Skip to comments.Santorum Says He Would Enforce US Obscenity Laws That Obama Ignores
Posted on 03/16/2012 10:56:03 PM PDT by Steelfish
Santorum Says He Would Enforce US Obscenity Laws That Obama Ignores By NBC's Andrew Rafferty
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL -- Rick Santorum accused President Barack Obama of not enforcing the country's obscenity laws and said Friday that as chief executive he would crack down on illegal pornography.
Santorum found himself answering pornography questions during a stop at an Italian restaurant here after the discovery of a statement posted in his campaign website in which he asserts that "America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography." Recent reporting has shed light on the letter in which the former Pennsylvania senator vowed to "vigorously enforce" all the country's obscenity laws, though he said the statement was posted three weeks ago.
"We actually respond to questions that we get into our campaign when they say 'What are you going to do about these issues?' And when we respond we post them up on our website. And the response is, we'll enforce the law," said Santorum.
"I dont know what the hubbub about that is," he said. "We have a president who is not enforcing the law, and we will."
The candidate best known for espousing family values argues on his website that pornography causes changes in the brain to both children and adults, and contributes to violence against women, prostitution and sex trafficking. "The Obama administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography," he wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...
I have never seen such emotionally charged sarcastic drivel from him as was in that post, and it made me wonder if he is well.
I will wait for him to respond and try to make some sense out of the nonsense in his previous post, if at all possible.
ohioWfan, my post was not emotionally charged at all. I was sort of joking around yet making a point at the same time, and I directed it to PapaBear simply because I found his comment (which I was responding to) humorous and entirely true at the same time. PapaBear said:
I am not willing to kill in order to stop somebody from looking at some woman's breasts.
I took his point that laws should be a big deal. That laws are societies declaration that coercion will be used, ultimately death if necessary to enforce said law, and that we shouldn't make them lightly and about things that are not vitally important and agreed upon by most of society. I agree with this line of thinking, and I agree with the point that I am not willing to send tax payer funded law enforcement after someone for looking at breasts.
In this thread there are people babbling about porn being a marxist plot. This is simply absurd. It is the marxist countries that MOST restrict the internet and the ability of citizens to see what they want. Maintaining "social order and virtue" is one of the excuses Communist countries like China, Vietnam and Cuba use to monitor and regulate the net. I don't need a link to some hair brained 60's era communist blueprint for corruption. Obviously the marxist mostly failed as the fall of the Soviet Union and Berlin Wall kinda proved.
When it comes to things like porn, gambling, drinking, etc, I am far more concerned about people that believe what is taught in a church should be made the law of land and enforced through coercion via law enforcement. This is EXACTLY the kind of thinking that pervades Islamic countries. They do not believe people will make the right choices, so they wish to take those choices away.
And to answer your question, no, I am certainly not turning into a paulbot. Probably few people on this forum dislike Ron Paul more than me. I consider the guy a loon with a herd of fanatical, drug addled, conspiracy theorist followers. If you've really read enough of my posts, you should know the venom I direct at Paul is fairly epic. I am not a libertarian in any way, shape or form - I don't even like that Ron Paul is allowed to use the GOP label to run for President.
I believe in limited government, an aggressive foreign policy that works to garner respect for this nation (and fear) rather than the silly goal of trying to get everyone to love us, and a massive military with an ability to project power as needed. I'm not entirely black and white on all government. There are obviously things the government does need to use coercion to accomplish, but cracking down on internet porn is simply not one of them.
My problem all along with Santorum is I know he can't stay away from social issues that should not be the focus of this election. If it were just opposing abortion and gay marriage, something we all pretty much agree on, I'd have less trouble with him. But even then, those items which I agree with him on should not be the primary focus of the 2012 election when we know Obama would love to fight over those issues rather than his complete economic failure. Hussein does not want to talk about debt, he does not want to talk about failed stimulus, he does not want to talk about gas prices, etc. What Obama wants to do, and you can already see this plainly with the left's manufactured "war on women" meme, is talk about social issues - ESPECIALLY if he can fight over things like condoms, porn, whether women should have more babies, etc, which are items the public is just not going to side with us on. Santorum would fall right into that trap, because in the end, Rick is known and most passionate about these issues. He would be a far better priest than a politician. And I don't say that as an insult either. I don't necessarily disagree that porn can be a negative influence on people, families and society in general - but I don't want guys like Santorum thinking good values and habits (taught by churches, families and communities) means we need laws to prevent people from using free will and making their own choices.
I hope that gives you a better idea where I am coming from. Don't mistake my all too often blunt language and twisted sense of humor for an attempt to offend a fellow conservative. We are all on the same side. Fighting amongst ourselves on these topics is as healthy as any family debating issues at home. We all come to together when necessary. I am not a fan of Rick Santorum, but if he wins the nomination I will vote for him in the general election.
Great post...well articulated.
In this thread there are people babbling about porn being a marxist plot. This is simply absurd. It is the marxist countries that MOST restrict the internet and the ability of citizens to see what they want.
I think you're entirely missing the point as to the tactic Marxists would use to destroy America. It is not the tactics that leaders would use in their own countries, but rather their goals for destroying one of our strengths.....our moral founding and nature.
I would recommend to you the documentary, Agenda: Grinding Down America, regarding the personal experience of Idaho legislator Curtis Bowers, at a meeting in the 60's in CA where the goals were set forth.
You know me (I think) well enough to know that I'm not a 'wingnut' conspiracy theorist, but you don't have to be a nuclear physicist to see that the goal of the left from the get-go has been to destroy every moral fiber of America's being - from abortion and eugenics, to porn and cultural decay, to destroying religious freedom, taking any discussion of God out of the public square, creating the welfare state, destroying the family, the rebellion against all authority, the huge growth of a central and controlling government - all those things are coming to being.
I know that there is a slice of conservatism that resents and rejects moral absolutes, but I think your comparison of Christianity and basic decency with Islamic fundamentalism is way, WAY off base. Our country was founded on moral principles and it depends on a moral people for its survival. I believe Rick Santorum recognizes that, and that the majority of conservatives agree with him.
I completely agree that he needs to work on steering the media away from the traps it keeps setting for him, but I think he's got time to do that (once he beats Mitt for the nomination! :) But I completely reject the leftist notion that he wants to set up some sort of theocracy, and I see it as coming from irrational fear, and not any substantive reality.
I am MUCH relieved to see you haven't fallen under the spell of the insane, Paul, and I appreciate your explanation regarding your humor and what seemed like an out-of-character sarcastic post. I have a long history of reading your posts, and I am relieved to find out that you haven't actually changed! I am glad to have been mistaken.
I am SO with you on being on the same side, which is why I get disturbed at what I see as irrational attacks on Rick Santorum and any who have chosen him as our best conservative option. I said it before, but I'll repeat it, that if it were Newt in the lead, I'd be cheering him on....not attacking his past, or my differences with him. Just stating that I have them.
Frankly, I'm going to work my tail off for ANY of the nominees who runs against Obama (I can say that because there ain't no way that goofy Paul is going to win it!).
We have a Marxist menace in the WH, and we need to work together to get him out of there!
(The documentary is worth watching, even if you don't agree with every word of it. It's well documented, and it's not difficult to see that the goals are being achieved, and one of America's greatest strengths diminished).
First off... The prohibition red-herring isn't going to fly. First of all a couple of drinks is not the same thing as being a drunkard. Making love and babies with one's spouse is not the same thing as indulging in mindless, animalistic sex with either multiple "real" or "imaginary" sex partners. I personally have never called for nor do I condone making alcohol illegal just as I have never condoned or called for making sex between a married man and woman illegal.
My God says adultery, fornication, sodomy and other forms of sexual debauchery are sin and not partaking in such deviant behaviors has worked for me. You obviously disagree. That is your prerogative but history shows that when the moral decay of a society takes over it's not long before the culture that's rotting ceases to exist. We have obomba because social standards have digressed to the point where people are tolerant of liars, cheats, thieves, drug addicts and sexual perverts like obomba. I cannot fault Santorum for having higher standards than most folks and while I am a firm Newt supporter I would not be one bit ashamed of voting for a man like Santorum. If Newt doesn't win the alternatives are either obomba or romney. Neither are acceptable to me. Santorum has character and good moral values. I would gladly take him over the obomney's of this nation.
its the economy
its the constitution
we do not need this issue....
lets just assume our guy is going to make it a cleaner better place to live and not put it out there to sway moderate voters to vote against our guy.
Rick is thinking about the millions of people in America who have quit watching TV shows and have quit going to movies because of content. You cannot watch a TV show any more without seeing porn in the way women dress (or undress)or in what vile language is used. I am all for him talking up the fact that this president doesn’t care how porn is destroying our society. People are so used to seeing this stuff that they don’t bat an eye. Then we have the hard porn which is going rampant causing attacks and murders of our younsters. Open your eyes and see what’s going on.
“rampant causing attacks and murders of our younsters”
Do you have scientific proof that hardcore pornography causes murders? Not a correlation. Causation.
No. I didnt say that. I dont think porn is good. But I dont think it, excepting things like child pornography or snuff films rises to being any interest of the Federal government.
First off... The prohibition red-herring isn't going to fly. First of all a couple of drinks is not the same thing as being a drunkard.
How do you define a couple of drinks? One or two a day? A month? Every once and a while? And what if someone has more than a couple, gets hammered, sloshed, G-ds own drunk? There are already state and local laws regarding public drunkenness and driving under the influence. But should that be a Federal crime? Should I be arrested for being a drunkard? By the Feds?
Making love and babies with one's spouse is not the same thing as indulging in mindless, animalistic sex with either multiple "real" or "imaginary" sex partners. I personally have never called for nor do I condone making alcohol illegal just as I have never condoned or called for making sex between a married man and woman illegal.
So making love AND babies with ones spouse is OK by you? Thanks! But I guess us post menopausal women are a different story then? Are you going to further define what sexual positions my husband and I can use too? Are you really saying that sex outside of marriage should be a criminal act? Perhaps it should be a federal crime and the BAFT could become the BAFT&S and with heavily armed SWAT teams dispatched to lovers lanes and high school proms to make sure no one rounds second base.
My God says adultery, fornication, sodomy and other forms of sexual debauchery are sin and not partaking in such deviant behaviors has worked for me. You obviously disagree.
Im glad they have worked for you. I have no problem with that and I have no problem with G-d or your minister defining such for you. I do have a problem with the Federal government defining them for me, or for you for that matter.
You are just making stuff up. The US crime rate has actually been falling for the last 15-20 years or so. Oddly enough, right at the same time as the onset and rise of the information age and widespread internet access. Where is your scientific evidence to show that porn is causing rampant "attacks and murders of our younsters".
Rick is thinking about the millions of people in America who have quit watching TV shows and have quit going to movies because of content.
More likely the majority of people that are dropping TV/cable/satellite are the ones that realized they can see all their favorite shows now online (Hulu, Netflix, etc). It's not a moral crusade, many folks have simply realized they can see everything they want (including porn if they so choose) on the internet.
You cannot watch a TV show any more without seeing porn in the way women dress (or undress)
Oh good grief. Seriously? Most shows on network TV are not even remotely close to porn. Maybe you haven't been to a beach lately? East Coast, West Coast, the Lakes, the Gulf, etc, you can see more flesh in public places than on network TV pretty much anytime you want.
Prohibition is a red-herring in the argument, but not for any of the reasons you listed. Prohibition was a result of the States delegating a power to the national government by the process of amendment and ratification.
This is nothing like that at all.
Pretty sure so long as you are not "indulging in mindless, animalistic sex" then you're probably okay. No fantasies or anything "imaginary" though, that crosses the line and might require Federal intervention ;)
Im glad they have worked for you. I have no problem with that and I have no problem with G-d or your minister defining such for you. I do have a problem with the Federal government defining them for me, or for you for that matter.
This is really the main point. I don't think most people necessarily believe porn is good, it's just not something the government needs to involve itself in. People can learn good values and habits from their church, family, community, etc. It is their choice and free will as to whether they will adhere to them. We don't need the Feds telling us how much skin we can watch online, how much to drink, how much red meat we can eat, how many sugary soda's we prefer, etc. These are personal choices. Many people will make the wrong ones and screw their lives up, and those people serve as examples of what not to do. The government has plenty to worry about without assigning regulators to determine whether the Victoria's Secret website falls into the soft core porn category, or what exactly constitutes hard core porn, or whether some couples amateur sex video is "obscene", etc, etc.
And you would be wrong on so many counts. Not worthy of a discussion.
Not surprising that that kind of hatred comes from the left. They are the most hypocritical and evil people on earth.
Honestly... It’s ok if you are a Romney supporter. Most Americans aren’t. ;-)
We are, but I don't consider strong criticism of Santorum to be an "irrational attack". If he wins the nomination, I will vote for him. In the end, most people here will too.
I know that there is a slice of conservatism that resents and rejects moral absolutes
There are indeed a lot of what some people were calling "South Park Republicans" for a time. Mostly young people adapting to the changing world. We are in the information age now, it's a world you just can't stop from rapidly changing no matter how much you wish you could. They are certainly more libertine, but largely agree with traditional conservatives on economic issues. Ron Paul has gotten the attention of some of these voters, but not most. Like it or not, the new generation of conservatives are going to be focusing far more on economic, foreign policy and defense issues rather than re-fighting long ago settled social value arguments over contraception and porn. Try to re-engage those battles in a political setting and you'll just end up alienating people.
but I think your comparison of Christianity and basic decency with Islamic fundamentalism is way, WAY off base.
You seem to be missing the point. Western Christianity has been successful, Islam has not. Christianity teaches right from wrong, but the societies it has molded tend to allow more free choice and free will. Islam has been stuck in place for centuries precisely because it tries to squelch free choice and free will. Without oil money, Islamic nations are a complete basket case. Even with it this is largely the case. It is no accident that the only really successful Islamic country has been Turkey, and it got that way by limiting the power of the Mosque and the reach of Islamic religious leaders.
The problem is, many of the people we call social conservatives are not small government conservatives at all. They are for small government only until it comes to the moral issues that really drives them to vote, then they want an intrusive government to attempt to solve the social issues they consider most important. Pat Robertson actually won some primary states in 1988 and got over a million votes before he dropped out. One of Robertson's campaign planks was to ban porn. Mike Huckabee did quite well in 2008 and he was most certainly not a small government conservative. There are a significant number of socon voters who are really focused on voting for who they deem the most God fearing, who can quote scripture best, etc. Many of these voters are simply not limited government conservatives at all.
While interesting from an intellectual point of view, the debate is largely pointless anyway. The information age we are now will, in the end, make it impossible to crack down on porn anyway. Governments will find it more and more difficult to regulate or stop people from seeing, reading and sharing what they want. They will try though, and I think you will find that the governments who attempt to do this are the very ones least interested in individual rights and most interested in state control of the populace.
There you go again, putting words into my mouth and claiming that I said what I did explicitly did not say. Im not a Romney supporter BTW but I doubt that matters to you as you have already deemed to believe I am. . ;-)< Instead of rationally discussing the topic, hurl insults.
“Rick is thinking about the millions of people who have quit watching TV...”
I find a lot of things objectionable on tv. Violence, reality shows that promote backstabbing, etc. Consequently, I make sure when I purchase a tv or radio it has an “off” switch. I don’t think having the government determine media content is a wise idea. By whose standards could we end up living with?
I believe, not sure, that hard core porn has to be sought out. Since I find it disgusting, I have very little, if any, problem avoiding it. Child porn, etc is already against the law and heavily policed, as it should be.
I am of the firm belief that the Federal government’s primary concern should be as outlined in the Constitution. Senator Santorum (not first choice but who I would vote for if he became the nominee) continues to let the media draw him into discussions that are giving the Democratic party ammunition.
I keep looking for a detail of items he is talking about that is not currently being enforced. Can’t seem to find one.
Oh, I understand this, Longbow. Most under 30's, even in the Christian community don't recognize sin as sin. They have been thoroughly inculcated by the leftist culture led by the Marxist agenda to destroy the country.
But recognizing the problem doesn't mean we have to ignore it, especially when the future viability of the country is at stake. If we don't try to stanch the flow of the lifeblood of the country.....being GOOD......we are lost as a nation, no matter what our economic policies may be.
They are certainly more libertine, but largely agree with traditional conservatives on economic issues
Right. They are liberal cheapskates - no moral values, and their economic 'conservatism' stems from their selfishness, and not from any value system. And they are running wild all over this formerly conservative forum (I think JimRob calls them 'spam monkies'). They don't represent conservative values at all. They are just self-absorbed cheapskates.
The problem is, many of the people we call social conservatives are not small government conservatives at all.
Of course, some are not. There are people with Christian values that have no sense of economic conservatism. They are the opposite of those with no values who want small government (again, most likely because it will not interfere with their personal appetites).
Both groups are only partial conservatives. That's why those of us who are across the board conservatives need to keep making our points to the uneducated on either side of the spectrum.
I tend to hit harder on the moral side because I don't want America to go the way of Rome.....into total degradation, debauchery and death.
There are obviously freepers who don't care, but I will never be one of them, so I will continue to pray, and I will continue to pound on the importance of America's being the moral bastion that has kept it thriving for more than 200 years.
If the young libertines get their way, the country will die. Soon. And apathy from those of us who know better is, for me, unpardonable.
Moral Americans are educable. Libertine punks are too arrogant to learn from people they dismiss as 'moralists.'
We'll have greater success in arriving at complete conservatism if we work on the moral, patriotic folks than the "ME generation" egomaniacs.
Try reading my post at least once. I described a possible "get out the vote" message BY DEMOCRATS. That's why the message sounds like it could have come from Democratic Underground.
than it is to teach these Paul punk, self-absorbed libertines to understand the value of practicing the moral values that have separated America from the rest of the world.
Paulbots are annoying, yes. The drug addled hippie types who just want legalized drugs and some peacenik foreign policy are essentially just liberals that I am not even considering as part of a better tomorrow. But there is a LOT of libertine minded conservative young people who are not paulbots. Most of them aren't in fact. I consider these people part of a positive future and well on their way to being the next generation of conservative voters - and many, perhaps most, will become more socially conservative as they grow older as well.
I have a lot of younger people working at my company and I am actually excited about many of this new generation. I may not agree with them on some of the social issues, but what they do understand is that big government creates dependence and dependence will destroy the nation. In my mind, the younger people that I see graduating from university and holding this position gives me some hope for future generations. Many, I think, see the dependence problem much more clearly than a lot of social conservative voters who are much more focused on re-fighting things like contraception and smut.
I think maybe you see the deluge of porn and violence on TV, the internet, games, etc and think the future is lost. But didn't your parents generation have the same worry, and the one before that, and probably before that? Americans voted for FDR in the 30's and 40's. I mean, come on, FDR was a very radical economic leftist and began many of the disasterous social programs that we have today. I am not sold on the idea that things were somehow better in the "old days", and I certainly wouldn't want to go back to living in that time period. I think people will deal with the information age just fine. I think the availability of things like porn will cause damage to some folks, but new generations of people that have grown up in the information age will be able to process it, adapt and adjust.
In my opinion, dependence on government causes vastly more damage to society than porn. It simply isn't even a close call. Government dependence has absolutely destroyed urban areas, not smut. The key to turning things around is reducing the size and scope of government, not finding reasons to expand its influence by regulating how much skin one can see online. I think the libertine conservatives get that, and perhaps I am just not so pessimistic about the future (in the long term) as you are.
I believe you underestimate the destructiveness and the gripping addiction of porn, but I don't believe that I underestimate the destructiveness of dependence on government, the total annihilation of the black family by the welfare state, or any of the other damage that big government causes.
I'm glad you are optimistic about the young people with whom you come in contact. I am optimistic about the handful of young people I know who understand that morality is an integral part of conservatism. If there are enough of them in the country, we may survive. If there are only libertines, I seriously doubt it.
From what I've seen on this forum, these punks offer no hope for America's future. They need to understand the danger their unbridled desires and addictions pose to not only themselves, but to the future of America. I truly don't believe that their 'conservatism' has anything to do with logical politics. For most of them, it has only to do with their pre-adolescent desire to do whatever they want to do.
And that has not one whit to do with conservatism.
Sorry to be such a pessimist, but the more I see of these libertines, the less hope I have for America's future.
Three examples come to mind -
Laws against statutory rape (when it is non-violent and consensual). Is that not 'legislating morality?' Should those laws be removed? Are those of us who believe in them mindless 'moralists' who want a 'nanny state?'
Laws against polygamy (when it is non-violent and consensual). Should those laws be removed as they are 'moralist' and promoting a 'nanny state?'
Laws against homosexual marriage. Should those laws be eliminated as 'legislating morality' and promoting a 'nanny state?'
How far does your desire to protect pornography go? How far does your desire for license and not liberty take you? (Be careful with the third question, as this is still a conservative website, the presence of so many libertines, notwithstanding).
Thanks for any well-reasoned response to questions on those three kinds of laws which clearly, and unambiguously 'legislate morality.'
it's not a desire to "protect porn". It is simply the viewpoint that fighting porn is MUCH less important on the priority scales of most American voters than the economy, national security, crime, etc. A politician who does not recognize this and tailor his message to align with the priorities of the people he wants to vote for him, will lose.
How do feel about the clear examples I gave of doing just that, where no violence is involved? Any response?
But since your here, how do you feel about the fact that looking at women's breasts degrades women, and that the majority of women who are in porn flicks have been sexually abused and/or trafficked, and that's why they're there.
Does the inextricable link between porn and sexual violence bother you at all?
btw, the question of whichs is a 'higher priority' isn't really the issue, because the issues can all be discussed without the necessity of prioritizing and saying things like, because the economy is important, we shouldn't discuss the evil of pornography........as you seem to be saying.
A 13 year old girl runs away from home because she has been abused, and within 24 to 48 hours, she is trafficked for prostitution or kiddie porn where she is abused by her pimp, or the producers of the porn.
She gets older, and at 18 she thinks the only way she can make a living is to be a porn star, or continue prostitution. She's an adult, with adult breasts.
And it's those breasts......those of an abused young woman (and the majority of women in porn)....... who is now an adult and whose breasts are ogled by 'conservative' men who don't think it's any of our business because there are more important issues.......like the economy.......
You OK with that, PapaBear? Even if it were a relative, or a friend's kid?
THAT is the reality of porn, and it most definitely IS an issue that needs to be addressed.
Mockery may begin now. I don't care. The issue is real, it is destructive, and it should be talked about......HONESTLY....... by anyone who cares about the future of this country.
My wife doesn't feel degraded by my looking at her breasts.
and that the majority of women who are in porn flicks have been sexually abused and/or trafficked, and that's why they're there.
It seems more likely that they are there because it's easy money and they don't have the skills to earn as much in a conventional job. One of my wife's friends was a topless dancer in her younger days. She did it because of the money. She was not abused or trafficked. She is now a public school teacher.
As far as Rick is concerned, what I'm saying is that whenever he makes remarks about porn, that is treated as his primary issue. You seem like somebody who will not be happy unless Rick DOES make it his front-and-center primary issue.
As far as your three examples are concerned, none of the three are properly the business of the federal government -- they are all regulated by state laws. But if I was offered a deal where we could abolish the EPA, Dept of Education, BATF, HEW, etc and cut the federal bureaucracy in half (not just re-assign them, but lay them off completely, their budgets abolished, and the legislation enabling their authority repealed entirely) in exchange for accepting polygamy and gay marriage, I would take the deal.
Statutory rape exists because society has set the age of adulthood at 18. Which means that society believes that anyone under 18 is not fully capable of making decisions on their own.
That has nothing to do with G-d’s word or whether lawmakers heard the good word while crafting the legislation. If they had, then the age of consent would be 13... as that’s the age when the Lord considers you an adult (Bar Mitzvah).
As for polygamy and gay marriage... I’ve long argued that it’s wrong for the government to even be in the business of marriage. That is the realm of religion. The thought of dirty politicians telling religion was is/is not allowable in religion is wrong... and probably why Obama thinks he can tell the Catholic Church to violate it’s beliefs on health care and abortion.
And as a return challenge, what was the morality on these laws? (as you claim all law is based on morality)
1. What moral was used for the creation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005)
2. What moral was used for the enactment of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_and_Harbors_Act_of_1965)
3. What moral was used for the Telecommunications Act of 1996? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Telecommunications_Act_of_1996)
But if I was offered a deal where we could abolish the EPA, Dept of Education, BATF, HEW, etc and cut the federal bureaucracy in half (not just re-assign them, but lay them off completely, their budgets abolished, and the legislation enabling their authority repealed entirely) in exchange for accepting polygamy and gay marriage, I would take the deal.
Outside the box and very interesting. I would agree that those Federal bureaucracies cause INFINITELY more harm to families and the social fabric than gay marriage and polygamy.
...You OK with that, PapaBear? Even if it were a relative, or a friend's kid?
If it were a relative or friend's kid, she would not be in that position, because I would help take care of her. And those who really care about girls in that situation (I notice you don't seem to care as much about boys) could help her out by helping her get conventional employment.
Many such girls, though, are broken. They have emotional, mental, addiction, or cognitive issues that preclude them from conventional employment. They are in porn because all the alternatives are worse (and yes, there are worse alternatives to being in porn).
That has nothing to do with G-ds word or whether lawmakers heard the good word while crafting the legislation. If they had, then the age of consent would be 13... as thats the age when the Lord considers you an adult (Bar Mitzvah).
Actually, if we really want to go back to Biblical practice, then fathers would arrange their daughter's marriage to a good, self-supporting man when she's 13. It might even be an improvement over current practice. Over the years, states have removed parent's ability to consent to under-age marriage without court approval.
As for polygamy and gay marriage... Ive long argued that its wrong for the government to even be in the business of marriage. That is the realm of religion.
The reason we have the issue at all, is because a spouse becomes eligible for his or her partner's work benefits, social security benefits, etc. Take those incentives away, and few advocates would continue to care.
Thanks for the more in-depth clarification. Philosophically we’re on the same page; such laws — if they exist — ought not be the purview of the Federal Government, but at some level closer to the people as the best government is SELF government.
Nice dodge, Papa, but you're the one who brought up the subject regarding pornography, which you don't feel is problematic. Pornography degrades women, and that should concern you.
It seems more likely that they are there because it's easy money and they don't have the skills to earn as much in a conventional job.
It really what it 'seems' to you because the facts refute your instinct. Look them up. And if they don't have the 'skills' because they have been trafficked and abused, that's not a problem for you?
And you can find single anecdotes of individuals who choose 'easy' money, but again the facts don't support you. The connection between trafficking and women who go into porn is factual.
And you didn't actually address the issue of statutory rape or polygamy, or homosexual marriage, and whether or not there should be laws against them.
The position you have argued is that matters of morality should not be addressed by a Presidential candidate because it is not as important as other issues.
And to that I say, based on the facts, you are flat wrong.
Nice cheap shot about the boys, Papa. Really enhances your argument.
Are you seriously saying that the thousands upon thousands of trafficked children (we were talking about women because YOU were referring to the harmlessness of ogling other women's breasts, not because the problem doesn't exist with boys as well) can all be 'helped out' by someone's offering them a job? C'mon now. That's absurd.
Actually because of the fairly recent awareness of the depth of this problem, people are beginning to provide more shelters for these kids to protect them.
Yes. The girls and boys are broken. And that's why they think so little of themselves that they pose for pornography. It's all ugly, and NO one calling himself a conservative should be supporting it as harmless.
There are areas where there are no facts, only studies which strive to prove the agenda of the people who gave money for the study. This appears to be one of them.
And if they don't have the 'skills' because they have been trafficked and abused, that's not a problem for you?
And if they don't have the skills (for whatever reason) and porn was the least-bad option among even more distasteful choices, do you seriously thing the porn-star will just get a job as an auto mechanic?
You completely misunderstand and mistate what has been said by others as well.
It has been accurately stated that all laws are based on someone's morality.....I never stated that all laws were based on my morality......or even yours (presuming you don't deny that you have it).
The argument that you can't legislate morality is ridiculous, because that is exactly what law does. It's just an excuse to say, don't make a law about something you want to do.
As to your first point, it completely supports my argument. Statutory rape is against the law....even though it may not involve violence of any kind, and is between consenting individuals......because of the morality of society's determination that the age of consent is 18. To say that such a law, or the laws against homosexual marriage (be careful about supporting that here on FR), are NOT legislating morality, is foolish.
btw, I went back to read some of your posts to me and saw that at least one had been pulled by the mods. I found that quite interesting. I guess your mockery went over the top, eh?
I urge you to try to understand that the Founders presumed morality when they founded this great Republic, and the farther away we get from our Judeo-Christian roots the more danger we are in. That is NOT to say that the dangers socialism (in other forms) poses, but to dismiss the removal of values from our laws is to push us farther down the path to extinction as a nation.
What's your alternative? Keep them in shelters (ie, offer them welfare) for the rest of their lives? Or do you prefer to euthanize them rather than permit them to engage in immorality?
No problem for you?
More cheap shots, Papa? Can't you have a discussion without them? Not capable of having a serious discussion about an important subject?
I'll give it one more shot, and then let you mock to your heart's delight....
My solution? Privately funded shelters (both secular and church).....far more of them.....providing protection and training until they can get out on their own.
And information. Growing understanding of the depth of this problem for young kids, so that concerned decent people can volunteer to do something to solve this deep, ugly problem.
And an end to the mindless denial of people like you who want to pretend the abuse of children is no big deal, or none of our business.
That would be a good start.
Cool. I approve. Go do it. And this means that the federal government doesn't need to be involved and Rick can shift to talking about what he will do to improve the economy, improve domestic energy supplies, and improve national security. Carry on.
And all moral codes are based on encouraging behavior that promotes the survival of the society, and discouraging behavior that works against the survival of the society. At least they on in societies that manage to survive.
A corollary is that some moral issues are more important than others.
It's 12 in Vatican City. (Really)
I completely agree with that. For me, the Federal Government should be involved in as few things as possible, letting states set most of the policy. If you want to live off the dole, and NY wants to let that happen, then move to NY. That way, people can move to the states that support their beliefs, and we have 50 sovereign states loosely joined and regulated by the Federal Government.
I would even be fine with Virginia proclaiming that it is an Anglican state and Maryland saying it is Catholic. I read the 1A as a restriction on what Congress can do, not the states. That is why I dont like the Federal courts saying that some town cant display Christmas decorations. What amendment restricts a city’s ability to allow or stop it?
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to inform the ignorant about the seriousness of the issue of sexual violence and its relationship with porn.
Oh....and I gotta say in closing, I hope your wife (since you brought her up), requires exclusivity in the ogling department. Otherwise, methinks your marriage is in trouble....
See you around. :)
And I want to add that when I said that, I meant it without sarcasm. I think the Salvation Army, for example, does a much more efficient job at dealing with people with issues than government agencies do (in terms of results per dollar spent).
Laws against statutory rape (when it is non-violent and consensual). Is that not ‘legislating morality?’ Should those laws be removed? Are those of us who believe in them mindless ‘moralists’ who want a “nanny state”.
In the case of statutory rape the victim is a minor, and unable to give consent. Stop being so silly.
She has a policy of “look don’t touch” (unless it’s her, and not if we’re in public).
Listen Ohio, any libertarian yoyo that claims morality isn’t or shouldn’t be legislated isn’t worth your time. Morality is always legislated and the only question is whose morality gets legislated. Anybody claiming differently is a very shallow thinker not worth your time or anybody elses for that matter.
There are no laws, I repeat NO LAWS, without somebody’s morality at their base. That includes traffic laws, property laws, tax laws and any other civil or criminal law on the books.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.