn't just have sex with some random girl because I just wouldn't feel right. It would lose its value.
Why should your personal preference carry the weight of law? If a percentage of the population want to have random, meaningless sex with one another what business is it of anyone else's?

Of course I have and every time it has been with someone I really cared about. I wouldn't just have sex with some random girl because I just wouldn't feel right. It would lose its value.

Yeah, right.

There are many things neither the federal government or the states have any business deciding. Who you can marry and what you can read are among those things.
Porn isn't something you read. And states have I say in who you can marry. And in most states its decided marriage is one man, one woman. Not once since its been put before the people have they decide otherwise.

Porn isn't something you read.

I read plenty of porn. There are mountains of erotic stories out there that can be much more titillating than pictures. In any case, who the hell are you to tell me what I can and cannot read or watch?

Of course I have and every time it has been with someone I really cared about. I wouldn't just have sex with some random girl because I just wouldn't feel right. It would lose its value.

That is your opinion. And to a great degree mine for that matter.
However, other people feel differently. And I for one am not so arrogant to assume that I am allowed to order them how they should feel and think.

Yeah, that's why the EU had to threaten Poland with suspension of votes due to its stance on civil liberties and freedom of speech... really, Poland doesn't even have legal abortions. Which is like so 50 years ago. So, talking about "all the stupid stuff happening in the US" really is throwing humongous bricks when done by someone from Poland.
i don't know what your talking about. and also if a country doesent have legal murder, why should it have legal abortion.

Why should your personal preference carry the weight of law? If a percentage of the population want to have random, meaningless sex with one another what business is it of anyone else's?
We're getting off track. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to have meaningless sex, because if you wanted to fine have fun with your diseases. My point is that if a state decides they don't want something like porn, abortions, or gay marriage hurting their people they should be able to say no.

i don't know what your talking about.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/10/102605poland.htm

and also if a country doesent have legal murder, why should it have legal abortion.

Thank you for proving my point, that when asked to think about "not stupid" places, people don't exactly think of Poland. So, really, next time you're itching to tell the yanks about all the stupid shit that happens in their country, look to your own front step.

Yeah, right.
whether you believe me or not I really don't care. You wouldn't understand since(and Im not trying to generalize) alot of gay people are more free with sex than others.

I read plenty of porn. There are mountains of erotic stories out there that can be much more titillating than pictures. In any case, who the hell are you to tell me what I can and cannot read or watch?
I don't know. Who are you to tell me I can't kill you?

I don't know. Who are you to tell me I can't kill you?
Watching porn(usually) doesn't violate anyone's rights. Killing someone does.

We're getting off track. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to have meaningless sex, because if you wanted to fine have fun with your diseases. My point is that if a state decides they don't want something like porn, abortions, or gay marriage hurting their people they should be able to say no.

If the federal government rules that the act in question is Constitutional and thereby legal, the state has to obey the decision. Their laws do not take precedence over the Constitution or the laws of the Federal government in any case. It's called the incorporation of the Bill of Rights from the 14th Amendment; It means that any rights provided by the Federal government are also applied to the states.

If that wern't the case, then states could do things totally in opposition to the laws of the federal government; from creating a state church to removing the rights of people to assemble and protest freely they would have a huge amount of power.

Porn isn't something you read. And states have I say in who you can marry. And in most states its decided marriage is one man, one woman. Not once since its been put before the people have they decide otherwise.
There are cheap paperback pornographic novels, you know. Visit your local porn shop. You might be surprised.

My argument is that who you get to marry shouldn't be up to a democratic vote. Provided that consenting adults are involved its' between them, their religion if any, and that's it.

i don't know what your talking about. and also if a country doesent have legal murder, why should it have legal abortion.
Because nobody dies in an abortion.

Thank you for proving my point, that when asked to think about "not stupid" places, people don't exactly think of Poland. So, really, next time you're itching to tell the yanks about all the stupid shit that happens in their country, look to your own front step.
so you think im stupid because i do not suppost legalised abortion?

whether you believe me or not I really don't care. You wouldn't understand since(and Im not trying to generalize) alot of gay people are more free with sex than others.

What is there to understand? You want to stick your nose into my business and tell me what I can and cannot read, or watch, or produce. I'm telling you to mind your own.

I don't know. Who are you to tell me I can't kill you?
A guy looking at porn doesn't infringe on your liberty. Me stomping you to death infringes on your liberty. See the difference between porn and murder?

Watching porn(usually) doesn't violate anyone's rights. Killing someone does.
ok, drugs are illegal. Why? they dont violate anyone's rights however they are harmful to the person and society as a whole, same as porn. Case Closed.

Of course I have and every time it has been with someone I really cared about. I wouldn't just have sex with some random girl because I just wouldn't feel right. It would lose its value.

I've had lots of of wonderfully meaningless sex and lots of very intimate emotional sex. Having one does not exclude you from having the other. You only exclude yourself - your bias should not translate into allowing laws that restrict others rights.

My wife and I both enjoy pornography together.

Because nobody dies in an abortion.
except for you know, the baby:rolleyes:

ok, drugs are illegal. Why? they dont violate anyone's rights however they are harmful to the person and society as a whole, same as porn. Case Closed.
Drugs are illegal because we live in a moralistic, oppressive society. There was a time when drugs were legal. Cocaine, morphine, the whole 9 yards. We didn't have any of the problems with gangs and drug crime that we have now.

ok, drugs are illegal. Why? they dont violate anyone's rights however they are harmful to the person and society as a whole, same as porn. Case Closed.

How is porn harmful to the person? I've watched porn, and I've never had any problems as a result of it. The only way it's dangerous is if you get addicted to it, and that can happen with anything from porn to coin collecting to videogames.

I don't know. Who are you to tell me I can't kill you?

I happen to have a right to life. I also happen to have the right to free speech and the freedom of expression - meaning I can watch as much porn as I want, and make as much of it as I can and I don't have to give a rat's behind what some prude thinks about it. And, no, that prude can't stop me.

You, on the other hand, just try killing me. We'll see how much of a right to end my life you have.

There are cheap paperback pornographic novels, you know. Visit your local porn shop. You might be surprised.

My argument is that who you get to marry shouldn't be up to a democratic vote. Provided that consenting adults are involved its' between them, their religion if any, and that's it.
I'll pass on visiting the porn shop thanks. And why shouldn't marriage be up to a democractic vote it what is supposed to be a democracy?

so you think im stupid because i do not suppost legalised abortion?

You said it, not I. In any case, Poland is full of stupid things - catholic fundamentalism being just one aspect of it. I'm just telling you a Pole is in no position to bitch about the stupid things in the US, because Poland is basically what these people wish the US were like.

What is there to understand? You want to stick your nose into my business and tell me what I can and cannot read, or watch, or produce. I'm telling you to mind your own.
The thing to understand was that it seemed hard for you to understand that I may actually, shocking to you, want to only have sex I care about and have an emotional connection with.

You said it, not I. In any case, Poland is full of stupid things - catholic fundamentalism being just one aspect of it. I'm just telling you a Pole is in no position to bitch about the stupid things in the US, because Poland is basically what these people wish the US were like.

Not me...Ohio's bad enough as is. :(

I'll pass on visiting the porn shop thanks. And why shouldn't marriage be up to a democractic vote it what is supposed to be a democracy?
It is simple

Your rights stop when they infringe upon the right of the other...

It is your right to watch porn, yet it is not your right to make another watch porn

The thing to understand was that it seemed hard for you to understand that I may actually, shocking to you, want to only have sex I care about and have an emotional connection with.

I don't give a crap about what you want to do in the sack - you can feltch santorum for all I care. So, you stop giving a damn about what I want to do in the sack and if I want to film it and if other people want to see it.

I don't know. Who are you to tell me I can't kill you?
The person you are trying to kill ?
Of course, in my opinion it should be legal for you to kill me if I gave you explicit permission to do so. But I like personal freedom more than the average man.

Of course I have and every time it has been with someone I really cared about. I wouldn't just have sex with some random girl because I just wouldn't feel right. It would lose its value.

I've had lots of of wonderfully meaningless sex and lots of very intimate emotional sex. Having one does not exclude you from having the other. You only exclude yourself - your bias should not translate into allowing laws that restrict others rights.

My wife and I both enjoy pornography together.

How is porn harmful to the person? I've watched porn, and I've never had any problems as a result of it. The only way it's dangerous is if you get addicted to it, and that can happen with anything from porn to coin collecting to videogames.
Porn is harmful because it alters peoples view of sex and relationships in a negative way. This spills out into society as a whole.

It is simple

Your rights stop when they infringe upon the right of the other...

It is your right to watch porn, yet it is not your right to make another watch porn
Why is it your right to watch porn? Its not a right in China.

Porn is harmful because it alters peoples view of sex and relationships in a negative way. This spills out into society as a whole.

It hasn't altered my view. I honestly don't plan to have sex until I'm ready for it and it's a meaningful occaision that has significant meaning to myself and my partner. If anything, porn and mastrubation helps control urges that might result in casual or otherwise meaningless sex.

You have to be able to distance the fantasy world of porn from the real world of human relationships and sexuality. If you can't do that, you're going to run in to problems regardless of whether the instigator in question is porn, video games, fantasy novels or anything else that creates a fantasy world that is separate from reality.

Porn is harmful because it alters peoples view of sex and relationships in a negative way. This spills out into society as a whole.

And who are you to decide what is "negative," let alone for the rest of us?

Why is it your right to watch porn? Its not a right in China.
Why is it your right to be on the website? It isn't in China.


The rights of the Chinese have no bearing on the rights of Americans, or people of any other nationality.

It hasn't altered my view. I honestly don't plan to have sex until I'm ready for it and it's a meaningful occaision that has significant meaning to myself and my partner. If anything, porn and mastrubation helps control urges that might result in casual or otherwise meaningless sex.

You have to be able to distance the fantasy world of porn from the real world of human relationships and sexuality. If you can't do that, you're going to run in to problems regardless of whether the instigator in question is porn, video games, fantasy novels or anything else that creates a fantasy world that is separate from reality.
Very few people distance themselves from the fantasy and it becomes reality. Thus in lies the problem and why it is harmful.

Why is it your right to watch porn? Its not a right in China.

It's also not a right to discuss or criticize the Tiananmen Square massacre in China, and it's also not a right to say anything negative about the government or Communism without punishment in China.

The problem is, we don't live in China so there's no reason why we should structure our society along the same lines as the PRC.

And who are you to decide what is "negative," let alone for the rest of us?
So you think the idea that sex and relationships are meaningless and also that woman are objects is positive?

Why is it your right to watch porn? Its not a right in China.
Liberal democracies have individual freedoms in high regard. China is not a liberal democracy.

It's also not a right to discuss or criticize the Tiananmen Square massacre in China, and it's also not a right to say anything negative about the government or Communism without punishment in China.

The problem is, we don't live in China so there's no reason why we should structure our society along the same lines as the PRC.
China also as far less crime than we do, the people are generally healthier and less fat, not to mention they are helpful and nicer. Theres a lot the west could learn for the PRC and if we structured at least some of our society along the same lines I think we'd be better off.

Cthulhu-Mythos']Let them do so without an ocean access PORT as well...
The idiots are landlocked.

Wow...I'm such a nerd....my first thought when I read the first sentence was a computer port, as in connection to the Internet. They probably wouldn't want that anyway, though - too much modern technology, free expression, and pr0n.

So you think the idea that sex and relationships are meaningless

I think the idea that everybody gets to decide for themselves what kind of sex they want and if they want to attach childishly naïve notions of "meaning" to it or not is a lot better than your busy-bodying.

and also that woman are objects is positive?

I don't give a crap about women as objects. I objectify men, and I'm happy to do it. Most of them like when I do so. If they don't, well they don't have to fuck me, now do they?

So you think the idea that sex and relationships are meaningless and also that woman are objects is positive?

I really gotta ask.... why do you care if we watch porn or not?

Cthulhu-Mythos']Let them do so without an ocean access PORT as well...
The idiots are landlocked.

Wow...I'm such a nerd....my first thought when I read the first sentence was a computer port, as in connection to the Internet. They probably wouldn't want that anyway, though - too much modern technology, free expression, and pr0n.

Porn is harmful because it alters peoples view of sex and relationships in a negative way. This spills out into society as a whole.
Could you vague that up for me a little? Maybe make some more statements with no factual support.

China also as far less crime than we do, the people are generally healthier and less fat, not to mention they are helpful and nicer. Theres a lot the west could learn for the PRC and if we structured at least some of our society along the same lines I think we'd be better off.

Troll made me bite. No more.

Some dickbag Utah legislator has proposed a bill that would place new Utah anti-porn legislation above the constitutional protection for free speech by rendering it immune to being reviewed and overturned by any court including the US Supreme Court.

If Utah really wants to be free from the US constitution they should secede. I would be happy to see them go. They want a Mormon theocracy? Let 'em have their mormon theocracy. Let them also do without federal funding as well.

http://www.xbiz.com/article_piece.php?cat=40&id=16615
Can they take the rest of the area below the Mason-Dixen line with them? Then they can have their little happy Christian theocracy free of that pesky "rights" issue.

Very few people distance themselves from the fantasy and it becomes reality. Thus in lies the problem and why it is harmful.
:eek: So blow jobs and threesomes only happen in porn?!

Troll made me bite. No more.
lol, you think I'm a troll. I'm serious, China's society as many positive aspects that would be good if we modeled. Im not saying everything, just some of the things.

I really gotta ask.... why do you care if we watch porn or not?
I don't care. But why should you care if a state and its people do not want porn?

I don't care. But why should you care if a state and its people do not want porn?

Any attack upon PORN is an attack upon the United States...
Utah has declared war upon the rest of the nation by being opposed to PORN.
I think the whole worthless state should just be Nuked.
All they offer America is Mormons and other Satanic Cults anyway.

You're just a fan of the fascism.
No, actually I hate it. The idea of making war look great is horrible. I'm just a fan of healthy societies, something porn hurts.

Cthulhu-Mythos']Any attack upon PORN is an attack upon the United States...
Utah has declared war upon the rest of the nation by being opposed to PORN.
I think the whole worthless state should just be Nuked.
All they offer America is Mormons and other Satanic Cults anyway.
Thats great. You can say alot on these forums but the second anyone speaks out on porn, god forbid.

Note: For some reason everyone is up in arms with me. I'm not having time to respond to many because either the server or my computer is messed up causing everything to be really slow.

No, actually I hate it. The idea of making war look great is horrible. I'm just a fan of healthy societies, something porn hurts.

Do you have any proof that porn hurts society?

Why is it your right to watch porn? Its not a right in China.
It's also not your right in China to practice religion. religion is destructive to society and the individual. I kind of like China.

It's also not your right in China to practice religion. religion is destructive to society and the individual. I kind of like China.
Your right religion is destructive to society and the individual. It was really nice not to be surround by it for awhile, I love China.

Do you have any proof that porn hurts society?
do you have proof it doesn't? For instance would you show porn to children?

Your right religion is destructive to society and the individual. It was really nice not to be surround by it for awhile, I love China.
Lets get back to the bit where you prove porn damages society. Preferably something other than 'China doesn't have porn and China is super'.

do you have proof it doesn't? For instance would you show porn to children?
Ah yes, why prove yourself right when you can sit back and let others prove you wrong.

I still don't see why people think children seeing porn will warp their minds forever. Either they're too young to even know what sex is, and porn will just be naked people hugging, or they do know and they'll have a mental image to go with words like vagina and intercourse.

do you have proof it doesn't? For instance would you show porn to children?

You are the one making the claim, not me. You have to back it up.

Ok, Im supposed to argue that porn is harmful to society with a person who feels its ok to show it to kids. Thats like trying to show how liking little kids is wrong to a pedophile. My point is that no matter what I say your not going to listen because god forbid someone speaks bad of porn.
Yes, you are.

And kids will live if they see porn, I'm not suggesting they can watch it in between cartoons in the morning.

And I love how stupid it sounds when someone refuses to argue because I(or someone else) won't listen. If you have that little confidence in your point of view maybe you should reconsider it.

Yes, you are.

And kids will live if they see porn, I'm not suggesting they can watch it in between cartoons in the morning.

And I love how stupid it sounds when someone refuses to argue because I(or someone else) won't listen. If you have that little confidence in your point of view maybe you should reconsider it.
Ok, Porn hurts society because it distorts what healthy relationships and sex practices should be. This leads to high divorce rates, unwanted children, and the spread of diseases like AIDS. I think its clear how porn hurts society.

Ok, Porn hurts society because it distorts what healthy relationships and sex practices should be. This leads to high divorce rates, unwanted children, and the spread of diseases like AIDS. I think its clear how porn hurts society.

Yes but can you prove this? Statistics? A peer-reviewed paper by a sociologist? Anything?

Ok, Porn hurts society because it distorts what healthy relationships and sex practices should be. This leads to high divorce rates, unwanted children, and the spread of diseases like AIDS. I think its clear how porn hurts society.


an opinion is not proof. You need to show statistics at the very least.

States could always bring back their annulment trick. They used it relatively often in the early days of the United States. Constitutionality is often a murky land, after all......

While political analysts today say that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, a state could still believe otherwise.

Ok, Porn hurts society because it distorts what healthy relationships and sex practices should be. This leads to high divorce rates, unwanted children, and the spread of diseases like AIDS. I think its clear how porn hurts society.
That depends on what you think a healthy relationship is.

Note: For some reason everyone is up in arms with me.

What did you expect when you basicly claimed you were God and allowed to determine what other peple should feel and think ?

except for you know, the baby:rolleyes:
So I guess you think that jacking off should be illegal too, since every time you do, you're killing millions of babies. Oh, and condoms should definitely be outlawed, right? :rolleyes: In fact, just outlaw any kind of sexual activity alltogether, because even when a baby is born, millions of other babies had to be sacrificed to let that one live.

And to anyone who believes that pornography is harmful to society: try taking a look at any medical or psychology or sociology journal for the hundreds of studies done which indicate not only that it doesn't have any harmful effects, but that masturbation can actually be very healthy for a person. Once you've read a few articles, come back and try to re-build your pathetic arguments.

With regards to the human rights issues, it is pretty damn clear that neither printing nor reading pornography is a violation of anyone's rights, and any activity that doesn't violate the rights of another person is protected by the constitution, and they are protected for a reason. After all, your country's motto is"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", isn't it?

Finally regarding the state vs federal government issues, the federal government is there for a reason. If you want your state to be able to govern itself completely freely without any restrictions imposed on it by the federal government, then you're going to have to seceed. One poster earlier in the thread said "if you don't like it, vote with your feet" in response to people in Utah who may not like the restriction of civil rights their state government is trying to impose on them, well, it is against federal law for the state to impose that restriction of civil rights, so I'll repeat that comment back to the state of Utah: If you don't like it, vote with your feet, and leave your country.

And to anyone who believes that pornography is harmful to society: try taking a look at any medical or psychology or sociology journal for the hundreds of studies done which indicate not only that it doesn't have any harmful effects, but that masturbation can actually be very healthy for a person. Once you've read a few articles, come back and try to re-build your pathetic arguments.

masturbation /=/ porn

So I guess you think that jacking off should be illegal too, since every time you do, you're killing millions of babies. Oh, and condoms should definitely be outlawed, right? :rolleyes: In fact, just outlaw any kind of sexual activity alltogether, because even when a baby is born, millions of other babies had to be sacrificed to let that one live.
how would the species survive if no one had sex:confused:

And to anyone who believes that pornography is harmful to society: try taking a look at any medical or psychology or sociology journal for the hundreds of studies done which indicate not only that it doesn't have any harmful effects, but that masturbation can actually be very healthy for a person. Once you've read a few articles, come back and try to re-build your pathetic arguments.
masturbation has nothing to do with porn. Masturbation is healthy(although not as much as real sex), porn is not.
With regards to the human rights issues, it is pretty damn clear that neither printing nor reading pornography is a violation of anyone's rights, and any activity that doesn't violate the rights of another person is protected by the constitution, and they are protected for a reason. After all, your country's motto is"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", isn't it?
no, actually the US motto is "In God we Trust". What you stated is the preamble.
Finally regarding the state vs federal government issues, the federal government is there for a reason. If you want your state to be able to govern itself completely freely without any restrictions imposed on it by the federal government, then you're going to have to seceed. One poster earlier in the thread said "if you don't like it, vote with your feet" in response to people in Utah who may not like the restriction of civil rights their state government is trying to impose on them, well, it is against federal law for the state to impose that restriction of civil rights, so I'll repeat that comment back to the state of Utah: If you don't like it, vote with your feet, and leave your country.
States aren't allowed to leave the country which is why they need more flexibility in their laws.

masturbation has nothing to do with porn. Masturbation is healthy(although not as much as real sex), porn is not.
Porn is often a leads to masturbation.

Porn is often a leads to masturbation.
being awake often leads to murder........quick go to sleep!

being awake often leads to murder........quick go to sleep!
lmao. You win this thread. *goes to sleep*

China also as far less crime than we do, the people are generally healthier and less fat, not to mention they are helpful and nicer. Theres a lot the west could learn for the PRC and if we structured at least some of our society along the same lines I think we'd be better off.

I agree, there's a lot we can learn from China but some things are more beneficial than others. Resources spent trying to control porn could be better used to solve other problems that are a lot more pressing and a lot more dangerous than pornography. Honestly, porn loses a lot of its allure once you're old enough to buy it legally...once I turned 18 I honestly don't find porn as interesting or arousing as I did when I was younger. Also, countries like Iran are a lot stricter when it comes to sexuality than China and they have huge problems with corruption, crime, poverty, and civil unrest. China has less crime because their police forces are a lot more powerful than the ones in the US or Europe; however, they also have bigger problems with political corruption than in the West so in some ways it's a trade-off.

The Chinese people are healthier because their cultural and religious traditions and beliefs encourage caring for the mind and body; Taoism in particular encourages the pursuit of a healthy person through T'ai Chi Ch'üan and other introspective exercises, so it's clear that their culture has had a long tradition of healthy behavior and their diet is much better and balanced than the reprocessed and deep-fried garbage that passes for food in many peoples' diets in the West. As you know, China has one of the most varied and most developed cuisines in the world; authentic Chinese (and other Asian cultures') dishes are very healthy and very well-balanced when compared to the foods consumed by people today.


On a side note since you mentioned China:

Even their tea culture ismuch healthier; Chinese teamaking methods are vastly superior to Western teamaking, which is so bitter and overbrewed that adding unhealthy amounts of sugar and milk is a must to make it palatable. Since I've started preparing and drinking tea using more Chinese methods and drinking it pure (without milk or sugar) I've realized that tea is a delicious beverage far better without artificial flavoring to cover up its taste.

Porn is often a leads to masturbation.
not always. You can masturbate without porn you know.

not always. You can masturbate without porn you know.

I'm still waiting for some proof that pron is damaging to society. Either provide it or retract the statement.

not always. You can masturbate without porn you know.

I do. Unless I can go online.

>.>

not always. You can masturbate without porn you know.
I know, and you can look at porn without masturbating, the two just tend to occur around the same time for some mysterious reason. I haven't in ages actually. Maybe I will now.

how would the species survive if no one had sex:confused:
Apparently, the concept of irony is foreign to you.

masturbation has nothing to do with porn. Masturbation is healthy(although not as much as real sex), porn is not. I don't know about you, but I don't really see the point in porn if a person can't masturbate (or have sex) to it.

no, actually the US motto is "In God we Trust". What you stated is the preamble.
I stand corrected. Now, is that your only argument to that point, or is there more?

States aren't allowed to leave the country which is why they need more flexibility in their laws.
So, the civil war never happened then? Huh. And they need the flexibility to start taking away civil rights, do they? So what happens when they get that flexibility, and southern states start imposing mandatory religion, or begin to turn into police states, now that they're suddenly allowed to do so? I'm sure there are plenty of governors in the south that would just love to make christianity their state religion, and impose a permanent curfew.

I agree, there's a lot we can learn from China but some things are more beneficial than others. Resources spent trying to control porn could be better used to solve other problems that are a lot more pressing and a lot more dangerous than pornography.
perhaps. China does has a variety of issues with no easy answers but controlling porn I don't feel is an unworthy cause.
Honestly, porn loses a lot of its allure once you're old enough to buy it legally...once I turned 18 I honestly don't find porn as interesting or arousing as I did when I was younger.
I think that happens with sex/masturbation in general since when we get older our hormones slow down and things we thought were omg awesome when we were younger we realise aren't that great.
Also, countries like Iran are a lot stricter when it comes to sexuality than China and they have huge problems with corruption, crime, poverty, and civil unrest. China has less crime because their police forces are a lot more powerful than the ones in the US or Europe; however, they also have bigger problems with political corruption than in the West so in some ways it's a trade-off.
thats true. Its a trade off, the trick is finding the right balance.
The Chinese people are healthier because their cultural and religious traditions and beliefs encourage caring for the mind and body; Taoism in particular encourages the pursuit of a healthy person through T'ai Chi Ch'üan and other introspective exercises, so it's clear that their culture has had a long tradition of healthy behavior and their diet is much better and balanced than the reprocessed and deep-fried garbage that passes for food in many peoples' diets in the West. As you know, China has one of the most varied and most developed cuisines in the world; authentic Chinese (and other Asian cultures') dishes are very healthy and very well-balanced when compared to the foods consumed by people today.
yep, even the unhealthy western food there they find ways to make healthier. I had a sandwich at a KFC in Beijing once and there was vegtables in the meat:D It was pretty good too

On a side note since you mentioned China:

Even their tea culture ismuch healthier; Chinese teamaking methods are vastly superior to Western teamaking, which is so bitter and overbrewed that adding unhealthy amounts of sugar and milk is a must to make it palatable. Since I've started preparing and drinking tea using more Chinese methods and drinking it pure (without milk or sugar) I've realized that tea is a delicious beverage far better without artificial flavoring to cover up its taste.
Chinese tea is great. If I'm sick, I have some of it(or close as I can get) and I feel better quicker.

Edit: I should add China has the most beautiful women in the world, although I'm not sure if that is a result of how their society is setup:p

I know, and you can look at porn without masturbating, the two just tend to occur around the same time for some mysterious reason. I haven't in ages actually. Maybe I will now.
why? Isn't there anything else better you can do with your time?

I'm still waiting for some proof that pron is damaging to society. Either provide it or retract the statement.
I'll need more time to find things. But this wasnt about whether porn is harmful, it was about whether some states have the right to say no to it. Which I think they do.

I'll need more time to find things. But this wasnt about whether porn is harmful, it was about whether some states have the right to say no to it. Which I think they do.
Yeah, fuck all that freedom crap. Let's be more like China. I want to work in a Chinese prison so I can rape Falun Gong chicks (before they're executed and cut up for spare parts).

I'll need more time to find things. But this wasnt about whether porn is harmful, it was about whether some states have the right to say no to it. Which I think they do.
Like I just said, if you give a state the ability to impose restrictions on the rights of the people, many of them will not hesitate to use that ability, and you will see states in the US becoming theocracies or police states. This is what the constitution and the federal government are there to prevent from happening.

If you want to live in a place where civil rights are not valued and protected, why don't you try actually moving to North Korea for a couple of years. Then come back to the US and tell your countrymen that you want to give the government the same power that the NK or PRC government has.

I'll need more time to find things. But this wasnt about whether porn is harmful, it was about whether some states have the right to say no to it. Which I think they do.

You made it about whether porn is harmful to society:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11595195&postcount=86

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11595225&postcount=96

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11595152&postcount=65

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11595113&postcount=51

It doesn't matter who believes porn is harmful to society or who doesn't.

Does the Legislative Branch of government(on the state level) have the authority to supercede and circumvent the powers of the Judicial branch of government(on the federal level)?

Obviously, they don't.

I'm just a fan of healthy societies, something porn hurts.

Our society isn't sexually liberal enough yet. When teenagers have sex and watch pornography and no one cares, when birth control has universal acceptance and encouragement, when sex-ed courses can actually teach, when homosexuality and bisexuality are viewed as equal to heterosexuality, when non-monogamous relationships aren't viewed with disdain, when we abandon our rigid perspectives on what is a "proper" relationship and what isn't, when people abandon the obsolete notion that only "loving" sex is "good" sex (for everyone, not for them personally), when reproductive freedom is seen as the human right it is, then perhaps we will have reached the proper point.

But this wasnt about whether porn is harmful, it was about whether some states have the right to say no to it. Which I think they do.

Since watching and reading pornography is completely harmless, no state has the right to regulate the capability of individuals to watch or read it.

Instead of banning it, governments should nationalize the pornography industry, let the workers self-manage it, and distribute it for free.*

*Not serious.

I'm a very strong supporter of states' rights, in fact I'm borderline secessionist, but I don't agree with what Utah is doing. I only see two legitimate functions of the Federal government: defense and ensuring that the states respect human rights.

I believe that the free exchange of information, as long as it is between and involving consensual adults should never be hindered by the government, assuming property rights are respected. Restricting a sort of media just because one finds it disturbing is an extremely dangerous precedent to set, especially in our legalistic culture that always looks for loopholes and precedent to get around laws we dislike. I hate to sound like I'm building a slippery slope, but it's not an extremely far step from banning "immoral" literature and images to banning "seditious" literature and images.

And to preemptively respond to the inevitable "Where is this right to information found?" question, I'll point you to the 9th Amendment.

Also, as long as Utah is part of the Union (which I firmly believe it can leave) it has to abide by the general consensus of what human rights are. In signing on to the Constitution Utah agreed to abide by Supreme Court decisions. If they decide to leave they can create their own definitions.

I'm not to going to join in the argument on whether porn is healthy for society or not. My main concern with this bill is what exactly this Rep. Cannon is trying to accomplish.

The language of the bill explicitly limits the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, which is a completely unnecessary move on Cannon's part. Unless a major decision was handed down recently that I haven't heard of, there isn't any reason to pre-emptively declare pornography laws out of the jurisdiction of both the SC and federal courts. I think he's doing it for the publicity, because it doesn't look like it'll have much of a chance of passing. Negative attention is better than no attention, right?

I'm not to going to join in the argument on whether porn is healthy for society or not. My main concern with this bill is what exactly this Rep. Cannon is trying to accomplish.

The language of the bill explicitly limits the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, which is a completely unnecessary move on Cannon's part. Unless a major decision was handed down recently that I haven't heard of, there isn't any reason to pre-emptively declare pornography laws out of the jurisdiction of both the SC and federal courts. I think he's doing it for the publicity, because it doesn't look like it'll have much of a chance of passing. Negative attention is better than no attention, right?
He's being a conservative douche trying to ban pornography. It happens every few months or years. The only problem is that because this attacks the SC and not pornography, it will more than likely pass as the Supreme Court is seen as the root of all evil for you know,doing its job.

He's being a conservative douche trying to ban pornography. It happens every few months or years. The only problem is that because this attacks the SC and not pornography, it will more than likely pass as the Supreme Court is seen as the root of all evil for you know,doing its job.
The joke is on the religious right. They're undermining the power of the courts at the same time that voters mibht be starting to swing more liberal. If congress swings democrat and Bush's successor is democrat as well, the weakened courts might not be in a position to stop a whole crapload of very liberal laws.

He's being a conservative douche trying to ban pornography. It happens every few months or years. The only problem is that because this attacks the SC and not pornography, it will more than likely pass as the Supreme Court is seen as the root of all evil for you know,doing its job.
With two Bush appointees on the Court, I can hardly see a conservative politician try to undermine it. The SC could just as easily set precedent for banning porn as it could for allowing it, and taking away that kind of an oppurtunity seems like a pretty stupid move. Granted, the Court hasn't shown that it would ban porn, but removing jurisdiction entirely, and from federal courts at the same time, along with invalidating all previous precedent is too drastic a measure to be smart, or conservative for that matter.

The joke is on the religious right. They're undermining the power of the courts at the same time that voters mibht be starting to swing more liberal. If congress swings democrat and Bush's successor is democrat as well, the weakened courts might not be in a position to stop a whole crapload of very liberal laws.
Unless liberals want to ban porn too, this move doesn't help them. The language is very specific, removing only anti-porn laws from jurisdiction.

whether you believe me or not I really don't care. You wouldn't understand since(and Im not trying to generalize) alot of gay people are more free with sex than others.


I'm not gay, and I see no reason why anyone should tell another adult they cannot read or watch porn. As a matter of fact, I believe it can spice things up when shared.

Saying that the only reason Baguetten thinks this way is because he is gay is an ad hominem attack -- it casts aspersions on the person rather than his argument.

With two Bush appointees on the Court, I can hardly see a conservative politician try to undermine it. The SC could just as easily set precedent for banning porn as it could for allowing it, and taking away that kind of an oppurtunity seems like a pretty stupid move. Granted, the Court hasn't shown that it would ban porn, but removing jurisdiction entirely, and from federal courts at the same time, along with invalidating all previous precedent is too drastic a measure to be smart, or conservative for that matter.

Don't worry about it; they can't. the Utah legslature can't exercise powers they don't have. :p

Don't worry about it; they can't. the Utah legslature can't exercise powers they don't have. :p
That's the problem. This is a bill in Congress, not the state legislature. And this is a power Congress has.

ok, drugs are illegal. Why? they dont violate anyone's rights however they are harmful to the person and society as a whole, same as porn. Case Closed.


Porn does not. Case closed.

See? It doesn't make my argument any more valid. In fact, dismissing someone else's argument like that does not weaken your opponent's view. It makes it seem that you don't have a strong argument.

Unless liberals want to ban porn too, this move doesn't help them. The language is very specific, removing only anti-porn laws from jurisdiction.
If utah can make a law about porn, what's to stop NY to make a law about christians? or California to make a law about abortion or (insert blue state) to make a law about (insert pet conservative topic)? Or the federal government to make a law about torture?

If the Utah law is good, out comes the stampede...

If utah can make a law about porn, what's to stop NY to make a law about christians? or California to make a law about abortion or (insert blue state) to make a law about (insert pet conservative topic)? Or the federal government to make a law about torture?

This is not a bill in the Utah legislature. It's a bill in the US Congress that only removes state laws concerning pornography from the jurisdiction of federal courts - not other laws.

I'll pass on visiting the porn shop thanks. And why shouldn't marriage be up to a democractic vote it what is supposed to be a democracy?


Ok. Let's put it to a democratic vote.....

**votes off screen**

....we've decided that a 50 year old person is the perfect mate for you.

Why is it your right to watch porn? Its not a right in China.


China is not always a leader in human rights.

This is not a bill in the Utah legislature. It's a bill in the US Congress that only removes state laws concerning pornography from the jurisdiction of federal courts - not other laws.
and what's to say congress cannot pass a similar law for (insert topic) in the future?

Do you reaaly want a democratic congress to pass a law saying torture is no longer a federal jurisdiction? Or embezzlement? or (insert random cause)?

and what's to say congress cannot pass a similar law for (insert topic) in the future?

It already can.

Do you reaaly want a democratic congress to pass a law saying torture is no longer a federal jurisdiction? Or embezzlement? or (insert random cause)?

No. I don't support this bill, either.

Cthulhu-Mythos']Any attack upon PORN is an attack upon the United States...
Utah has declared war upon the rest of the nation by being opposed to PORN.
I think the whole worthless state should just be Nuked.
All they offer America is Mormons and other Satanic Cults anyway.

Knock it off.

Unless liberals want to ban porn too, this move doesn't help them. The language is very specific, removing only anti-porn laws from jurisdiction.
Members of the religious right often go on tirades against "activist judges". Part of what they want politically is to undermine the courts. This law is just one battle in that war.

Oh, activist judges are defined as judges who legislate from the bench that have a liberal viewpoint. Conservative judges who legislate from the bench somehow aren't activist judges in the eyes of the religious right.

Ok, Porn hurts society because it distorts what healthy relationships and sex practices should be. This leads to high divorce rates, unwanted children, and the spread of diseases like AIDS. I think its clear how porn hurts society.


Source, please.

and what's to say congress cannot pass a similar law for (insert topic) in the future?

Do you reaaly want a democratic congress to pass a law saying torture is no longer a federal jurisdiction? Or embezzlement? or (insert random cause)?
I really don't think anyone wants to see that, but Congress does have the power to do it. That's why people need to vote more intelligently, so our Congressmen aren't the kind to exercise that power in this way.

That's the problem. This is a bill in Congress, not the state legislature. And this is a power Congress has.

No, they don't. :p

No, they don't. :p
Take it from a student in Constitutional Law, they do.

Art. III, Sec. II: In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Take it from a student in Constitutional Law, they do.

But wouldn't it mean that even if the bill went through congress and the utah state legislature banned porn the state courts would still have to overturn the law as it would be unconstitutional?

I don't think that they should pass that. It sounds like a really bad idea to me, and it doesn't seem significant enough. Personally, the idea of porn disgusts me, but I'm not one to impose my subjective (and admittedly usually naive) views of morality on others or to really care what other people choose to do. I just don't think it poses enough of a threat (if any) to society to merit this law at all.

But wouldn't it mean that even if the bill went through congress and the utah state legislature banned porn the state courts would still have to overturn the law as it would be unconstitutional?
State courts would become the final word in freedom of speech cases against anti-porn laws, but I'm don't think they'd get the power to declare constitutionality. That power is exclusive to the Supreme Court IIRC, thanks to Marshall, and it would be difficult to get the SC to let go of it just to get some anti-porn laws overturned. The justices would rather take a hit in their appellate jurisdiction than give the power to decide constitutionality to state courts.

That's not to say that the anti-porn laws couldn't be challenged on any other grounds. The biggest loophole in the proposed law is that only cases in which anti-porn laws are challenged on freedom of speech grounds can't be heard. Any other challenge will go beyond the state courts.

Take it from a student in Constitutional Law, they do.

Here's the WHOLE Article III section II: (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by Amendment XI.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The part you quoted changes a bit in context withthe whole, eh? :p

That's not to say that the anti-porn laws couldn't be challenged on any other grounds. The biggest loophole in the proposed law is that only cases in which anti-porn laws are challenged on freedom of speech grounds can't be heard. Any other challenge will go beyond the state courts.

This is what I mean, any cases being tried on the 1st amendment could only be taken to state level. Wouldn't this mean that the state courts would be bound by the precedent already set by the supreme court and be forced to kill the law?

Here's the WHOLE Article III section II:

The part you quoted changes a bit in context withthe whole, eh? :p
Not really.

The law only changes the Court's appellate jurisdiction, not its original juridiction. The first paragraph of Sec. II deals with cases that can be brought directly to the Court, but that's original jurisdiction and the law doesn't touch that. Constitutional amendments are required to modify original jurisdiction, so Cannon went with the only power he could exercise over SC jurisdiction and denied challenges to anti-porn laws the appeals route. Unless I'm missing something?

This is what I mean, any cases being tried on the 1st amendment could only be taken to state level. Wouldn't this mean that the state courts would be bound by the precedent already set by the supreme court and be forced to kill the law?
One of the other provisions of the law is that it invalidates all previous precedent. Shrewd, but I'm not sure if that is a power that can be exercised by Congress or not.

Not really.

The law only changes the Court's appellate jurisdiction, not its original juridiction. The first paragraph of Sec. II deals with cases that can be brought directly to the Court, but that's original jurisdiction and the law doesn't touch that. Constitutional amendments are required to modify original jurisdiction, so Cannon went with the only power he could exercise over SC jurisdiction and denied challenges to anti-porn laws the appeals route. Unless I'm missing something?

Wouldn't anti=prn laws fall under the jrisdiction of the Supreme Court under constitutional challenges?

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."

states have rights. People are different in different states which is why in places like Vermont and Mass gay people can get married, while in a place like Alabama this would not happen. States should have more flexibility in laws that the Federal government has no place deciding.

You quite obviously haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. Have you ever even looked at a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America? I ask this because anyone who seriously claims that the federal system or 10th Amendment gives a state the right to exempt itself, its laws, or any other aspect of its governance from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as set out in the Constitution itself, and still remain a part of this Union, needs to be locked in a room with a copy of our founding document for many days.

But not with food or water.

EDIT: Wow....is there a stupid comment you haven't made? To address a few:

China: China is a totalitarian government that gives its citizens virtually no political rights and severely restricts civil rights. It is a nation in which you can be jailed without warrant, trial, or charge for an undefined and unlimited amount of time in a closed state prison....for speaking of a massacre the state committed against innocent citizens when they peacefully protested in favor of political freedom.

The assertion that if China doesn't have a right, no one else should either is obviously absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that we should model our government or society off of fascist China because they are less obese. Does it get any more absurd?

Pornography: The assertion that pornography has a significant, widespread, objectively negative effect on society is completely unsupported by evidence or logic. Your only provided basis is unproven assertions and moral judgements. Next line of attack, please.

Your preferences: You claim that you have never looked at porn, had any form of sex other than that with an emotionally connected friend, or [presumably, in this instance] masturbated. I find this claim frankly ludicrous, but that's completely beside the point, that being:

IT DOESN'T MATTER. Your personal preferences are not a mandate on the behavior of others. You have no right to impose your personal moral judgements on others in order to restrict their behavior or communication to those standards you consider "acceptable". No one cares what you consider acceptable, most importantly the law.

Rights: The fundamental rule in regards to government treatment of rights, actions, capacities, behaviors, etc. is this: The government may not restrict any action which does not involuntarily violate the rights of other individuals. This is why drug illegalization - whose negative effects, unlike your claim about pornography, have an empirical basis drawn from comparative studies with pre-ban periods - is an illegitimate action by government. This is why banning pornography, or gay marriage, or abortion (though that last is at least somewhat debatable in this respect) is an illegitimate action by government.

You have rights; those rights end where someone else's begin. The enforcement and pursuance of that and its many derivatives and corrolaries is the sum total of political legitimacy.

One of the other provisions of the law is that it invalidates all previous precedent. Shrewd, but I'm not sure if that is a power that can be exercised by Congress or not.

How do you know that? You have a link to the bill?

Wouldn't anti=prn laws fall under the jrisdiction of the Supreme Court under constitutional challenges?

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."
Depends on your interpretation. Until Marbury v. Madison, there was no explicit power of judicial review. Debates among the framers as to the phrase you quoted indicates that they were aware it could be interpreted to grant judicial review, but they let the language stand because it was ambiguous enough to allow for later interpretation to restrict judicial review. The debate as to whether the Court actually had that power continued until 1803.

The majority opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) is where judicial review stems from, not the Constitution. It exists because of precedent, not original jurisdiction, and justices that took the bench afterwards were smart enough to uphold the precedent and expand it, otherwise they'd be undermining themselves and the judiciary.

Since judicial review is based in precedent, Congress can circumvent that power only by modifying jurisdiction or appointing sympathetic justices. This bill also attempts to modify precedent, but as I said before, I'm not sure that Congress has that power.

How do you know that? You have a link to the bill?
Google is your friend: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5528:

Google is your friend: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5528:

You have no idea how much it isn't at the moment.

Depends on your interpretation. Until Marbury v. Madison, there was no explicit power of judicial review. Debates among the framers as to the phrase you quoted indicates that they were aware it could be interpreted to grant judicial review, but they let the language stand because it was ambiguous enough to allow for later interpretation to restrict judicial review. The debate as to whether the Court actually had that power continued until 1803.

The majority opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) is where judicial review stems from, not the Constitution. It exists because of precedent, not original jurisdiction, and justices that took the bench afterwards were smart enough to uphold the precedent and expand it, otherwise they'd be undermining themselves and the judiciary.

Since judicial review is based in precedent, Congress can circumvent that power only by modifying jurisdiction or appointing sympathetic justices. This bill also attempts to modify precedent, but as I said before, I'm not sure that Congress has that power.

Hmm. Interesting.

So ultimately, the Supreme COurt has the authority for constitutional review because it gave itself that power, and kept it through precedent. What's interesting is that whether or not Congress can strip that power from the Supreme Court is ultimately in the hands of the SUpreme Court. *chuckles* Somehow, I think this is not going to work out even if by some miracle it passed. Hehehe.

I suspect this is nothing more than election time posturing.

`(b) Court Precedent Not Binding- A decision of a Federal court, to the extent the decision relates to a question described in subsection (a), is not binding precedent on a State court.

I assume this is the part that makes supreme court decisions non-binding on the state court.

I'm far from an expert on the wording of US laws but this seems to allow for previous precedent to stand and only disallow any future precedents that are set. Nowhere does it say that the bill is to be applied retroactively.

Hmm. Interesting.

So ultimately, the Supreme COurt has the authority for constitutional review because it gave itself that power, and kept it through precedent. What's interesting is that whether or not Congress can strip that power from the Supreme Court is ultimately in the hands of the SUpreme Court. *chuckles* Somehow, I think this is not going to work out even if by some miracle it passed. Hehehe.
Indeed. The Chief Justice that wrote the Marbury opinion, Marshall, was very clever like that. When he took the bench, the Court met in a basement room in the Capitol Building. When he left, the Court had its own building and the status of the third branch of the U.S. government.

I suspect this is nothing more than election time posturing.
Agreed

Indeed. The Chief Justice that wrote the Marbury opinion, Marshall, was very clever like that. When he took the bench, the Court met in a basement room in the Capitol Building. When he left, the Court had its own building and the status of the third branch of the U.S. government.


Agreed

Why is it that a clown like me can understand this, and career politicians and political pundits can't? :p

States could always bring back their annulment trick. They used it relatively often in the early days of the United States. Constitutionality is often a murky land, after all......

While political analysts today say that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, a state could still believe otherwise.

Except for what the state believes is irrelevant. States disagree all the time. There are legions of desicions on issues of State vs State. State vs Federal Powers etc. We also have established federal supremecy laws that insures that all Americans are protected by the US constitution as a MINIMUM set of standards. States are allowed to add to these protections but at no time are permitted to lessen them. Those are the rules of the club that Utah joined.

I assume this is the part that makes supreme court decisions non-binding on the state court.

I'm far from an expert on the wording of US laws but this seems to allow for previous precedent to stand and only disallow any future precedents that are set. Nowhere does it say that the bill is to be applied retroactively.
It's what the law doesn't say that matters. It does not limit this part explicitly to future cases and considering that precedent only comes from past cases, it can be assumed that this law is meant to apply to both past and future cases that could set precedent.

The bill does not need to be applied retroactively to remove precedent, however, as precedent stands until a high court overturns the case decision. In other words, precedent exists as precedent in a present tense, not a past tense, unless the Supreme Court says otherwise. I think the route Cannon is trying for is to invalidate cases for use as precedent without touching the validity of the decisions, but I'm not sure if Congress can do that or not.

So you think the idea that sex and relationships are meaningless and also that woman are objects is positive?

You made milk come out of my nose.

You are silly, I like you.

Why is it that a clown like me can understand this, and career politicians and political pundits can't? :p
Because only the smartest people can become clowns, and any idiot can run for Congress.;)

Anyway, there is a thing called the supremecy clause. Utah can't do that.

That said, if they want to leave the US, I welcome it. Goodbye. Don't let the door hit your ass etc.

Remmeber what *Tecumshes (bad with that name) Sherman did to the south in the Civil War? lets do that to Utah if they try to hurt the constitution again.

You quite obviously haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. Have you ever even looked at a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America? I ask this because anyone who seriously claims that the federal system or 10th Amendment gives a state the right to exempt itself, its laws, or any other aspect of its governance from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as set out in the Constitution itself, and still remain a part of this Union, needs to be locked in a room with a copy of our founding document for many days.

But not with food or water.

EDIT: Wow....is there a stupid comment you haven't made? To address a few:

China: China is a totalitarian government that gives its citizens virtually no political rights and severely restricts civil rights. It is a nation in which you can be jailed without warrant, trial, or charge for an undefined and unlimited amount of time in a closed state prison....for speaking of a massacre the state committed against innocent citizens when they peacefully protested in favor of political freedom.

The assertion that if China doesn't have a right, no one else should either is obviously absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that we should model our government or society off of fascist China because they are less obese. Does it get any more absurd?

Pornography: The assertion that pornography has a significant, widespread, objectively negative effect on society is completely unsupported by evidence or logic. Your only provided basis is unproven assertions and moral judgements. Next line of attack, please.

Your preferences: You claim that you have never looked at porn, had any form of sex other than that with an emotionally connected friend, or [presumably, in this instance] masturbated. I find this claim frankly ludicrous, but that's completely beside the point, that being:

IT DOESN'T MATTER. Your personal preferences are not a mandate on the behavior of others. You have no right to impose your personal moral judgements on others in order to restrict their behavior or communication to those standards you consider "acceptable". No one cares what you consider acceptable, most importantly the law.

Rights: The fundamental rule in regards to government treatment of rights, actions, capacities, behaviors, etc. is this: The government may not restrict any action which does not involuntarily violate the rights of other individuals. This is why drug illegalization - whose negative effects, unlike your claim about pornography, have an empirical basis drawn from comparative studies with pre-ban periods - is an illegitimate action by government. This is why banning pornography, or gay marriage, or abortion (though that last is at least somewhat debatable in this respect) is an illegitimate action by government.

You have rights; those rights end where someone else's begin. The enforcement and pursuance of that and its many derivatives and corrolaries is the sum total of political legitimacy.

Someone ought to give you a medal, there are so many people who just do not understand this, and no nothing about our government, then go off making foolish claims to power and judgment esspecaily the part I embolded.

Our society isn't sexually liberal enough yet. When teenagers have sex and watch pornography and no one cares, when birth control has universal acceptance and encouragement, when sex-ed courses can actually teach, when homosexuality and bisexuality are viewed as equal to heterosexuality, when non-monogamous relationships aren't viewed with disdain, when we abandon our rigid perspectives on what is a "proper" relationship and what isn't, when people abandon the obsolete notion that only "loving" sex is "good" sex (for everyone, not for them personally), when reproductive freedom is seen as the human right it is, then perhaps we will have reached the proper point.
In your fantasy world of what would be the "proper point" there would be tons of teen parents, tons of cheating and broken relationships, people have sex on the streets, tons of STDs, mostly likely many kids in broken homes. Yeah, a really great place that would be to live:rolleyes:


Since watching and reading pornography is completely harmless, no state has the right to regulate the capability of individuals to watch or read it.

how do you know its harmless?

Source, please.
from the Catholic Chruch;Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states:

"Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials." Section 2354

From psychologist James Dobson;
* Become desensitized to the material, no longer getting a thrill from what was once exciting
* Fantasize about acting out various pornographic scenes
* Become callous towards ordinary sexual relationships
* Become reclusive and attempt to hide the habit from family and friends
* View the opposite sex as sex objects
* View sex as being solely for the pleasure of himself or herself[1]

Dr. Dobson also believes that pornography leads to premarital sex, unprotected sex, prostitution, affairs and problems during marriage. Once married, Dobson believes that men who were or are addicted to pornography will be unable to be satisfied with their sexual partner, causing marital problems and even divorce. Dobson believes that pornography should be illegal because of its addictive effects.

It seems the lessons of Prohibition and The Satanic Verses are going unheeded. You criminalize something and it will turn into an organized crime cash cow. Make a big deal about how porn is evil and illegal, and you will end up drawing more people to it than would have cared if not for the scandal and thrill value of seeing and/or owning illegal porn.

Oh, and James Dobson called Spongebob Squarepants a "Gay Agenda Mascot." Take that as an indicator of his state of mind.

from the Catholic Chruch;Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states:

"Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials." Section 2354

From psychologist James Dobson;
* Become desensitized to the material, no longer getting a thrill from what was once exciting
* Fantasize about acting out various pornographic scenes
* Become callous towards ordinary sexual relationships
* Become reclusive and attempt to hide the habit from family and friends
* View the opposite sex as sex objects
* View sex as being solely for the pleasure of himself or herself[1]

Dr. Dobson also believes that pornography leads to premarital sex, unprotected sex, prostitution, affairs and problems during marriage. Once married, Dobson believes that men who were or are addicted to pornography will be unable to be satisfied with their sexual partner, causing marital problems and even divorce. Dobson believes that pornography should be illegal because of its addictive effects.

Evidence was asked for in the form of peer review journals. The Catholic Church is only an expert on porn in so much as they are caretakers of entire generations full of the stuff hidden away in thier libraries.

Dr Dobson could possibly be considered an expert witness if i wasnt too lazy to check his credentials to see if he was qualified but even then his opinion is just that, an opinion, unless his statements are backed by research and rigerous verification by the same peer reviewed journals.

well i dont think the goverment would let them leave. if they did sucseed then the U.S would propbly send in troops and reclaim utah

[QUOTE]
China: China is a totalitarian government that gives its citizens virtually no political rights and severely restricts civil rights. It is a nation in which you can be jailed without warrant, trial, or charge for an undefined and unlimited amount of time in a closed state prison....for speaking of a massacre the state committed against innocent citizens when they peacefully protested in favor of political freedom.

So you can't speak out against the government. Big whoop, who cares. China is a very open society, shocking I know to anyone fed the propaganda of west. I know this having actually been there. People are free to live their lives, go where they like when they like. The police are actually quite professional and leave you alone as long as you don't commit a crime. As far as I'm concerned anyone stupid enough to cause a scene in a place they know they shouldn't gets what they get if they are imprisoned.

The assertion that if China doesn't have a right, no one else should either is obviously absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that we should model our government or society off of fascist China because they are less obese. Does it get any more absurd?
I never said we should do everything like China. And China is not facist, not even close and I have no idea where you get that from. The US is far more facist than China. China is official communist, although not really in practice. And what is so wrong about wanting a society that is friendly, respectful, not materialist or selfish, is healthy and has low crime. I mean is that really so bad?
Pornography: The assertion that pornography has a significant, widespread, objectively negative effect on society is completely unsupported by evidence or logic. Your only provided basis is unproven assertions and moral judgements. Next line of attack, please.
check one of my other posts for this one.
Your preferences: You claim that you have never looked at porn, had any form of sex other than that with an emotionally connected friend, or [presumably, in this instance] masturbated. I find this claim frankly ludicrous, but that's completely beside the point, that being:
err, I have never claimed I have never seen porn or masturbated. It is true I have never had sex with anyone I didnt care about but your right, it is beside the point.
IT DOESN'T MATTER. Your personal preferences are not a mandate on the behavior of others. You have no right to impose your personal moral judgements on others in order to restrict their behavior or communication to those standards you consider "acceptable". No one cares what you consider acceptable, most importantly the law.
No one does care about my personal preferences and they should not be law. However what states decide and what the people of the states decide should be respected.
Rights: The fundamental rule in regards to government treatment of rights, actions, capacities, behaviors, etc. is this: The government may not restrict any action which does not involuntarily violate the rights of other individuals. This is why drug illegalization - whose negative effects, unlike your claim about pornography, have an empirical basis drawn from comparative studies with pre-ban periods - is an illegitimate action by government. This is why banning pornography, or gay marriage, or abortion (though that last is at least somewhat debatable in this respect) is an illegitimate action by government.
I see no difference in allowing the gov. to ban drugs, porn, abortions, and gay marriage. Yet you see only two acceptable. They are all the same.

In your fantasy world of what would be the "proper point" there would be tons of teen parents,

You are aware that rates of teenage pregnancy are lower in more sexually liberal societies like those of Scandinavia than they are in more sexually conservative ones like those of the US?

tons of cheating and broken relationships,

If we were less rigid in our view of sex, we would not have relationships that, so rigidly defined, are fragile.

people have sex on the streets,

So? Let them.

tons of STDs,

You are aware of the existence of birth control?

mostly likely many kids in broken homes.

Why?

how do you know its harmless?

Because it is hardly different to masturbating to sexual fantasies; it is only a little easier, because your mind no longer has to do all the work.

I couldn't care less. Don't watch much of the stuff myself, but what other people watch doesn't concern me. If they get off watching a one armed midget blowing a donkey, power to them.

That being said, ah...who's up for running porn over the Utah border?:p

So you can't speak out against the government. Big whoop, People are free to live their lives, go where they like when they like.

Really? How can you be free to live your lives if your not actually free? Why does the Chineese government insist on having a censored Google? What is the Chineeese goverment afraid of you discovering? Does the Chineese government not feel that the Chineese people are capable of absorbing information and drawing rational conclusions from such information? How is having a government telling you what to think and and restricting you from other points of view a freedom?

The police are actually quite professional and leave you alone as long as you don't commit a crime. As far as I'm concerned anyone stupid enough to cause a scene in a place they know they shouldn't gets what they get if they are imprisoned.

Yea unless they just happen to be innocent. Then what protections are they guarenteed other than the right to rot in a cell?

And what is so wrong about wanting a society that is friendly, respectful, not materialist or selfish, is healthy and has low crime. I mean is that really so bad?

I could lock you in a 8x8 cage tomorrow with nothing but a bed toilet and a hampster wheel and feed you nothing but vegtables thru a hole in the wall. I GUARENTEE you would be thin,healthy, well exercised, POLITE AS HELL and not have committed a single crime. Is that really so bad? HELL YES.

Dr. Dobson also believes that pornography leads to premarital sex, unprotected sex, prostitution, affairs and problems during marriage. Once married, Dobson believes that men who were or are addicted to pornography will be unable to be satisfied with their sexual partner, causing marital problems and even divorce. Dobson believes that pornography should be illegal because of its addictive effects.

He is also a homophobic asshole who believes that homosexuality can be "cured", and the founder of Focus on the Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family). Please try again.

In your fantasy world of what would be the "proper point" there would be tons of teen parents, tons of cheating and broken relationships, people have sex on the streets,
So, so, and so?
Actually, I'd say that that last one is a GOOD thing. Means that all this silly buisness about sex being some kind of sin is out the window.
tons of STDs,
Did you read this line?
"when sex-ed courses can actually teach,"
There ought to be LESS STDs.
mostly likely many kids in broken homes. Yeah, a really great place that would be to live:rolleyes:

Not any more then there would be now.
EDIT: Found a source on this:
Porno in Japan (http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html)
Incidentally, it doesn't support your opinions at all.

EDIT2: If you find it too boring to read through, you can find a summary of it on wikipedia's article on pornography, under anti-pornography movement, subtitle Japan.
Or you could just read this:
Japan has a huge amount of porn.
Japan has one of the lowest rates of sex crime in the world.(Actually all crime, but we're not talking about any other crime right now)

Really? How can you be free to live your lives if your not actually free? Why does the Chineese government insist on having a censored Google? What is the Chineeese goverment afraid of you discovering? Does the Chineese government not feel that the Chineese people are capable of absorbing information and drawing rational conclusions from such information? How is having a government telling you what to think and and restricting you from other points of view a freedom?
Ok 1st, its Chinese not Chineese.The idea that you need a democracy in order to be free is a myth created by the west. I felt more free when I was in China than I do home. Google isn't really that censored in China is dispite outcries in the west. I know from personal experience that it is easy to find information on "hot button" things like taiwan and freedom.


Yea unless they just happen to be innocent. Then what protections are they guarenteed other than the right to rot in a cell?
Chinese law enforcment do go through procedures such as evidence collecting that the west does. The only difference is there your guilty until proven innocent. But in reality, isnt that really the way it is here too?


I could lock you in a 8x8 cage tomorrow with nothing but a bed toilet and a hampster wheel and feed you nothing but vegtables thru a hole in the wall. I GUARENTEE you would be thin,healthy, well exercised, POLITE AS HELL and not have committed a single crime. Is that really so bad? HELL YES.
No, actually I would not be healthy at all. Chances are I'd go insane and be quite angry, not polite. try again.

In your fantasy world of what would be the "proper point" there would be tons of teen parents, tons of cheating and broken relationships, people have sex on the streets, tons of STDs, mostly likely many kids in broken homes. Yeah, a really great place that would be to live:rolleyes:

And on what do you base this on? Your own opinion, or do you have a peer reviewed psychological article to back this up?

You are aware that rates of teenage pregnancy are lower in more sexually liberal societies like those of Scandinavia than they are in more sexually conservative ones like those of the US?



If we were less rigid in our view of sex, we would not have relationships that, so rigidly defined, are fragile.



So? Let them.



Know what, your right. I'm going to go out, fuck as many people as I can whether they be guys or girls, father a bunch of children I will never see or love, never have another meaningful relationship with someone I love, and die alone unmarried. Now if everyone does this society would fall apart and we would lose what makes us human. We would become nothing more than sex crazed animals. Is this really what you want?

Know what, your right. I'm going to go out, fuck as many people as I can whether they be guys or girls, father a bunch of children I will never see or love, never have another meaningful relationship with someone I love, and die alone unmarried. Now if everyone does this society would fall apart and we would lose what makes us human. We would become nothing more than sex crazed animals. Is this really what you want?

Having lots of sex does not mean having lots of kids. Having lots of kids does not mean never seeing or loving them. Having lots of sex does not mean never having a meaningful relationship with someone you love. Monogamy is not what makes us human.

Have fun with all the sex :)

Know what, your right. I'm going to go out, fuck as many people as I can whether they be guys or girls, father a bunch of children I will never see or love, never have another meaningful relationship with someone I love, and die alone unmarried. Now if everyone does this society would fall apart and we would lose what makes us human. We would become nothing more than sex crazed animals. Is this really what you want?

Who the fuck is advocating that? Why is your mind so damaged that it can only conceive of one extreme or the other. If you're not a rigid, puritanical fascist then you must be a sexually deviant irresponsible scumbag, right? Wrong. Your level of moral judgement is near the level of a third grader.

Who the fuck is advocating that? Why is your mind so damaged that it can only conceive of one extreme or the other. If you're not a rigid, puritanical fascist then you must be a sexually deviant irresponsible scumbag, right? Wrong. Your level of moral judgement is near the level of a third grader.

Come on, the guy said he thought it was ok for people to have sex on the streets. I don't think what I said was a great leap from that sort of thing.

Of course I have and every time it has been with someone I really cared about. I wouldn't just have sex with some random girl because I just wouldn't feel right. It would lose its value.

I feel pretty much the same way(well, except you need to replace "girl" with "guy").

However, I realise that is *my* take on sexuality. And there is no valid reason why I should try to push my views of sexuality on others. Different persons see sexuality in a different life, and we should have no say on what the neighbour does sexually, or who he does it with as long as it's between consenting adults.

Come on, the guy said he thought it was ok for people to have sex on the streets. I don't think what I said was a great leap from that sort of thing.

Where did Soheran advocate sex in the streets?
Our society isn't sexually liberal enough yet. When teenagers have sex and watch pornography and no one cares, when birth control has universal acceptance and encouragement, when sex-ed courses can actually teach, when homosexuality and bisexuality are viewed as equal to heterosexuality, when non-monogamous relationships aren't viewed with disdain, when we abandon our rigid perspectives on what is a "proper" relationship and what isn't, when people abandon the obsolete notion that only "loving" sex is "good" sex (for everyone, not for them personally), when reproductive freedom is seen as the human right it is, then perhaps we will have reached the proper point.



Since watching and reading pornography is completely harmless, no state has the right to regulate the capability of individuals to watch or read it.

Instead of banning it, governments should nationalize the pornography industry, let the workers self-manage it, and distribute it for free.*

*Not serious.

Know what, your right. I'm going to go out, fuck as many people as I can whether they be guys or girls,

Absolutely, as long as it's consensual.

father a bunch of children I will never see or love,

That, I didn't say.

when sex-ed courses can actually teach

when birth control has universal acceptance and encouragement

when reproductive freedom is seen as the human right it is

I do not appreciate misrepresentation.

never have another meaningful relationship with someone I love,

I didn't say that, either. I object to people insisting that everyone have sex only when it is "loving." I have no problem with people only having sex with those they love, as long as they don't condemn others for not doing so. I certainly don't have a problem with loving relationships.

and die alone unmarried.

I intend to do this, but I understand it's not for everyone.

Now if everyone does this society would fall apart and we would lose what makes us human.

I doubt it.

We would become nothing more than sex crazed animals.

We are sex crazed animals.

Is this really what you want?

I want what I said I wanted, not necessarily the distortions you wish to add to it.

I feel pretty much the same way(well, except you need to replace "girl" with "guy").

However, I realise that is *my* take on sexuality. And there is no valid reason why I should try to push my views of sexuality on others. Different persons see sexuality in a different life, and we should have no say on what the neighbour does sexually, or who he does it with as long as it's between consenting adults.

even if it harms society? btw, I glad someone on here feels the same as I do about this.

Where did Soheran advocate sex in the streets?

In one of the other posts. He was totally ok with that idea.

Come on, the guy said he thought it was ok for people to have sex on the streets. I don't think what I said was a great leap from that sort of thing.

In reply to an accusation that my proposal would result in that, yes, I did.

I do believe that if sexual liberty means people having sex in the streets, they should be permitted to do so. Those who don't want to watch can ignore it, just as many of us ignore people kissing in public. It really isn't worth fussing over, unless they're obstructing traffic.

I also think, though, that at least in our culture people don't want to have sex in the streets, so I doubt it would happen even if it were legal.

even if it harms society? btw, I glad someone on here feels the same as I do about this.

You have yet to show how porn harms society.

In one of the other posts. He was totally ok with that idea.

Ah, so he did. I still think your post was ridiculous though, you have no proof that sex in the streets would lead to any of those things.

even if it harms society? btw, I glad someone on here feels the same as I do about this.

There's nothing inherently harmful about sex.

As far as I know, abuse is still dealt with. As long as no abuse takes place, sex, even if not in the form of a loving relationship, hurts no one.

I find sex without love empty of meaning, and I'm really not into it. So I excercise my right not to have sex without feelings. As long as nobody tries to make me hump guys I have no feelings for, I don't see why *I* should feel entitled to a right to tel others who they can have sex with, how, and/or why.

I know people who are perfectly healthy and happy having sex without being in a standard, meaningful relationship. Some have good "friends" with whom they can let off some steam without being a couple, others like the thrill of the hunt, others have serious "open" relationships where they can occasionally have another partner. Those are ways of living different than mine, to be sure, but they're old and intelligent enough to know what they're getting into. And they have to right to choose what they think is best for them. And most live pretty well despite the fact that they don't enter in a standard, monogamous relationship.

You have yet to show how porn harms society.

I provide statements from the Chruch and a doctor. In addition I have seen evidence that is harmful in other sources, however I was unable to find them now.

states have rights. People are different in different states which is why in places like Vermont and Mass gay people can get married, while in a place like Alabama this would not happen. States should have more flexibility in laws that the Federal government has no place deciding.

So if Texas decided to reimpose slavery by stripping the citizenship of any non-caucasian within their borders and clapping them in chains while passing laws that would make such things untouchable by the constitution, including murder, would you agree to that?

You let one upstart say the constitution doesn't apply to them, you'll get a whole bunch clamoring for it later. How about Utah proclaiming that the laws against government sponsored religion don't apply to them and start using state funds to build churches and pay "conversion fees". The fundamentalists aren't quite there yet, but you can bet the farm they would love to get their hands on government money.


And if you don't like the law, vote with your feet, move out of Utah.

Cannot...resist...must...point out....irony....

If you don't like the constitution, vote with your feet, and leave America. For Iran.

Ah, so he did. I still think your post was ridiculous though, you have no proof that sex in the streets would lead to any of those things.

The only way to know for sure it to let it happen, but I hope we never get to that point.

I provide statements from the Chruch and a doctor. In addition I have seen evidence that is harmful in other sources, however I was unable to find them now.

If you mean the Roman Catholic Church, what do they know about porn? Unless the Vatican Library has an adult section. I'll look back for that post.

EDIT:
You provided evidence from a religious organization (not a reliable source) and the crazy founder of Focus on the Family (also not a reliable source).

He's from Focus on the Family? I'm not gonna bother then.

The only way to know for sure it to let it happen, but I hope we never get to that point.

Why not?

I provide statements from the Chruch and a doctor. In addition I have seen evidence that is harmful in other sources, however I was unable to find them now.

You provided evidence from a religious organization (not a reliable source) and the crazy founder of Focus on the Family (also not a reliable source).

The idea that you need a democracy in order to be free is a myth created by the west.

Oddly enough i always thought you needed freedoms to be free and Communist countries tend to be a bit stingy in that department. Explain how you are free when your obligated to defend your own innocence, explain how your free when the government tells you what to do or what to think. Explain how your free when China attempts to control every gram of informatio its people can see. The answer of "well they dont do it THAT much" is laughable.

Google isn't really that censored in China is dispite outcries in the west.

Oddly enough Google itself admits that the China version of Google is censored, and they have issued public regret in allowing such a version to exist and are reconsidering the entire issue because of thier "We will do no harm" motto.

Chinese law enforcment do go through procedures such as evidence collecting that the west does. The only difference is there your guilty until proven innocent. But in reality, isnt that really the way it is here too?

No, innocent until proven guilty is the entire foundation of our legal system. It prevents governmental tyranny. Democracies dont like governmental tyranny much.


No, actually I would not be healthy at all. Chances are I'd go insane and be quite angry, not polite. try again.

Ok so i keep you locked up till your old and grey then, or until your polite. Your choice. This is the choice the Chinese government gives its people. Ask the tens of thousands of political dissidents that are in Chinese jails and have been rotting there for decades and decades JUST FOR HAVING A DIFFERENT OPINION. Disgusting.

How is porn harmful?

Friction burn?

I provide statements from the Chruch and a doctor. In addition I have seen evidence that is harmful in other sources, however I was unable to find them now.

First, the church I would not consider a valid source. They've lied openly and shamefully about condoms in the very recent past. They choose doctrine then try to twist science around so that it agrees with them.

The doctor thing, well, is more credible. There are cases of porn addiction, or porn misuse. There are also cases of substance abuse for alcohol, tobacco, and gambling addictions. None of those are banned.

Just because some people misuse something doesn't mean all those who can enjoy a drink, a game of poker, or a porn flick responsibly should be denied the right to do so.

Trilby63;11599171']How is porn harmful?

Friction burn?

ROFL
You win at the internet.

China also as far less crime than we do

Generally that's because more of the crime happens in the higher levels. China suffers from hideous levels of corruption in the administrative circles. And it's fairly easy to get away with it due to the fact that unless you screw up so big it gets international coverage, nobody else is going to find out, or complain about it.

There's nothing inherently harmful about sex.

As far as I know, abuse is still dealt with. As long as no abuse takes place, sex, even if not in the form of a loving relationship, hurts no one.

I find sex without love empty of meaning, and I'm really not into it. So I excercise my right not to have sex without feelings. As long as nobody tries to make me hump guys I have no feelings for, I don't see why *I* should feel entitled to a right to tel others who they can have sex with, how, and/or why.

I know people who are perfectly healthy and happy having sex without being in a standard, meaningful relationship. Some have good "friends" with whom they can let off some steam without being a couple, others like the thrill of the hunt, others have serious "open" relationships where they can occasionally have another partner. Those are ways of living different than mine, to be sure, but they're old and intelligent enough to know what they're getting into. And they have to right to choose what they think is best for them. And most live pretty well despite the fact that they don't enter in a standard, monogamous relationship.
Are they really happy though? I imagine they aren't as happy as they could be if they were to have more healthy, normal relationships which most agree are best.

The doctor thing, well, is more credible.

No, he's not.

James Dobson (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson)

Are they really happy though? I imagine they aren't as happy as they could be if they were to have more healthy, normal relationships which I think is best.

Bolded the edit. Much more credible now.

Normal=?

Normal is good because....?

ROFL
You win at the internet.

It's interWEB.

You provided evidence from a religious organization (not a reliable source) and the crazy founder of Focus on the Family (also not a reliable source).

Seriously. Using James Dobson as a source for information on human sexuality is like using Joseph Mengele as a source on Jewish health.

Are they really happy though? I imagine they aren't as happy as they could be if they were to have more healthy, normal relationships which most agree are best.

Well the world don't move to the beat of just one drum
What might be right for you might not be right for some

80's sitcom theme songs are the source of all wisdom.

It's interWEB.

I lose at the interwebs. :(

Are they really happy though? I imagine they aren't as happy as they could be if they were to have more healthy, normal relationships which most agree are best.

They're as happy as can be.

Again, don't you know that not everyone needs/wants the same things for their happiness? I can perfectly understand how YOU or I would be unhappy living in that situation. I also perfectly understand one of my friends who once told me "To wake up every day of my life for 50 years and always see the same face would be the worst thing I can think of".

Some of us crave stability, others thrill and adventure. That's a thruth that applies for our work, for our free time, and our love life.

The "more healthy, normal relationships that most agree are best" are no more healthy, certainly not the norm anymore, and it's doubtful whether most agree they're the best or not. Just learn to accept other's differences.

Otherwise, in 20 years if and when the social norm has changed and you're the underdog, you won't have a leg to stand on when calling others to stop trying to tell you how to live.

No, he's not.

James Dobson (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson)

What, that nut has a psychology degree?

Wtf, don't you screen candidates in the US?

But in all seriousness, I have already heard of cases of porn addiction. Like I said in my previous post though, just because some people lack the maturity to consume a product in moderation, be it alcohol, porn, coffee or anything else, doesn't mean no one should be allowed to use them.

What, that nut has a psychology degree?

Wtf, don't you screen candidates in the US?

I guess their intimate knowledge of psychological tests allows them to fake it.

If you mean the Roman Catholic Church, what do they know about porn? Unless the Vatican Library has an adult section. I'll look back for that post.


Actually they do, im too lazy to look it up this second but i remember seeing a show on TV that got into the Catholic Churches vast porno collection. It is considered the largest collection known to mankind and has porno dating back two thousand years. Its access is restricted to scholars etc but it does exist.

Oddly enough i always thought you needed freedoms to be free and Communist countries tend to be a bit stingy in that department.
Honestly political freedoms are pointles and those are freedoms you are talking about. the government doesnt have that big effect on peoples lives, this is true in China. The people just don't think about government and they go on living their lives in peace and freedom. China is nothing like North Korea, Iran, or Stalinist Russia in regards to the restrictions of personal freedoms.

Explain how you are free when your obligated to defend your own innocence, explain how your free when the government tells you what to do or what to think. Explain how your free when China attempts to control every gram of informatio its people can see. The answer of "well they dont do it THAT much" is laughable.
Your obligated to defend your innocence in the US too, even if your told otherwise. And the Chinese government doesnt tell its people what to think or anything like that. I used to believe all the bullshit your saying now because its fed to us in propaganda in the west about how China is the evil communist.


Oddly enough Google itself admits that the China version of Google is censored, and they have issued public regret in allowing such a version to exist and are reconsidering the entire issue because of thier "We will do no harm" motto.
Censorship of google is weak at best. Believe me I used google alot while I was there and never ran into blocked information.


No, innocent until proven guilty is the entire foundation of our legal system. It prevents governmental tyranny. Democracies dont like governmental tyranny much.
If you really think your innocent until proven guilty in our legal system than you my friend are naive.



Ok so i keep you locked up till your old and grey then, or until your polite. Your choice. This is the choice the Chinese government gives its people. Ask the tens of thousands of political dissidents that are in Chinese jails and have been rotting there for decades and decades JUST FOR HAVING A DIFFERENT OPINION. Disgusting.
Look, if your parents tell you don't touch the stove or you'll get burned, and you touch the stove and get burned ITS YOUR OWN FAULT! Same thing applies with what you were talking about.

Actually they do, im too lazy to look it up this second but i remember seeing a show on TV that got into the Catholic Churches vast porno collection. It is considered the largest collection known to mankind and has porno dating back two thousand years. Its access is restricted to scholars etc but it does exist.

http://forums.ratedesi.com/images/smilies/eek2smiley.gif

Actually they do, im too lazy to look it up this second but i remember seeing a show on TV that got into the Catholic Churches vast porno collection. It is considered the largest collection known to mankind and has porno dating back two thousand years. Its access is restricted to scholars etc but it does exist.

So, how does one go about becoming a scholar?

Honestly political freedoms are pointles and those are freedoms you are talking about.

Look, if your parents tell you don't touch the stove or you'll get burned, and you touch the stove and get burned ITS YOUR OWN FAULT! Same thing applies with [free expression and protest in a repressive society].

Do you expect people to take you seriously when you make arguments like these?

No, he's not.

James Dobson (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson)

He is a doctor and he is credible whether you want to listen to him or not. I think he's right on alot of things regarding sex and family. I would disagree with him though on marriage. I dont think womens role is to serve the men, I think marriage is an equal partnership between a man and a woman.

Honestly political freedoms are pointles and those are freedoms you are talking about. the government doesnt have that big effect on peoples lives, this is true in China. The people just don't think about government and they go on living their lives in peace and freedom. China is nothing like North Korea, Iran, or Stalinist Russia in regards to the restrictions of personal freedoms.
Political freedoms are pointless? Dude, can I have some of what you're smoking? I'm good for the money, I swear.

Your obligated to defend your innocence in the US too, even if your told otherwise. And the Chinese government doesnt tell its people what to think or anything like that. I used to believe all the bullshit your saying now because its fed to us in propaganda in the west about how China is the evil communist.
You need to learn the difference between your(belonging to you) and you're(you are). And, could it be that the Chinese government just doesn't tell visitors what to think, as a sort of damage control thing.

Censorship of google is weak at best. Believe me I used google alot while I was there and never ran into blocked information.
What? No big CENSORED INFORMATION signs plastered across google? Huh, maybe the Chinese are intelligent to just remove the information and pretend it was never there.

If you really think your innocent until proven guilty in our legal system than you my friend are naive.
Innocent until proven guilty is the basis of your legal system. If you were assumed guilty then why bother having a trial? No court is cheaper than a Kangaroo Court.


Look, if your parents tell you don't touch the stove or you'll get burned, and you touch the stove and get burned ITS YOUR OWN FAULT! Same thing applies with what you were talking about.
Oh, so it's their own fault for disagreeing with the government? Well then it's ok that they be imprisoned, since the good old government was nice enough to suggest they not disagree with it.

He is a doctor and he is credible whether you want to listen to him or not. I think he's right on alot of things regarding sex and family. I would disagree with him though on marriage. I dont think womens role is to serve the men, I think marriage is an equal partnership between a man and a woman.
I immediatly lose all respect for people who think it's ok to smack children. If you can't raise your child without resorting to violence then you shouldn't have children.

He is a doctor and he is credible whether you want to listen to him or not. I think he's right on alot of things regarding sex and family. I would disagree with him though on marriage. I dont think womens role is to serve the men, I think marriage is an equal partnership between a man and a woman.

He's not credible as a doctor. He claims that homosexuality is a disorder which can be cured. Doctors no longer believe that. Many studies show it to be false. Trusting Dobson as a doctor is like trusting your health to cupping and purging. His ideas are old and discredited.

He is a doctor and he is credible whether you want to listen to him or not. I think he's right on alot of things regarding sex and family. I would disagree with him though on marriage. I dont think womens role is to serve the men, I think marriage is an equal partnership between a man and a woman.

A degree doesn't guarantee credibility.

His views on women and gays/lesbians alone is more than enough for him to lose *any* credibility in my eyes.

Credibility is subjective. Being a doctor doesn't make you right. And that Dobson guy is all but right.

Do you expect people to take you seriously when you make arguments like these?
Think about it though. Elections in the US. Every 4 years you can pick between two unqualified people. Once those people are in office they don't effect your life. Can you give one example about how your life has changed as I direct result of a President's decision?

And its true. If the Chinese government says don't speak out because its not good and bad things will happen to you, and you speak out and get put in jail its your fault really.

Trusting Dobson as a doctor is like trusting your health to cupping and purging. His ideas are old and discredited.

Don't forget the good old slugs.

He is a doctor and he is credible whether you want to listen to him or not.

A person who says that homosexuality can be cured, that wives ought to submit to their husbands, that females ought to be excluded from political authority, and that SpongeBob SquarePants is indicative of the Gay Agenda is not credible.

"Crazy" is a more apt adjective.

So, how does one go about becoming a scholar?

I cant imagine its very good porn. Prolly alot of Saytars and Cupids and stuff. Id stick with dirtysluts.com myself and save the tuition fee.

Think about it though. Elections in the US. Every 4 years you can pick between two unqualified people. Once those people are in office they don't effect your life. Can you give one example about how your life has changed as I direct result of a President's decision?

And its true. If the Chinese government says don't speak out because its not good and bad things will happen to you, and you speak out and get put in jail its your fault really.

Ask someone in the US army how the president has changed their lives. I think getting shipped to the Middle East is a rather large change for most troops, and their familes and friends.

The Chinese government just said 'Jump', quick, email 'How high?' to the embassy!

Now, why is it you think the Chinese government says don't speak out? Could it be because they think people speaking out might lead to them being overthrown?

I cant imagine its very good porn. Prolly alot of Saytars and Cupids and stuff. Id stick with dirtysluts.com myself and save the tuition fee.

I'm sure they've got plenty of more modern stuff.

I'm sure they've got plenty of more modern stuff.

If not you could always offer to update their stash for them.

I'm sure they've got plenty of more modern stuff.

Careful, if we're talking about the vatican you might have some nasty surprises. I can't think you'd like to fall on underage material...

Yes, that was harsh, but they deserved it

If not you could always offer to update their stash for them.

Yeah. I could be like the Vatican's official porn shopper.

Yeah. I could be like the Vatican's official porn shopper.

You'll need a large staff of researchers and Quality Control Managers. I'll TG you my CV.

Political freedoms are pointless? Dude, can I have some of what you're smoking? I'm good for the money, I swear.
What do you get out of it really.

You need to learn the difference between your(belonging to you) and you're(you are). And, could it be that the Chinese government just doesn't tell visitors what to think, as a sort of damage control thing.
I know the difference, but shockingly I don't try to have amazing english skills on an internet forum seeing as most the time I'm just typing fast trying to get thoughts out. If you want to believe the propaganda of the west and never actually go to these places and meet with people and really connect with them, fine.

What? No big CENSORED INFORMATION signs plastered across google? Huh, maybe the Chinese are intelligent to just remove the information and pretend it was never there.
No, some keywords will bring up a message that says not available or something. But this is very easy to get around and the government doesn't seem bothered with stopping this.

Innocent until proven guilty is the basis of your legal system. If you were assumed guilty then why bother having a trial? No court is cheaper than a Kangaroo Court.
as I've said before innocent until guilty is an illusion.


Oh, so it's their own fault for disagreeing with the government? Well then it's ok that they be imprisoned, since the good old government was nice enough to suggest they not disagree with it.
yep.

Careful, if we're talking about the vatican you might have some nasty surprises. I can't think you'd like to fall on underage material...

Yes, that was harsh, but they deserved it

I'm sure that stuff isn't found on the Vatican's shelves. It's probably been swiped by the cardinals for personal study.

Think about it though. Elections in the US. Every 4 years you can pick between two unqualified people. Once those people are in office they don't effect your life. Can you give one example about how your life has changed as I direct result of a President's decision?


1. Capital gains tax reductions, saved me a fortune.
2. Friends and family sent abroad for War.
3. Gasoline at $3.20 a gallon

These are things i thought of in about 15 seconds....would you like me to write an entire thesis on it?

1. Capital gains tax reductions, saved me a fortune.
2. Friends and family sent abroad for War.
3. Gasoline at $3.20 a gallon

These are things i thought of in about 15 seconds....would you like me to write an entire thesis on it?

The Government has no effect on gas prices

The Government has no effect on gas prices

Yeah it does. Oil from the strategic petrolium reserves can be put on the market to lower the prices or the government can buy oil for those reserves and increase the price by increasing demand. Government can ok the building of new refineries by relaxing environmental laws, which brings prices down. Government can mandate higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles which will decrease demand and lower costs. It can tax gas more or less. Government can do quite a bit to change gas prices.

What do you get out of it really.
The ability to vote out a government I disagree with, the ability to voice my opinions whether they match that of the current government or not, the ability to form a political party myself, the ability to run for election.

I know the difference, but shockingly I don't try to have amazing english skills on an internet forum seeing as most the time I'm just typing fast trying to get thoughts out.
Basic grammar is not an amazing skill. Shockingly it's a basic one.

If you want to believe the propaganda of the west and never actually go to these places and meet with people and really connect with them, fine.
Oh I will go to China, but I'll go when it won't confilct with education or a career, which means next summer at the earliest.

No, some keywords will bring up a message that says not available or something. But this is very easy to get around and the government doesn't seem bothered with stopping this.
Any censoring is still too much.

as I've said before innocent until guilty is an illusion.
You said porn is harmful to society too, and all you have to prove that is the Roman Catholic Church and the founder of Focus on the Family. Got anything better to proce innocent until proven guilty is an illusion?

yep.
I'll try and use your analogy. If your parents tell you not to touch the hot stove, and when you ask why they hold your hand onto the hot stove, whose fault is it that you got hurt?

This is pretty funny - I tried Googling the little bastard and got porn clips right off the top. Go figure.

This is pretty funny - I tried Googling the little bastard and got porn clips right off the top. Go figure.

What little bastard?

The Government has no effect on gas prices

Of course it does. If the President said it would no longer guarentee the safety of shipping lanes of oil tankers in the Persian Gulf guess what would happen to gas prices? Anytime the President makes a desicion in the Middle East, minor major or otherwise, the impact of such desicion is almost IMMEDIATLY weighed in the marketplace and is therefore reflected in the price. Or with our relationship to Venezualen oil or pick one of a million scenarios that the President could make that would turn world oil markets on its head.

I'm sure that stuff isn't found on the Vatican's shelves. It's probably been swiped by the cardinals for personal study.

And the Pope.

Oh ya, and lets get back to someone owing us proof that porn is harmful to society.
*drags thread kicking and screaming back on topic*

What little bastard?

That fellow from the article, Cannon. I don't want to give out his full namehere, just in case someone tries it themselves and then claims I was trying to indirectly link to a porn site.

And the Pope.

Oh ya, and lets get back to someone owing us proof that porn is harmful to society.
*drags thread kicking and screaming back on topic*

That's easy. All we have to do is look at countries where porn is illegal and we can see how happy and well adjusted the people there are: Like Iran.

...OKay, bad example. How about the former Taliban-led Afghanistan? Not there were some happy healthy people! Or not.

Hmm.....

That fellow from the article, Cannon. I don't want to give out his full namehere, just in case someone tries it themselves and then claims I was trying to indirectly link to a porn site.

Ah, right so. *runs back to the article*


LMAO. Yes there is a porn star with the same name as the Senator mentioned in the article. This makes me giggle.

He is a doctor and he is credible whether you want to listen to him or not. I think he's right on alot of things regarding sex and family.
James Dobson, on how to rear a non-fag son:

"[T]he boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger."

Yes, the way to rear a good, heterosexual, manly son is to take showers with him where he can check out your package. Oh, and be sure to teach him all the boy stuff that girls can't do (like wrestling around, throwing balls, and pounding in pegs), because if you don't he'll be a queer.

Insert massive eye-rolling here.

It is a disgrace to the professional psychological community that Dobson holds a degree at all, and the University of Southern California should be ashamed to have to recognize this man as an alum. His every work displays clear and unambiguous failure to grasp even the most basic concepts in developmental psychology, despite the fact that he supposedly holds a higher degree in that subject. He's an embarassment to anybody who has earned a doctoral degree in the US.

James Dobson, on how to rear a non-fag son:

"[T]he boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger."

Yes, the way to rear a good, heterosexual, manly son is to take showers with him where he can check out your package. Oh, and be sure to teach him all the boy stuff that girls can't do (like wrestling around, throwing balls, and pounding in pegs), because if you don't he'll be a queer.

Insert massive eye-rolling here.

It is a disgrace to the professional psychological community that Dobson holds a degree at all, and the University of Southern California should be ashamed to have to recognize this man as an alum. His every work displays clear and unambiguous failure to grasp even the most basic concepts in developmental psychology, despite the fact that he supposedly holds a higher degree in that subject. He's an embarassment to anybody who has earned a doctoral degree in the US.

I really don't see how waving your dick at your son will make any difference to his sexuality. Might make him wonder about yours though.

I really don't see how waving your dick at your son will make any difference to his sexuality. Might make him wonder about yours though.

Kinda makes you wish law enforcement would focus on his family.

Kinda makes you wish law enforcement would focus on his family.

Makes me wish James Dobson wouldn't.