Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Wanting to restrict access to porn for minors is now "nanny state."

It is so incredibly over for whatever passes for conservatism these days. Very sad.

---

It's already against the law.

Can we restrict guns purchases in the same manner? Age verification with ID that has to be stored n a database. You know, for the children.

---

Show where porn is in the second amendment.

---

First amendment.

---

You find that one in the penumbras? Because obscenity has never been protected speech.

---

And the supreme court has drawn a line between porn and obscenity. It considers the former protected speech.

---

The Supreme Court also wrongly considered abortion to be a protected right based on laughable contortions of the law. Hence my comment about the penumbras.

There is no right to porn. Any argument otherwise is just silly. There is especially no right to anonymous porn.

---

Just because you say that doesn't make it true.

Currently, there is a right to porn and it's protected by the 1st amendment.

---

There is no right to own slaves yet at one time the law pretended to make it so. Discuss

---

Why would there not be a right to porn?

I'm not talking watching on the bus or showing it to kids in school...

---

You do not have a right to evil, and some things are intrinsically evil. For an off the wall comparison, it's why you can't have sex with your horse even though it is your property.

Porn is intrinsically evil and leads to societal contagion.

---

People can't engage in consensual behavior with others?

I guess you don't believe in the US Constitution or freedom and liberty...

As to the horse thing (JFC that's a dumb example), I can't believe that I have to explain that the horse can't give consent. <- THERE is a sentence I'd never thought I'd ever read, let alone type..

---

I've never really understood the "animals can't consent" argument.

A horse cant consent to being owned. It can't consent to being trained. It can't consent to being held in a stall. It can't consent to being ridden, or worked. It can't consent to being transferred from owner to owner. Or from geographic area to geographic area. It can't consent to what it gets fed.

The consent argument doesn't really make sense.

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Steampunk-Kangaroo said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

exp said:

---

Conservatives love freedom until they have a chance to Lord morally superior central planning onto others.

---

Yes. Because we actually want to conserve our culture, and prevent rampant degeneracy.

Freedom from sin, not freedom to sin.

"The truth shall set you free"

God's perfect law if liberty is what sets you free. Not being a slave to sin. You are either set free in Christ, or a slave to your lusts.

It's the Christian worldview. Our founders knew this and were ok with obscenity laws, sodomy laws, and the like. I think they understood freedom better than you.

---

Muslim countries have the exact same view on sex and pornography. They LOVE obscenity and sodomy laws. So do I. They are right about that.

Next you're gonna tell me I need to start wearing a burka. The bible is clear that God gave woman hair as her covering so no as long as you dress modestly a burka wont be necessary. That being said, it sure would be more Godly than the women walking around half necked like they do these days. But no, full burka is not my preference. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

You also didn't make an argument at all. You simply stated you didn't like it. Ok, noted. Moving on.

---

---

Holy cow


Women should have to be covered and as long as they have long hair, they don't need a burka?

I hope you don't have a daughter.

---

Not what I said, but ok.

That sure was a very rude, and very nasty thing to say. You should apologize. I'm a very loving and supportive father who dotes on my daughters. I have two, and Lord willing they will be more well adjusted, and Godly than you.

---

Bless your heart.


I love how women have to dress modestly rather than men don't act like hound dogs.
You seem to think women are responsible for how men act.


Men are responsible for how they act.

No one else is responsible

---

I didn't say that either... Did you have fun beating up that strawman?

The scripture clearly states both things are true. Men are to control their eyes, and are responsible for not lusting.

Quote:

---

Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

---

Women are also to dress modestly. Not my opinion but God's law. Take it up with Him.

---

And we don't live in a theocracy


Take it up with the founding fathers.


But we both know, even if you deny it on here, that women showing skin is the problem and not men reacting to it.

Have a great Sunday.

Shield your eyes if you go to a pool.

---

Every knee shall bow. Christ is king. You live in His world like it or not. You don't have to answer to me, but you will to Him.

I avoid public pools like the plague.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

AgRyan04 said:

---

We have full blown hit the wall here between political conservatism and devout religious beliefs

---

How can you conserve a culture based on Christian beliefs? What does it even mean to conserve?

---

No we have not. We have hit the wall between what the left has tried to convince everyone was conservatism and actual conservatism.

The left wants the right to be afraid to use government force to counteract them, so they changed conservatism to "libertarianism" which essentially lets the left do whether they want to socially.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Steampunk-Kangaroo said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

exp said:

---

Conservatives love freedom until they have a chance to Lord morally superior central planning onto others.

---

Yes. Because we actually want to conserve our culture, and prevent rampant degeneracy.

Freedom from sin, not freedom to sin.

"The truth shall set you free"

God's perfect law if liberty is what sets you free. Not being a slave to sin. You are either set free in Christ, or a slave to your lusts.

It's the Christian worldview. Our founders knew this and were ok with obscenity laws, sodomy laws, and the like. I think they understood freedom better than you.

---

Muslim countries have the exact same view on sex and pornography. They LOVE obscenity and sodomy laws. So do I. They are right about that.

Next you're gonna tell me I need to start wearing a burka. The bible is clear that God gave woman hair as her covering so no as long as you dress modestly a burka wont be necessary. That being said, it sure would be more Godly than the women walking around half necked like they do these days. But no, full burka is not my preference. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

You also didn't make an argument at all. You simply stated you didn't like it. Ok, noted. Moving on.

---

---

Holy cow


Women should have to be covered and as long as they have long hair, they don't need a burka?

I hope you don't have a daughter.

---

Not what I said, but ok.

That sure was a very rude, and very nasty thing to say. You should apologize. I'm a very loving and supportive father who dotes on my daughters. I have two, and Lord willing they will be more well adjusted, and Godly than you.

---

Bless your heart.


I love how women have to dress modestly rather than men don't act like hound dogs.
You seem to think women are responsible for how men act.


Men are responsible for how they act.

No one else is responsible

---

I didn't say that either... Did you have fun beating up that strawman?

The scripture clearly states both things are true. Men are to control their eyes, and are responsible for not lusting.

Quote:

---

Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

---

Women are also to dress modestly. Not my opinion but God's law. Take it up with Him.

---

And we don't live in a theocracy


Take it up with the founding fathers.


But we both know, even if you deny it on here, that women showing skin is the problem and not men reacting to it.

Have a great Sunday.

Shield your eyes if you go to a pool.

---

Every knee shall bow. Christ is king. You live in His world like it or not. You don't have to answer to me, but you will to him.

I avoid public pools like the plague.

---

And Christ is cool with who I am.

Have a great Sunday and never go to a beach.

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Steampunk-Kangaroo said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

exp said:

---

Conservatives love freedom until they have a chance to Lord morally superior central planning onto others.

---

Yes. Because we actually want to conserve our culture, and prevent rampant degeneracy.

Freedom from sin, not freedom to sin.

"The truth shall set you free"

God's perfect law if liberty is what sets you free. Not being a slave to sin. You are either set free in Christ, or a slave to your lusts.

It's the Christian worldview. Our founders knew this and were ok with obscenity laws, sodomy laws, and the like. I think they understood freedom better than you.

---

Muslim countries have the exact same view on sex and pornography. They LOVE obscenity and sodomy laws. So do I. They are right about that.

Next you're gonna tell me I need to start wearing a burka. The bible is clear that God gave woman hair as her covering so no as long as you dress modestly a burka wont be necessary. That being said, it sure would be more Godly than the women walking around half necked like they do these days. But no, full burka is not my preference. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

You also didn't make an argument at all. You simply stated you didn't like it. Ok, noted. Moving on.

---

---

Holy cow


Women should have to be covered and as long as they have long hair, they don't need a burka?

I hope you don't have a daughter.

---

Not what I said, but ok.

That sure was a very rude, and very nasty thing to say. You should apologize. I'm a very loving and supportive father who dotes on my daughters. I have two, and Lord willing they will be more well adjusted, and Godly than you.

---

Bless your heart.


I love how women have to dress modestly rather than men don't act like hound dogs.
You seem to think women are responsible for how men act.


Men are responsible for how they act.

No one else is responsible

---

I didn't say that either... Did you have fun beating up that strawman?

The scripture clearly states both things are true. Men are to control their eyes, and are responsible for not lusting.

Quote:

---

Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

---

Women are also to dress modestly. Not my opinion but God's law. Take it up with Him.

---

And we don't live in a theocracy


Take it up with the founding fathers.


But we both know, even if you deny it on here, that women showing skin is the problem and not men reacting to it.

Have a great Sunday.

Shield your eyes if you go to a pool.

---

Every knee shall bow. Christ is king. You live in His world like it or not. You don't have to answer to me, but you will to him.

I avoid public pools like the plague.

---

And Christ is cool with who I am.

Have a great Sunday and never go to a beach.

---

Well not what His word says. He disagrees with you. Or you with Him. "Repent for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" "Go and sin no more!" God bless.

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Steampunk-Kangaroo said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

exp said:

---

Conservatives love freedom until they have a chance to Lord morally superior central planning onto others.

---

Yes. Because we actually want to conserve our culture, and prevent rampant degeneracy.

Freedom from sin, not freedom to sin.

"The truth shall set you free"

God's perfect law if liberty is what sets you free. Not being a slave to sin. You are either set free in Christ, or a slave to your lusts.

It's the Christian worldview. Our founders knew this and were ok with obscenity laws, sodomy laws, and the like. I think they understood freedom better than you.

---

Muslim countries have the exact same view on sex and pornography. They LOVE obscenity and sodomy laws. So do I. They are right about that.

Next you're gonna tell me I need to start wearing a burka. The bible is clear that God gave woman hair as her covering so no as long as you dress modestly a burka wont be necessary. That being said, it sure would be more Godly than the women walking around half necked like they do these days. But no, full burka is not my preference. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

You also didn't make an argument at all. You simply stated you didn't like it. Ok, noted. Moving on.

---

---

Holy cow


Women should have to be covered and as long as they have long hair, they don't need a burka?

I hope you don't have a daughter.

---

Not what I said, but ok.

That sure was a very rude, and very nasty thing to say. You should apologize. I'm a very loving and supportive father who dotes on my daughters. I have two, and Lord willing they will be more well adjusted, and Godly than you.

---

Bless your heart.


I love how women have to dress modestly rather than men don't act like hound dogs.
You seem to think women are responsible for how men act.


Men are responsible for how they act.

No one else is responsible

---

I didn't say that either... Did you have fun beating up that strawman?

The scripture clearly states both things are true. Men are to control their eyes, and are responsible for not lusting.

Quote:

---

Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

---

Women are also to dress modestly. Not my opinion but God's law. Take it up with Him.

---

And we don't live in a theocracy


Take it up with the founding fathers.


But we both know, even if you deny it on here, that women showing skin is the problem and not men reacting to it.

Have a great Sunday.

Shield your eyes if you go to a pool.

---

The founding fathers? The slave owning dudes who came from the society satirized in "The Scarlet Letter" and "The Crucible"?

You think the dudes who punished homosexuality with castration are your Allies on the social left?

Just letting folks know there is a thread to discuss God's vengeance for those who enjoy scantily clad folks at pools, beaches and on the interwebs.

https://texags.com/forums/15

This thread is about having to provide identifying information to a government agency in order to be able to access items covered under the 1st amendment.

Same logic applies. Porn is evil period. Ban it.

Founders would agree with me. It's not a freedom issue.

You dont get porn without some form of abuse, human trafficking, and exploitation. Ban It outright.

Drug trafficking is illegal. Drunk driving is illegal. All of these things have an impact on others.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Same logic applies. Porn is evil period. Ban it.

Founders would agree with me. It's not a freedom issue.

---

Several of the founders were atheists or agnostic at best. Not sure those would agree.

A core tenet of the founders was about individual freedoms. Folks posing nekked and other people wanting to see that material are reflections of individual freedoms.

Something that goes against what you think your bible says and your PERSONAL beliefs does not make it automatically ILLEGAL.

If you want it all banned, run for office, get some friends to run for office, get the majority of people who vote for the office you ran for to vote for you, and change the law.

Revisionist garbage. Most would be considered fundamentalist Christians today, and the "deist" would be considered almost as radical. Read their total writings and you'll see they would not agree with porn, public obscenity , or homosexuality.

They had laws against it at the time. They were fine with it.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

You dont get porn without some form of abuse, human trafficking, and exploitation. Ban It outright.

---

So all the men are abused, trafficked, and exploited?



Ron Jeremy might want a consult with you

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

You dont get porn without some form of abuse, human trafficking, and exploitation. Ban It outright.

---

So all the men are abused, trafficked, and exploited?



Ron Jeremy might want a consult with you

---

Yes porn and sex outside of wedlock destroy your soul, and like drugs hardwires your brain. It does damage.

He is hardly a role model. Great character reference for your argument. I'm sure God is cool with that one too!

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

You dont get porn without some form of abuse, human trafficking, and exploitation. Ban It outright.

---

So all the men are abused, trafficked, and exploited?



Ron Jeremy might want a consult with you

---

Yes porn and sex outside of wedlock destroy your soul, and like drugs hardwire your brain. It does damage.

He is hardly a role model. Great character reference for your argument. I'm sure God is cool with that one too!

---

Or I think he is someone that chose his career

But you do you.

Avoid the beach because me can't control their lists.

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

You dont get porn without some form of abuse, human trafficking, and exploitation. Ban It outright.

---

So all the men are abused, trafficked, and exploited?



Ron Jeremy might want a consult with you

---

The dude who is in jail for over 20 accounts of rape and sexual assault who flew under the radar because of the nature of the porn industry?

Nice argument

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

You dont get porn without some form of abuse, human trafficking, and exploitation. Ban It outright.

---

So all the men are abused, trafficked, and exploited?



Ron Jeremy might want a consult with you

---

Yes porn and sex outside of wedlock destroy your soul, and like drugs hardwire your brain. It does damage.

He is hardly a role model. Great character reference for your argument. I'm sure God is cool with that one too!

---

Or I think he is someone that chose his career

But you do you.

Avoid the beach because me can't control their lists.

---

He abused every woman he was with out of wedlock.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

You dont get porn without some form of abuse, human trafficking, and exploitation. Ban It outright.

---

So all the men are abused, trafficked, and exploited?



Ron Jeremy might want a consult with you

---

Yes porn and sex outside of wedlock destroy your soul, and like drugs hardwire your brain. It does damage.

He is hardly a role model. Great character reference for your argument. I'm sure God is cool with that one too!

---

Or I think he is someone that chose his career

But you do you.

Avoid the beach because me can't control their lists.

---

He abused every woman he was with out of wedlock.

---

And he's literally in jail for 30 accounts of sexual assault but according to Tanya he's an example of dedication to his profession

Would you want your kid to do porn? Then why would you want anyone to?

Ronald Hyatt was declared mentally incompetent to stand trial back in January. I have not confirmed, but hopefully one of his final "releases" would be from the jail cell.

Banging hard on a man who is not mentally aware enough to defend himself is just not a posting orgy I want to participate in.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Would you want your kid to do porn? Then why would you want anyone to?

---

Poor form to bring someone's kid into it.

You're so noble! So much better than us.

Who are we to judge the rapist!?

fka ftc said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Would you want your kid to do porn? Then why would you want anyone to?

---

Poor form to bring someone's kid into it.

---

I posed the question in general but nice try.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Revisionist garbage. Most would be considered fundamentalist Christians today, and the "deist" would be considered almost as radical. Read their total writings and you'll see they would not agree with porn, public obscenity , or homosexuality.

They had laws against it at the time. They were fine with it.

---

As some have mentioned already, many of the founding fathers supported or owned slaves. Women were banned from voting, owning property, or holding public office. Interracial marriage was also forbidden largely based on religious principles.

Do you support those views as well?



You can't use the founding fathers as some ultimate trump card when you decide pick and choose which of their views to agree with.

nai06 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Revisionist garbage. Most would be considered fundamentalist Christians today, and the "deist" would be considered almost as radical. Read their total writings and you'll see they would not agree with porn, public obscenity , or homosexuality.

They had laws against it at the time. They were fine with it.

---

As some have mentioned already, many of the founding fathers supported or owned slaves. Women were banned from voting, owning property, or holding public office. Interracial marriage was also forbidden largely based on religious principles.

Do you support those views as well?



You can't use the founding fathers as some ultimate trump card when you decide pick and choose which of their views to agree with.

---

I can and I will.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

You're so noble! So much better than us.

Who are we to judge the rapist!?

---

Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 would seem to offer insight.

fka ftc said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Would you want your kid to do porn? Then why would you want anyone to?

---

Poor form to bring someone's kid into it.

---

She literally told him she felt sorry for his daughters, first. But you don't want to hear that.

nai06 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Revisionist garbage. Most would be considered fundamentalist Christians today, and the "deist" would be considered almost as radical. Read their total writings and you'll see they would not agree with porn, public obscenity , or homosexuality.

They had laws against it at the time. They were fine with it.

---

As some have mentioned already, many of the founding fathers supported or owned slaves. Women were banned from voting, owning property, or holding public office. Interracial marriage was also forbidden largely based on religious principles.

Do you support those views as well?



You can't use the founding fathers as some ultimate trump card when you decide pick and choose which of their views to agree with.

---

Are you talking to us or Tanya? Since she's the one who brought them up.

Dies Irae said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Would you want your kid to do porn? Then why would you want anyone to?

---

Poor form to bring someone's kid into it.

---

She literally told him she felt sorry for his daughters, first. But you don't want to hear that.

---

Same comment applies. So I do not need to hear it.

Seems like some though may need to thump less on their good books and understand others have different views and are not deserving of being cast to eternal damnation on a POLITICS board, when there is a holier than thou forum for such discussion.s

fka ftc said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

You're so noble! So much better than us.

Who are we to judge the rapist!?

---

Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 would seem to offer insight.

---

It says judge righteous judgment. First take the plank out, THEN take the spec out.

Certainly I have my sins. That does not preclude me from calling a spade a spade.

Rape is bad. Porn is bad. I judge them to be wrong things. I do not condemn. Only God does. I'm just telling you what He said.

fka ftc said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Would you want your kid to do porn? Then why would you want anyone to?

---

Poor form to bring someone's kid into it.

---

She literally told him she felt sorry for his daughters, first. But you don't want to hear that.

---

Same comment applies. So I do not need to hear it.

Seems like some though may need to thump less on their good books and understand others have different views and are not deserving of being cast to eternal damnation on a POLITICS board, when there is a holier than thou forum for such discussion.s

---

Just odd you would bristle at "would you like your kids to do porn" and not "I feel sorry for your daughters"

TxAgPreacher said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

You're so noble! So much better than us.

Who are we to judge the rapist!?

---

Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 would seem to offer insight.

---

It says judge righteous judgment. First take the plank out, THEN take the spec out.

Certainly I have my sins. That does not preclude me from calling a spade a spade.

Rape is bad. Porn is bad. I judge them to be wrong things. I do not condemn. Only God does. I'm just telling you what He said.

---

Let us know which chapter and verse covers the subject of Texas HB 1181.

Dies Irae said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Would you want your kid to do porn? Then why would you want anyone to?

---

Poor form to bring someone's kid into it.

---

She literally told him she felt sorry for his daughters, first. But you don't want to hear that.

---

Same comment applies. So I do not need to hear it.

Seems like some though may need to thump less on their good books and understand others have different views and are not deserving of being cast to eternal damnation on a POLITICS board, when there is a holier than thou forum for such discussion.s

---

Just odd you would bristle at "would you like your kids to do porn" and not "I feel sorry for your daughters"

---

Seems odd I answered you but you want to keep harping.

Quote:

---

Same comment applies. So I do not need to hear it.

---

fka ftc said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

You're so noble! So much better than us.

Who are we to judge the rapist!?

---

Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 would seem to offer insight.

---

It says judge righteous judgment. First take the plank out, THEN take the spec out.

Certainly I have my sins. That does not preclude me from calling a spade a spade.

Rape is bad. Porn is bad. I judge them to be wrong things. I do not condemn. Only God does. I'm just telling you what He said.

---

Let us know which chapter and verse covers the subject of Texas HB 1181.

---

There are many on these subjects. You know that. Stop pretending not to.