What's up with the support for porn and prostitution?

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

But if I was a female, that would make me hot.

ROTFLM delicate behind O

*choke*

Of course you're hot. You -are- Catherine Zetta Jones after all...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No, I don't think so; in experience, it tends to be more along the lines of revenge and payback, then self-defense.

In the films I've seen, I think self-defense tends to be more common. Though I know what you're talking about with the revenge and payback.

Hmm. A lot of the times when it's chasing down the bad guys as opposed to being chased by them, it's rather like hunting down a criminal to keep them from doing violence again to someone else. Which is a form of defensive fighting, I guess one could say.

But there are a number of movies that glorify revenge, it's true. Gladiator would be a key example.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I've never said it's never the right course; very, very rarely, but not never. Of course, if you see a man about to kill a small child, you have to intervene, and you will in all likelihood have to do so violently. I just believe that violence should be a last resort, used when it is certain or very nearly certain that nothing else will work.

Okay, good.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There is even a higher divorce rate among Christians than among non-Christians in the US. That's very logical, because far fewer of the non-Christians bother to get married.

Letting alone the unsupported prejudice about "non-Christians' who don't care about marriage @@ this just isn't true. The statistic carries among married people. http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?P...naUpdateID=170 It's not just that non-Christians co-habit. It's that their marriages last longer.

Now, if you want to point out that non-Christians getting married are statistically older and better educated, and that leads to more stable marriages, go ahead.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Tessar

*choke*

Of course you're hot. You -are- Catherine Zetta Jones after all...

Thanks. Have you seen the new movie?

I meant, "As a woman, I count the hours until I can swoon at the sight of a fine manly erection." ...(according to Lief, who shouldn't use that as his lead assumption while dating.)

[Tessar]

Okay, lets not get carried away . Lief is far from being that naive, and you can hardly base the rest of your posts around his one statement.


Although the crack about you being male was quite unfair .

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Tsk, tsk. Where's your sense of humor?

I just thought it was funny that he seems to think that erect peni are a turn-on. I think that would be a non-scoring answer on family feud, lol. I just have a mental picture of "tah dah!" on the wedding night. It's like "Young Frankenstein."

Can't help it, Tessar. Makes me laugh.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The statistic carries among married people.

Yes. And my point is that people who are Christian and get infatuated are likely to try marriage. Non-Christians are more likely than Christians to have sex, stick together for a while and then split without bothering with marriage. So the equivalence in divorce incidence is not that important a statistic, because it doesn't take into account the numbers having sex outside of marriage.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Now, if you want to point out that non-Christians getting married are statistically older and better educated, and that leads to more stable marriages, go ahead.

Hear, hear! Young engagements really just freak me out. I don't even like people taking the step right after undergraduate; you need to give yourselves a few more years, people!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes. And my point is that people who are Christian and get infatuated are likely to try marriage. Non-Christians are more likely than Christians to have sex, stick together for a while and then split without bothering with marriage. So the equivalence in divorce incidence is not that important a statistic, because it doesn't take into account the numbers having sex outside of marriage.

So, you have a statistic proving that Christians marry more than non-Christians? I mean, what option would you be offering?

Young person. decision point. Get married, stay single, shack up.

Your theory is that Christians disproportionately choose A, and that 'non-Christians' are more evenly distributed among the 3 choices. So the 'divorce' statistic would be more evenly distributed. And your theory further is, that the numbers of 'non-Christians' in b and c would have 'divorce rates' as high or higher than the average.

Lots of assumptions, no data shown. Perhaps agnostics who shack up have even MORE stable relationships than married Christians. That would improve the 'non-Christian' average even more, wouldn't it?

[HOBBIT]

Christians get married more and take it more seriously than non-Christians? Yeah right. Jews, Hindus, Muslims.... uhh yeah we all get married. Seems like an ignorant statement. Marriage is very important in those relgions that I just mentioned.

Important to agnostics and atheists too.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

Christians get married more and take it more seriously than non-Christians? Yeah right. Jews, Hindus, Muslims.... uhh yeah we all get married. Seems like an ignorant statement. Marriage is very important in those relgions that I just mentioned.

Important to agnostics and atheists too.

I know. Two of my grandparents are nonreligious and yet have maintained a faithful marriage all their lives. It was a mistake for me to divide the world between Christians and non-Christians in that statement. Many people follow creeds which prohibit sexual immorality even though they are not Christians, and I believe that modern liberalism has made a big dent in the overall marital faithfulness of Christians.

I meant that when people have no creed they're trying to follow that prohibits sexual immorality, they're more likely to engage in it than is someone who has such a creed (whether it comes from the Bible or elsewhere). That only makes logical sense, in my view. I'm not going to dig up a statistic on it- I just tried for a long time, and I came up with nothing for or against what I was saying. But it makes logical sense.

Originally Posted by sis

Perhaps agnostics who shack up have even MORE stable relationships than married Christians. That would improve the 'non-Christian' average even more, wouldn't it?

Here's a source that refutes that.

Originally Posted by cmf.org

Although divorce rates have increased, once a couple have married they are far more likely to stay together than if they co-habit or if they marry prior to having children.

Source for their claim:
Boheim R, Ermisch J. Breaking up - financial surprises and partnership dissolution. Paper presented at the Royal Economic Society Conference, Nottingham, 1999

[katya]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I meant that when people have no creed they're trying to follow that prohibits sexual immorality, they're more likely to engage in it than is someone who has such a creed (whether it comes from the Bible or elsewhere). That only makes logical sense, in my view. I'm not going to dig up a statistic on it- I just tried for a long time, and I came up with nothing for or against what I was saying. But it makes logical sense.

Oh course it makes sense. If there's no authority saying that sexual immorality is immoral at all then there's no reason not to do it, unless one deems it unhealthy or otherwise just not for them.

[Lief Erikson]

Well, I'd say that there's the perception that there's no reason not to do it, anyway .

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, I'd say that there's the perception that there's no reason not to do it, anyway .

Touche. Would it upset you to hear ITA?

[Lotesse]

I - Gah! I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion about modern porn & pornography, not Christian values and marriage... I mean, eh... That is to say, so, when is the conversation about the support/resistance against pornography gonna be happening again? I know threads digresss, but seriously, every time these sorts of conversations start around here, it seems to all of a sudden turn into a conversation about rteligious morality versus secular morality, in re. marriage, etc. But anyway I'm not a Moot-Cop so whatever... I'm just sayin'. And yes, here's lookin'; at you, Lief! It's not all about christianity, you know, old boy. Not EVERYthing needs to be broken down and dissected and "proven" by route of christian dogma. I'm just sayin'....

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yeah, I've been thinking much the same thing for a while, now; I just end up seeing an off-topic post I want to reply to, and there goes my resolve to get it back on track.

But yeah, prostitution!

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But yeah, prostitution!

*facepalm* OMG, you could have picked ANY other phrase to get the thread back on topic...

[Lief Erikson]

It's so easy to get onto tangents . . .

*Starts trying to think of something controversial to say.*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Tessar

*facepalm* OMG, you could have picked ANY other phrase to get the thread back on topic...

Not so; my only other choice was "so yeah, porn!"

[katya]

I think... that the thing that is wrong, that should be punished, if anything, is abuse, not the filming/distribution of pornography or the practice of prostitution. I know it's hard but, I find that I cannot approve punishing or restricting something I do not feel is wrong just because of the risks associated with it. I think that is attacking the wrong target.

To suggest that porn be illegal on the basis of furthering safety is creating yet another thing that is bad or criminal that need not be, and I don't really like the sound of that.