Quote:
Originally Posted by longboardjim
Hmmm................ I don't get this post ... what's people with deformities have to do with gay simulated rape site processed by Verotel???
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by longboardjim
Hmmm................ I don't get this post ... what's people with deformities have to do with gay simulated rape site processed by Verotel???
It Doesn't! , It Was To Another Point! , Read Back!
Sincerely ~ Jim
Hmm..a couple of things here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzinerbear
1) first.."THESE kinds of sites"..I have to say in my experience the Christian right doesn't need more than a tit showing to get worked up into a lather. They can go after a lot of straight sites as well as gay if they want to go on a band wagon about "sim rape". And there are many more straight sites that deal in this than gay.
2)But more importantly..what the heck are you proposing we do then? Remove ALL gay sites that could in the very least OFFEND the "morality" of the Christian right? Where the F**K do we stop then? Let's get rid of sim rape. Let's get rid of leather, bondage s&m etc etc. Ok..lets get rid of all anal sex sites because we all know God did not mean THAT orifice for sex!!
Where do you draw the line Dzinerbear? Why do we cower like this in fear of some site "offending" the religious right when it has gone out of it's way to say "THIS IS A SIMULATION WHERE THE ACTORS ARE PRETENDING!"?
Must we always think so defensively when protecting "our rights"? I think it's time to be more pro-active and taking it TO the Christian right on the net for their hate mongering, not sitting in a corner whimpering "oh gawd..I hope they don't see that sim rape site and get upset!
Oh man..didn't know about the situation with your son. That must have been incredibly stressful. How did things turn out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
Yeah here's a link from the Advocate.com archives with a short synapses. It was a very public case three years ago in California. Here's a link to a more detailed story run in the Orange County Times ( it's a link to a yahoo group somewhere because you have to pay to see it on the OC Times site )Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
I won :high: The sitter was crazy and even her overzealous religious attorney, who felt it was Gods mission to take the child from the homosexual pornographer, couldn't pull enough tricks out of her hat in conservative Orange County to win. It was a difficult year for me. It really tested my resolve and network of friends. The ACLU really helped with the case and once reporters starting showing up for every hearing, particularly the 48 hours crew, the conservative judge stopped doing favors for the religious attorney and started doing everything by the book. Thank God.
After I won I moved out here to Australia to enjoy life for a while and find normality.
I have faith that the law is on our side when it comes to freedom of speech etc. As long as you're not breaking the law, if someone challenges your rights you'll be in for a fight, but the law is on your side.
Oh man..just read the 2 articles. Absolutely unbelieveable! (actually, alas very believable these days..and THIS was BEFORE the re-election of Bush!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
It amazed me when the paper printed this after the babysitter's name: "Holmes, a Christian"
You heathen slut Squirt! lol
GOOD for you! Hope things are going well for you in Australia.
It seems as if the problem here isn't the content itself, but the questions behind how it may have been filmed.
Would anyone have a problem with fake rape sites if they posted a separate unedited video of the entire shoot from the minute the model arrived until he left? Thus proving it was all an act?
I think webmasters would still have a problem over them since the revenue stream is from people who are curious about rape.
It's like those underage non-sexual sites out there. They are legal, but the income is still coming from pedeos.