For the Atheist
I forget the guy's screen name, but one of the Libertarian atheists here was arguing with me about whether rape could ever become a sexual orientation.
For years I've been saying that someday RAPE will be considered a legitimate 'sexual orientation' and to interfere with rapists will be a violation of their civil rights.
Of course everybody, even those on my side, thought I was going too far. But I keep telling you all, wait a while and I'll be vindicated again. Some of you thought it was hyperbole on my part - but I was dead serious, and now here is the proof. Here we see a BIG step in that direction - "Peeping Toms" and "Voyeurism" are about to be considered legitimate 'sexual orientations' in Canada. Rape is the next step. That's even mentioned in the article.
http://lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/04062306.html
"Sexual Orientation" has been defined to include "Peeping Toms" and sexual "Voyeurism" says Canadian Citizen's Research Institute
VANCOUVER, June 23, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Critics of Svend Robinson's Bill C-250 were right - the undefined term of "Sexual Orientation," if included into Section 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code, would offer protection for a whole host of deviant "sexual lifestyles," warns the Citizen's Research Institute (CRI). Opponents to the Bill repeatedly asked if "pedophilia" and other "sexual orientations" would be protected under Bill C-250. These critics were ridiculed and mocked because they could foresee the problems that would result from the ill-conceived and undefined term "sexual orientation."
CRI notes that on December 18, 2003, Judge Romilly of the British Columbia Youth Court in his reasons for sentence in the R. v. J.S. case, opened the door when he stated the following concerning the term "sexual orientation" under section 718 of the Criminal Code:
"I am of the opinion that this crime was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on a factor similar to sexual orientation and is covered by this section of the Criminal Code. It strikes me that this section contemplates hatred against 'peeping toms' and/or 'voyeurs' as being within its purview, since in my opinion such activity represents a sexual lifestyle which some may consider deviant, but is a sexual lifestyle all the same."
CRI's Kari Simpson commented "It is only a matter of time before those with 'deviant sexual lifestyles,' otherwise known as 'sexual orientations,' charge law abiding citizens and victims - who are fighting for tougher laws to protect children and society - with promoting hatred. Pedophiles, child pornographers, rapists, peeping toms, and others now have a right to be protected from language that might promote hatred and contempt of their 'sexual orientations/lifestyles.'"
(c) Copyright: LifeSite Daily News is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).
what!
To me rape is as close to a murder as something can get. Unbelievable, I'm glad I'm not a woman
The funny thing about this post is
everyone is guilty. hahaha
The ten commandment are divided into two groups one for the stranger (nonbeliever)
and
one for the native born (believer)
The frist 5 are about how to treat God and the last five was how to treat your neighbor.
If an atheist has no desire to treat God the way he wants to be treated the bible says he will be judged after this life is over and not be judged by any other man. If a person treats God right he is rewarded by God after this life and he is not rewarded by any other man
The last 5 are how we treat each other I actually believe most people wish to live by these 5 because the judgement and reward for keeping these 5 comamdmenst actually happen on this earth. All men can be judged and rewarded for these right here and right now. These 5 moral points are to bring people together the 4th one divides and the fist 4 also should bring together. It is important to remember the last 5 will bring us together while we are on this earth The first 5 will divide us after life. The believer is bond by all ten the nonbeliever is bond by non of them. I think believers should be glad there are nonbeliever who see the last five as a good moral standard. And believers should remember that they bring noone to Christ it is God who provides the increase. If you try to do God's part in bringing the increase you will begin to break the last 5 and according to God if you break one you break them all. The ten comandment are actually alot more harsh to the believer than the nonbeliever. This is why the Jews cried out for a king. God set up priest over the native born and judges over the stranger. The native born did not like the fact that if a native born found themselves before the judges they received harsher punishment than a stranger because once you chose to obey the fist five you have been divided out from the stranger. From the making of this system by God the native born hated it it was to harsh and was not fair in their eyes. They looked at it with darkend glasses. They thought if we are the sons of God we should be treated better on earth they missed the fact that their reward was in heaven not on earth. So they decided if they had a king it would put both the priest and the judges together and then everyone could be treated equaly. They ask for a king and through samual God aloud them to have saul as a king. However they had forgot about the prophets and God directly spoke to the people through them. He used their tonge but it was his thoughts and voice. As their kings priest and judges consolidated power the prophets would always show up and corrected them so they killed them. Every time they killed one God would bring up another to replace the one they killed. I think most people in this movement see this is still something that mankind battles to this day. When Jesus Christ talked about the law he broke it down even in more simple language.
Matt 22:37-40
37 Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."
Also notice
Matt 19:18-21
Jesus said, "'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 19'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"
20 The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?"
21 Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
he has only stated in the begining of this verse that he restates the last five commandments and he added one from the first five commandments which is Honor your father and your mother. all other commandments are about worshiping God those are not added until the last part. Which is what this man that was talking to him lacked what did he say he lacked
Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
in short turn your faith away from self and follow me.
I think we can all agree this world can handle the last 5 comandment they are good for our societies. Alot of us agree with the honor your father and mother one also. There are some who want to believe it but seem to have a hard time doing it. The reason why most people love self so much they cannot turn all their attention to God. This usualy stem from a breakdown in this comandment. When we are young it is important that we are corrected and taught by our parents. I do not care what any atheist says about this it is important for parents to pass on the word of God to their children. I however do agree with these people that the parents are abusing their children. I do not however say all are abusing ther children. If your parent are following a false doctrine and they teach their children a false doctrine it cause a curse to the children of the parent who teach it. This curse will carry on for 4 generations. The cures is rebellious children. If you notice it I said "children". So when the child gets older he should still seach out God and know that his parents where wrong and he should search for the right doctrine for his childrens sake if he goes out and just likes the first one that comes along and does not study the word of God to make sure he has found the truth then he will also teach his children false doctrine and they will be a rebelious child. The reason God does this is to help Guide people towards truth. Most people do not know about this because one they don't study the bible for themselves and two alot of preachers don't know it themselves because they only study what their religion wants to teach, which still comes back to the individual not seaching the bible for themselves. The reason Jesus added the commandment about honoring your parents is because this is the first thing that someone who has been raise by parents who teach them false doctrine must fix in order to even have their eyes open to the first 4 comandments. Jesus is the word so you must start by reading it for yourself. You must start from the beginning and throw off the false doctrine of your parents. This is a division but it doesn't mean you do not love them only that you have to divide yourself from their belief. A rebelious child has to become very strong to find the truth because you are right they have done damage so they face a harder time of it but they must over come that and study the word of God and seach for the truth. make a notebook and write in it your name and your age and what religion your parents were and beside it write this is not the one. Give this book to your child and tell him/her to do the same for there child untill you find the true doctrine I know it sounds strange but there is no greater gift you can give your child than to make his search easier than your own. Finding the truth is a lifetime study its not always done in a day or a week or a year. It could take 5 or 6 generations. I would say it is child abuse to know there is a belief that has caused you to be rebelious to your parents and not give this peice of information to your child. Well thats what I get out of the bible again it is only the way I read it I'm just sharing what I find. I don't do it fo me I do it for the one I follow. Also truth is not found in knowledge but the knowledge of truth brings understanding and understanding follows wisdom.
PS There are more people in the world worshiping false gods than there are who worship no god. food for thought.
Why so complicated?
All this debating over "verses" and "interpretations" and who is responsible for what is pointless.
No man is saved by works...or condemned just by works.
It is the intent of the heart that is considered.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Either you do or you don't. It's that simple.
You might have a point if there 10
Actually, if you know your Bible, there were actually 13 original commandments and after those were "broken" by Moses, another different set of 10 - so there were actually 23 Commandments and the not-often-quoted 9 punishments. So, now you actually have 32 commandments to discern. Now - you have to go the original Catholic translations from Greek and not the "Jesus strolled down to the corner" versions out today.
Plus, you have many different interpretations: The Catholic, Protestant, Born-Again, Jewish and Muslim books all have different arrangements and language and different commandments as part of the ten. Also, if you look at the commandments from the Holy Roman Empire forward, what you will find is ever increasingly simple language that distorts the original translation. For instance, originally the "Do not kill" commandment in the born-again version has a much different intent than the orginal version which told the Israelites they could not kill another Israelite - everyone else was fair game.
Not so simple once you factor in the dozens of different version. I'm sure yours are the "right" ones of course.
www.libertyrestorationproject.org
"We are the inheritors of the American Enlightenment, which tells us that Individual Liberty always trumps collectivism in all forms."
get sane
SOME things are better left to the bed room...
weee
hmmm?
1. Only if both adults are consenting is a sexual behavior ethical.
2. It's a fact that some people of both genders enjoy aggression in sex.
3. Sexuality, like religion, should be kept private and never imposed on children.
your opinion of what I do with my children
should also be kept to yourself. Cause I don't give s*** what you think about my family. My family souldn't be any of your concern.
Why 2?
"Her reaction of fighting and screaming was just the reaction I expected from somene who enjoys aggression in sex, your honor. Her reaction kept telling me she wanted more aggressive sex. She was giving her consent and asking for more. If she would have told me ahead of time to pretend like I was raping her, well, that would take all the excitement out of it since we'd both know it was phony."
Why 2?
Some people do enjoy aggressive sex. Otherwise, kink shops wouldn't sell BDSM supplies.
I've dated girls with rape fantasies before. I was once asked to feign a break-in as part of the 'foreplay'. But there is a prerequisite understanding involved.
Entertaining a rape fantasy is a situation completely distinct from actually being raped. That much I can promise you.
My Shelfari page
having fun?
If this discussion is getting you too excited, certainly there are other sites on the internet for you to seek relief.
Excited? Not at all
but I see you are using that to totally avoid the point.
more like being pathetic
This is what you get when Ron Paul backs a Bible nut like Chuck Baldwin.
Your comments mostly make no sense
and this one is no different.
Boru=Troll
*
Why 3?
What's your rationale for infringing on the sexual rights of children? What if they consent? How do you determine who is a "child"? Some arbitrary age? Why would a Libertarian restrict liberty for a child?
These are the points pedophiles raise, and in the lack of a standard for morality above popular opinion, they are logical objections. That's why they have had some legislative success, and are looking for more.
why 3?
People are not fully developed psychologically until adulthood, if ever, as a general rule. Certainly there are exceptions, but in general, it takes 18 to 25 years for a person to complete their psychological maturation.
Before that level is achieved, impressionable children are easy prey to the suggestions of others.
Keep children out of churches so that they have a reasonable chance to develop their ability to distinguish fact from fantasy and reality from illusion.
Otherwise, developing people can be scarred for life. As are those who are exploited by pedophiles, which tends to pass from one generation of victims to the next.
18-25?
And I know some who are mature before 18 and others who aren't after 25, so that gives us quite an ARBITRARY range for determining who is an adult.
Who gets to determine who is an adult? Who gets to raise the children so they will not be "impressed upon" by churches (and wouldn't that impress them in the other direction?)
Are only the atheist elite qualified to make such determinations? Based on what?
Voyeurism & raping are fetishes that enfringe on others' rights
I don't care if you categorized fetishes under sexual orientation, you can't justify enfringing on others' rights...unless you loan money to people who can't pay it back...then you can make all tax payers pay you.
The line of questioning was
how do you ultimately determine morality? Who says only violent acts against another are the only things we can consider wrong? Who says such acts should be considered wrong? Doctors and dentists perform violent acts against people. So do parents who spank their children - certainly against the will of the child.
On what grounds do we consider rape, theft, assault, and murder wrong? What if rape was considered an alternative sexual orientation and to inhibit a rapist was to infringe on his civil rights?
The atheist insisted that could never happen. This article is good evidence that it could happen.
Here's a concept for you.
What CONSENTING ADULTS do in the privacy of their own homes is nobody else's business.
Got that?
Two words I would like to repeat for you:
1. Consenting.
2. Adult.
"As for me and my home. We will read Peter Schiff."
who is the adult that
who is the adult that consented to the peeping tom??
I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
No one consented to the peeping Tom.
That's my whole point.
People can play whatever "games" they want, provided there is consent. If consent is lacking, then you have an illegal act under existing law.
"As for me and my home. We will read Peter Schiff."
Then Your Point is Wrong
The article said the peeping and voyuerism were a legitimate sexual orientation. I disagree with that premise. Do you?
Yes. Of course.
However, two consenting individuals engaging in "make believe" is something entirely different.
If I walk up to you in the street and punch you, that is an illegal assault. However, if we both stepped into a boxing ring, that is an entirely different matter under the law.
The key principal here is CONSENT.
"As for me and my home. We will read Peter Schiff."
The Article Was
not about make believe. Not make believe peeping toms, not make believe rapists. So you are agreeing that my point was right all while trying to oppose my point because you fear it has implications for the origin of morality. Thank you for agreeing. I understand why you fear a standard for morality, it suggests a God you will be held accountable to for your morality.
So Ted Haggard was not gay?
He's just a sinner, right? Is that your position?
"As for me and my home. We will read Peter Schiff."
What?
Haggard committed sodomy. He chose to like anyone chooses to sin.
We're all predisposed to be sinners, some sins have more allure to different people. Perhaps my genetic makeup makes me want to have sex with lots of young women. God tells me to be faithful to my wife. I have to make a choice to obey God or disobey.
So is he gay?
Not a difficult question is it?
"As for me and my home. We will read Peter Schiff."
There's Nothing Gay
about being queer.
He's probably miserable, not gay at all.
By asking if he is gay, you are implying that's what he IS, and he can't choose to be straight.
Is someone who steals a thief? Yes. Can he choose to stop stealing? Yes. Insert liar, murderer, or whatever else you want.
Being queer is not like being a man, or being Italian, or being black, or being tall. Those are things you can't choose otherwise.
"Being queer is not like
"Being queer is not like being a man, or being Italian, or being black, or being tall. Those are things you can't choose otherwise."
Get educated.