Fundamentalists are peeping toms.

The Fundamentalist Christians want to know what you are doing in your bedroom. Whether it is extra-martial sex, same-sex relationships, or even masturbation, they say that sexuality is filthy, dirty, and immoral and will land you in hell. And don't come running to them for prayers if you are a woman and get pregnant - after all, if you have an unwanted pregnancy, abortion is not an option, and it's your fault for having too much fun.

If they were to pass laws against such behavior, they would have to turn themselves into peeping toms to make sure we are all following the law. And then, they would have to build thousands of new prisons, get more judges, prosecutors, and jail wardens. We would have a police state larger than anything within history; otherwise, such laws would have no meaning whatsoever.

But logic never meant anything to them; after all, they have a hotline to God and they feel the need to punish people for abominations. And what do you expect? After all, they are peeping toms by nature.

Warning: Do not read unless you have a strong stomach.

Women who give up their virginity called sluts:

"Who is this slut?" was my unanswered question on as I read Cornellingus, the debut article of the Daily Sun's newest sex columnist Heather Grantham '06.

 

Now, I can already hear some of you asking "Why do you use such a harsh word?" My culture warrior's instincts aside, I gave Ms. Grantham the benefit of the doubt until I consulted Webster's Dictionary which defined "slut" as "a promiscuous woman." Since Grantham is not married and stated that she likes "to have sex ... a lot" she is promiscuous and therefore a slut. For those of you who find "slut" to be too mean, I can also alternate with tramp, trollop, tart, trull, floozy, fornicator, jezebel, not-for-profit prostitute, and a personal favorite, fallen woman.

Since this was her "virgin" column, Grantham felt it appropriate to write about the loss of her virginity. In an absolutely charming story, she recounted how she fell madly in love with a young man she met at her church youth group whom she married after a whirlwind courtship, both of them giving themselves to each other for the first time on their wedding night. Oh wait, no that wasn't it. She met some frat guy on a beer run during her freshman year and shacked up with him after going to his formal. Aww, lust at first sight.

While Grantham's story of the loss of her virginity is unique, the views she is expressing are not. She clearly has embraced the perverted feminist idea that turning women into a modern, cheaper alternative to prostitutes is some kind of liberation. Why waste hundreds of dollars on a high-class escort when all it takes is five Keystone Lights for many a college girl to put out?

Says who? Sounds like some sexually frustrated, hormonally charged person.

Man does what is right in his own eyes:

One of the darkest days of Israelite history was the period of the JUDGES. At that time "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25). Depraved men were setting the STANDARD and determining what was right. It may seem right in man's eyes, but the key question is this: IS IT RIGHT IN GOD'S EYES? Men greatly err when it comes to recognizing and following a right course of action: "There is a way which SEEMETH right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Proverbs 14:12).
When man sets the STANDARD then anything goes. Sinful men can justify anything as they reject and willfully ignore God's standards as clearly revealed in God's Word. Men and women of our day are busy doing what is right in their own eyes. They justify their position in the following ways: "We must not discriminate!" "People can't help being the way they are because it is genetic." "Who cares what a person does in private?" "What does it matter what two consenting adults do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone?" "Everyone is entitled to his or her own sexual preference." Etc.
Suppose that what these people are saying is true. What if there were no real objective STANDARD outside of man? What if there were no God and no Bible and no Ten Commandments? If this were the case, then we would have to agree that we would have absolutely no basis by which we could condemn homosexuality, apart from our own personal preferences (likes and dislikes). Under these conditions man would set the standards, doing that which seems right in his own eyes.
Without any divine STANDARD of morality, what would be wrong with homosexuality (sexual relations between two persons of the same sex)? Furthermore, what would be wrong with bestiality (sexual relations between a human being and an animal)? Could not the same arguments be used? "Am I not entitled to my own sexual preference?" "What is wrong with it as long as I am kind to the animal and we don't hurt anyone else?" Indeed, with no divine rule to measure right and wrong, what would be objectionable with adults having sexual relations with animals or even with young children? You may personally have a strong aversion to such practices, but who are you to impose your own personal standards on other people?

Forget that the Bible does not even talk about committed, loving, same-sex relationships. Who the hell do these people think they are, pontificating from a book that nobody across the world knew about? It seems that they are straining at gnats and swallowing camels with a potential war with Iran on the horizon, global warming threatening to wipe out civilization as we know it, Iraq stuck in a perpetual quagmire, and the lowest job growth since the Great Depression. But no; they'd rather peep through your window and see who you are sleeping with.

Fundies want to snoop schools to see if they are indoctrinating kids into gay culture:

The Risk Audit was applauded by pro-family leaders like Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute of CWA; Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council; and Steve Crampton, chief counsel of the AFA Center for Law and Policy.
The idea for the plan grew out of a coalition of religious conservatives who encouraged the Southern Baptist Convention to pass a resolution in June of 2005 regarding homosexuality in the schools. The resolution, co-authored by Bruce Shorrt and Pastor Voddie Baucham, said in essence that homosexuality remains a dangerous and high -risk behavior and SBC member churches should evaluate local schools and report to their congregations on the extent of pro-homosexual school activities. Parents then should act accordingly in determining educational paths for their children, with removal from the public schools recommended. The final SBC resolution which passed did not include the "removal" clause, yet did encourage parents to act in accord with Christian standards.
Parents nationwide are growing increasingly alarmed by the methods and aggressiveness of programs to force student acceptance of homosexuality. Frequently only one misleading view of the subject is presented, downplaying its risks, silencing dissension and fomenting discriminatory attitudes against those who hold traditional moral views.
The supporting coalition also included E. Ray Moore, Jr, president of Exodus Mandate; Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values; Peter LaBarbera , president of Illinois Family Institute and Americans for Truth; Cathie Adams, president of Texas Eagle Forum; Eunie Smith, president of Alabama Eagle Forum; Hon. Twyla Roman, president, Ohio Eagle Forum;and Gary Glenn, president of AFA of Michigan.

Do you not want your kids around gays? Then home-school them or send them to a private Christian school. But don't turn our schools into right-wing propaganda outlets or deny students the chance to explore their sexuality.

WorldNet accuses gays of teaching graphic sex to kids:

But there's one connection surfacing that schools and communities should watch: the strong link between the school "GSAs" and community-based "GLBT" youth groups. With little accountability except to the adult "gay" community, there's no doubt that these offsite youth groups do offer students opportunities to learn about graphic sex and socialize with peers and adults who are active participants in the homosexual lifestyle. And the target age starts as early as middle school.
At most of these off-campus clubs, your sixth grader would be welcomed by adult homosexual volunteers and staff, and allowed to socialize with high school and college age "queer" or gender variant youth, without your permission or knowledge. All he or she has to do is show up, and many are located conveniently on bus lines to accommodate kids under driving age.
"No parents" plus homosexual approval is the reason these centers call themselves "safe" places. There is a homosexual youth center now in virtually every medium or large city in the United States. Many are funded by private foundations or connected to a local adult center for "GLBT" people. Some are even funded by United Way. And the kids who attend are given graphic "safe-sex" lectures, the option of free HIV testing without parental permission, group "counseling" and other serious, adult-level situations that few schools would allow on site.

This is typical right-wing rhetoric, engaging in scaremongering by engaging in crackpot conspiracy theories. They have about as much credibility as the 9/11 pod theorists or the people who claim a missile hit the Pentagon.

Wingnut claims masturbation is an addiction in need of treatment:

The Bible has no problem talking about sex, but the people of God have somehow gotten the message that it is a subject best not mentioned - especially that "dirty little habit" called masturbation. Little do we realize that by keeping this issue in darkness, we are playing right into Satan's hand. Darkness is where he keeps people isolated, ignorant, afraid, shameful and hopeless.
Modern psychology and medicine would have us believe that masturbation is healthy and natural, persuading many Christian leaders to communicate the same message.
For others in bondage to performance and legalism, it is a horribly embarrassing behavior, something they are certain will send them straight to hell. Satan keeps them locked in a dungeon of shame and self-hatred. "If you were normal (healthy, attractive, etc.) you wouldn't be doing this", he whispers. He causes you to believe that you are the only one who does it, or that the sexual thoughts that you have are far more perverted than anyone else's. The pain of your ongoing failure fuels further flights into self-relief.

All I can ask is where does it all end? This is a natural biological process that God created in us before the fall. He commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. He created us with sexual desire and saw that it was good. So, this guy is not arguing with me, he is arguing with his own God. And writings like this always keeps people in a sense of shame and self-hatred. If people experience a sense of shame and self-hatred, what better way to keep people from becoming uppity and actually start to protest against George Bush?

These peeping toms are the sort of people whom the Republicans associate themselves with on a daily basis. And the most important thing to remember is that sex for them is not about morality or concern for well-being. It is all about controlling the individual and grabbing power. The nature of power is such that these strictures on morality apply only to the common herd. They do not apply to those in leadership, like Porter Goss, for instance. If you check Emperor Dobson's website, for instance, there is nothing on the Duke Cunningham/Porter Goss sex scandal and plenty on the so-called "gay agenda."

tags: sex  sexuality  masturbation  peeping toms  gays  fundamentalism  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit