Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This idiotic slippery slope argument is on par with "If we let gays marry, then people will want to marry their sibling/dog/goldfish!!!!!"
What a crock.
If nobody puts their foot down, why wouldn't something like that eventually happen?
People want to get rid of religion, but for centuries, religion has been the basis behind morality. You get rid of religion, you get rid of God, then you get rid of consequences.
Everything is now fair game. We are allowed to be as deviant and free as we desire as there are no perceived consequences for our actions.
Maybe you're okay with your daughter having sex with random people because this is the lifestyle we've indoctrinated them to believe, but I think most people wouldn't stand for it.
Do you not think that media outlets have an impact on society? What makes this book any different than television?
Now, I haven't read this book and if the moral of the story is "sex leads to unanticpated consequences that you may not be able to recover from," than that's one thing, but if it that's not implied in anyway, what benefit is this book?
Oh yeah, what a great idea some of you have come up with.
It's already out there, so why not let them read about it? Sex with animals is out there too, maybe they could read about that too.
Hell, why not enage in sex with animals. It's an evolution of society. Why should we stop it?
Those crazy Christians and their primative morals.
Yep. For years, we've heard the argument that If parents don't like what is on TV, movies, internet, music, etc. just turn it off" which many of us have. Now, when the schools are mandating our kids read the same kind of graphic sex material, the argument is "Well, the kids have already been exposed to all this via the media!"
BTW, sorry to report there is already at least one book on a school recommended reading list that includes beastiality.
Not only that, the father states his 14 year old daughter knows the basics about sex, but doesn't know "the details about masturbation". Uh, yeah, right, dad. She isn't going to tell you what she's doing in her bedroom.
That was I was thinking, a 14 year old that knows nothing about sex, are they living on an other planet?
If nobody puts their foot down, why wouldn't something like that eventually happen?
People want to get rid of religion, but for centuries, religion has been the basis behind morality. You get rid of religion, you get rid of God, then you get rid of consequences.
Everything is now fair game. We are allowed to be as deviant and free as we desire as there are no perceived consequences for our actions.
Maybe you're okay with your daughter having sex with random people because this is the lifestyle we've indoctrinated them to believe, but I think most people wouldn't stand for it.
Do you not think that media outlets have an impact on society? What makes this book any different than television?
Now, I haven't read this book and if the moral of the story is "sex leads to unanticpated consequences that you may not be able to recover from," than that's one thing, but if it that's not implied in anyway, what benefit is this book?
People once said the same asinine things about interracial marriage. Nobody married their dog. Get real.
Lastly, my daughter is none of your business - but rest assured, you couldn't be more wrong.
Now, I haven't read this book and if the moral of the story is "sex leads to unanticpated consequences that you may not be able to recover from," than that's one thing, but if it that's not implied in anyway, what benefit is this book?
What makes you think that sex is a major aspect of the book's story? Does every book that has any sex in it, whether hinted at or graphic, needs to intertwine a moral lesson about it into the book?
Perhaps the book involves themes about life and growing up that are not about sex, and that's where the benefit lies.
People want to get rid of religion, but for centuries, religion has been the basis behind morality.
When you get rid of religions and their books then you can define your own basis for what is moral and what isn't.
Remove religion and then men can determine what is good and what is evil, good conduct and bad conduct, what is right and what is wrong.
And then get laws passed to enforce it.
If nobody puts their foot down, why wouldn't something like that eventually happen?
People want to get rid of religion, but for centuries, religion has been the basis behind morality. You get rid of religion, you get rid of God, then you get rid of consequences....
No, for centuries, religion has been the teeth behind morality. Big difference.
"Don't do this, it's bad/wrong/impolite/whatever."
Compared to:
"Don't do this, or you'll SUFFER FOR ETERNITY!!!!!"
Same morals, different punishment.
I'm perfectly capable of not murdering, stealing, cheating on my wife, etc. without the threat of an eternal lake of fire, thanks.
When you get rid of religions and their books then you can define your own basis for what is moral and what isn't.
Remove religion and then men can determine what is good and what is evil, good conduct and bad conduct, what is right and what is wrong.
And then get laws passed to enforce it.
But if there are ultimately no consequences for actions on earth, wouldn't men formulate laws to factor that in?
For example, there are finite resources that can be used for a rapidly growing population.
If I believe that there are no consequences and I'm in power, and other people share my mentality, what exactly would prevent us from performing genocide in order to diminish the amount of people there are to use those finite resources?
Wouldn't I eventually become indoctrinated to believe that people are ultimately no more than dust in the wind? Are they not souless entities?
"When Vincent's 14-year old daughter began reading the book, she became upset. Vincent couldn't believe the actions described by one of the literary characters." "She was masturbating and (describing) how to masturbate and how she did it and also giving a boy a (expletive) and going into great detail of how to perform it," said Vincent."
Should we assume and hope that these kids are naive and confused babies or should we accept that this is a major turn for speaking about sex publicly because its 2012?
When you get rid of religions and their books then you can define your own basis for what is moral and what isn't.
Remove religion and then men can determine what is good and what is evil, good conduct and bad conduct, what is right and what is wrong. And then get laws passed to enforce it.
Which is exactly how the law works today - in this country, at least.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
