Featured Normalized Heterosexual Fornication and Lust on TV

As ShagNappy mentioned, they did and are doing the same thing with heterosexual fornication and lust. One would have to be completely in denial to not notice how many times folks have gone to court to overturn obscenity laws dealing with heterosexual fornication and lusts.

• Grove Press vs United States Post Office, 1959.
• http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/opinion/21kaplan.html?pagewanted=all

• adults can't be limited to material fit for children
  
• Butler v. State of Michigan
• 352 U.S. 380 (1957)
  
• They compare themselves to the civil rights movement. They are assaulting our children in the public school system with the homosexual agenda. Nothing else comes close.

• national community standards
  
• Jacobellis v. Ohio
• 378 US 184 (1964)
  
• In Jacobellis, Justice Brennan elaborated on the Roth standard by clarifying that the "community standards" applicable to an obscenity determination were to be national, not local standards. Nico Jacobellis managed a movie theater in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, that had shown a French film called "The Lovers," which contained one explicit three minute sex scene. Though the film had played in a number of other cities without incident, Jacobellis was arrested and convicted of violating the Ohio obscenity statute.
  
• Writing for the plurality, Brennan struck down the conviction and ruled that an obscenity determination should be made according to national community standards, rather than the standards of the local community from which a case arose:
  
• We do not see how any "local" definition of the "community" could properly be employed in delineating the area of expression that is protected by the Federal Constitution. ... The Court has explicitly refused to tolerate a result whereby "the constitutional limits of free expression in the Nation would vary with state lines"; we see even less justification for allowing such limits to vary with town or county lines. ... [T]he constitutional status of an allegedly obscene work must be determined on the basis of a national standard. It is, after all, a national Constitution we are expounding. "
• He concluded that "The Lovers" was not obscene because it had been "favorably reviewed in a number of national publications, although disparaged in others, and was rated by at least two critics of national stature among the best films of the year in which it was produced," and been shown in over 100 cities nationwide.

• zoning for adult businesses
  
• Renton v. Playtime Theatres
• 475 U.S. 41 (1986)
  
• In Renton, the Court solidified its position that although municipalities are barred by the First Amendment from banning adult theaters altogether, they may use zoning restrictions to restrict them to remote areas. Justice William Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court, which upheld a regulation of the city of Renton, Wash., prohibiting adult theaters from locating within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school. Such regulation is justified, ruled Rehnquist, because it is not primarily designed to prohibit the free expression of the content of the adult films, but on reducing the "secondary effects" of the adult theaters on the surrounding communities, such as increased crime.

• x-rated cable television
  
• Denver Telecommunications v. FCC
• 518 U.S. 727 (1996)
  
• In Denver Telecommunications the Court upheld one provision and overturned another in a 1992 federal law designed to protect children from exposure to "patently offensive sex-related material" on certain cable television channels. It struck down a provision permitting cable operators to ban indecent programming from public-access cable channels, such as those made available to community groups, but upheld a provision permitting operators to ban indecent programs from channels leased to commercial programmers. It also struck down a provision requiring cable operators who chose to allow indecent material to be broadcast on leased channels to segregate that material to a single channel, and to block that channel unless the cable subscriber requested to have it unblocked.

• internet porn
  
• Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union
• 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
  
• In the first case to address the regulation of sexually explicit material on the Internet, the Court struck down two provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) which attempted to protect minors from access to "patently offensive" or "indecent" Internet material. The ACLU, leading a coalition of organizations, challenged two provisions of the CDA that made it a crime to knowingly transmit "indecent" messages over the Internet to anyone under 18 or to knowingly send or display to a person under 18 a message that "in context" depicts or describes "sexual or excretory activities or organs" in terms "patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards."
  
• The U.S. District ruled that those provisions were unconstitutional:
  
• The Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation. The Government may not, through the CDA, interrupt that conversation. As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion.
• Justice Paul Stevens, writing for the Court, declared that "notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three-judge District Court that the statute abridges the 'freedom of speech' protected by the First Amendment."

• The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this week found two Oregon statutes ostensibly aimed at preventing the sexual abuse of children to be unconstitutional and in violation of the First Amendment. The court found that a “furnishing” statute (Oregon Revised Statutes § 167.054, or “section 054”), which made it a crime to provide children under the age of 13 with "sexually explicit" material, and a “luring” statute (§ 167.057), which criminalized providing minors under the age of 18 with "visual, verbal, or narrative descriptions of sexual conduct," to be overly broad and potentially in violation of free speech protection

• Adult entertainment lawyer Cary S. Wiggins has the boyish looks, good manners and perfectly pressed shirt of someone who was raised right.
• Last month Wiggins, 34, succeeded in overturning Georgia's obscenity law, which includes a ban on so-called sex toys.
  
  
• Read more: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?...it_in_Battle_Over_Obscenity_Law#ixzz2q0f7edYQ

The heterosexual fornication and lust movement assaulted your kids in public schools a long time ago and far exceeds the homosexual agenda. My goodness. They are teaching sex ed in kindergarten now.

 

They are just following the pattern previuosly set by all things heterosexually fornicative and lustful.

 

Pick one from the many Christian groups whose members are watching a lot of the filth on tv and in movies.

Like Laura Spencer's rape on General Hospital. Krystle Carrington's rape on Dynasty. Liz Spencer's rape on General Hospital. Kelly Taylor's rape on Beverly Hills 90210. Naomi Clark's rape on 90210. Joan Holloway's rape on Mad Men. Tara Thorton's rape on True Blood. Gemma Morrow's rape on Sons of Anarchy. Gillian Darmody's rape on Boardwalk Empire. Buffy Summers' almost-rape on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Madison Montgomery's rape on American Horror Story: Coven.
And Mellie Grant's rape on Scandal.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Pulp Fiction.
Grey's Anatomy. Desperate Housewives. The Big BAng Theory, NCIS, Revenge

Find me one of these Christian groups with no members who have given their approval for it by watching it.

The heterosexual fornication and lust has been pushed for decades and still overwhelmingly outdoes homosexual anything. And we have for decades been giving our approval by watching it.

 

Who said that? I ask again, are you doing this with the continuous gluttons and the women who continue to dress immodestly?

What's so special about this sin with Christians?

In proclaiming that their sin is the worst of the worst, you've already unrighteously judged them unnecessarily.

I go right back to the gluttons and the immodest dressers. How about the folks who still get a little too tipsy?

Why doesn't the church go after these people the same way? Why aren't these folks labeled the worst of the worst? They haven't changed their behaviors and often times think there's nothing wrong with, i.e. how they are dressed. Why isn't the church treating people the same?

 

How many of the sins within the church are being treated as the worst of the worst? How many other sins do you hear the church calling an abomination? How many gluttons and immodest dressers have you heard told about their sin something akin to

I'm not sure what churches yall are attending. But I have yet to see or hear of a gay person walking into an SBChurch and demanding that what they are doing be blessed by the church.

Please do share if you know of such a church.

 

Exactly. It's like saying something negative about President Obama and everybody applauding and then hearing crickets when you tell them that Scripture calls for us to honor those whom God has placed in authority over us.

We'll acknowledge everybody's sin but our own. You start pointing the finger at us and you've taken to meddling.

 

Nope. Won't admit any such thing because there are plenty of gluttons and greedy folks and immodest dressers, and idolators in the church who want their stuff acceptable too.

Will you admit that He expects the same thing of gluttons, immodest dressers, pill poppers, etc too? Will you admit that He expects the same thing of folks who just couldn't seem to love anyone but themselves and those like them?

Will you admit that He expects he same thingof folks who disrespect the authority He's placed over them.

I visit a lot of churches. Some majority Black, some majority White. But the majority white churches never seem to have a problem disrespecting President Obama and his administration. The churches seem to be fine with accepting this sin.

So again, unless you're going to rant and rave about all the other sin too that you seem to conveniently want to ignore because it gets ignored as sin by the church and is accepted because so many in the church are doing it, then just HUSH.

Who said otherwise? The question remains why you and so many others in the church make so much noise about the homosexuals sin but gloss over and ignore all the other sin within the church that has been "accepted"?

I mean for goodness sake. The evangelical church threw its support behind a man for PResident who is 100% against Jesus Christ and there has yet to be any public declaration of repentance by any of you who supported that anti-Christ. Believe me, it was no display of a love for Christ.

And as in that situation, so many in the church, like you, continue to rant about homosexual sin while ignoring the sin of the church.

Deal with the sin within the church if you want folks outside the church to listen.

Or hypocritically continue to ignore your own sin while pointing theirs out and see just how many of them listen to you.

It'slike your heads are collectively made of rock. You're so set on winning an argument over an issue that you continue to show nothing of love in your turning folks away from Christ.

It's despicable yet you and others insist on screaming you're going to hell and you're an abomination and your sexual sin is worse than all other sexual sins.

It's pure wickedness for which the church will give an account.

 

Have you said that to all the fat, overweight folks in the church who constantly overindulge? I don't see too many of them seeming to show any remorse as they gorge on more and more food every week. They're fat and still overeating and getting fatter. Is their "salvation" the real one?

How about the girls wearing the tight fitting blouses and the little bitty shorts? What about the ones wearing the skin tight skinny jeans that their parents buy for them? What about the ones in the too short skirts? What about the ones with half their tops hanging out? The churches seem to ignore all of them. Is their "salvation" the real one?

Or is it only expected that the homosexual has to change their behavior to show an authentic salvation experience but no one else does?

This is why the church continues to not be able to reach people who aren't just like us and they are going to hell by the millions.

We keep trying to operate from this standpoint of hypocrisy and it seems to be evident to everyone but us.