Posted on 02/28/2005 5:53:06 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell
Prostitution: one adult pays another adult for sex- is illegal
Pornography: Where one adult pays two adults to have sex and brings a camera, This is legal.
Pornography has been around for over one hundred years, since the time of the camera,
but it has only been the last few decades where it became the money making industry that it is today. And today's pornography is much much worse.
This question came to me after reading this article
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1353029/posts
an excerpt "The Justice Department is appealing the dismissal of an obscenity case in Pittsburgh in which a federal judge said prosecutors went too far in trying to block the sale of pornographic movies over the Internet and through the mail. The case initially was prosecuted under Ashcroft""
Should pornography be illegal?
It's an opinion question, you answer, give your reasons. Is it free speech or not? Why. And where is the line drawn? Has pornography promoted homosexuality and unsafe sex? Or is it a privacy issue?
Should there be standards on pornography?
Concerned Women for America say No- what do you think?
What's with you stalking this chick? It's kinda creepy.
Let me rephrase that whole deal.
What I want to do is to show people a way of living which rejects carnal pleasures. Then they will know that they have a choice. I'm not going to make them live that way and I ardently oppose ay ruling of that sort by federal overreach or judicial fiat.
I show them the door, and they can go in if they choose to. I have no power over them, and that is as it should be.
With great role models like Xlintoon and Larry Flynt and Empty V, most ppl don't even realize that maybe thinking about doing someone every two seconds isn't such a good idea.
In the early and mid '50s,BLUE LAWS were still in force. PLAYBOY was the first magazine to break through and it was pretty "tame",compared to what's around today. And it wasn't until '59 (I think),that obscenity laws were loosened a bit,and "LADY CHATTERLY'S LOVER " was able to be sold in America;just not everywhere in America,as some states would still not allow it to be sold. The floodgates were really opened,in the mid '60s though,vis-a-vis written material.
Your personal behavior does less than nothing whatsoever to turn the tide; moral as it is.
Pornography is not only used for immoral purposes, it is intrinsically immoral in and of itself. The same is not true for the internet.
Any law which compels an actions which is not right is a bad law and should be changed.
That does not imply, however, that every action which is not right should be forbidden by law.
Indeed, the very essense of God's gift of free will is that people should have the freedom to do that which is right or that which is wrong, subject only to the constraint that they do not interfere with others' rights.
The father of the Prodigal Son loved his child enough to let him go and discover his foolishness for himself. Though it might have been easier for the father to keep the son at home and refuse to let him leave, the son would never have gained wisdom had the father done so.
If your pro-abortion anti-gun boy Arnold is the antithesis of small-l libertarianism, I'd say I'm comfortable where I am.
We don't need more laws, that's for sure.
BINGO!!
"And it wasn't until '59 (I think),that obscenity laws were loosened a bit,and "LADY CHATTERLY'S LOVER " was able to be sold in America;just not everywhere in America,as some states would still not allow it to be sold. The floodgates were really opened,in the mid '60s though,vis-a-vis written material."
Even though the laws were loosened, there was no widespread smut like today bcoz ppl police themselves. The liberals destroy the blue laws but more importantly ppl's desire to police themselves. If it weren't for them, we would not have the cr@p we have today.
Also blue laws are a reflection of a ppl's consensus. If the ppl don't support it, there would be no such laws or the will to enforce it.
People,with enough money and/or connections were buying porn/erotica even with those laws,for centuries here.It was just underground and not out in the open,as it is today.
We can bring back those laws but if ppl are unwilling to obey it, it's a lost cause.
On the flip side, with no laws, if the ppl don't want smut, it will be marginalized and gradually taken out of society.
We have to take AM. back the same way libs did, getting public support and opinion.
Sorry, but Brothel owners got the courts to force German unemployment agencies to accept Brothel adds. No urban legend. The respected London Telegraph reported on it, as did other major papers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml
And now, a woman has been told her unemployment insurance will not be paid if she does not become a whore.
So if I video tape my wife and I having relations that would be immoral?
So long as you did not distribute it to anyone, I don't think so. As long as no one else views it, it does not violate the sanctity of your marraige.
In a perfect world, there are no laws, and everyone is free to do as he/she pleases because all do what is right.
In our present world, laws sometime are necessary to establish what is right and to keep an orderly society.
I'm sure the father of the prodigal son would have been outraged if the King/government of his day signed a decree making pornography legal.
No doubt the father would have thought that the King had lost his mind.
Even some here are unwilling to refrain from filling the pockets of those engendering it all.
Noooooooooo...the ONLY way things are going to change,is when this pendulum swing goes even father and people rise up demanding laws and penalties,which I don't see happening all that soon.
Right. To what extent are those who would ban pornography even from adults who would wish to view it (i.e. as distinct from forbidding its public exhibition where it would be seen by non-consenting passers by) trying to do so because private usage interferes with orderly society, and to what extent are they trying to do so because it's wrong?
I would suggest that laws requiring things like model releases, etc. are more effective at minimizing the societal disrutptions caused by pornography than would be a complete ban. Perhaps you may disagree. But since human nature is what it is, I see prohibition as likely to cause more problems than it solves.
I'm sure the father of the prodigal son would have been outraged if the King/government of his day signed a decree making pornography legal.
Prostitution already existed; I don't see why pornography would be any worse.
We take back those institutions. One by one. And repeat what they did. Voila.
If we bring back blue laws, a Prohibition like disaster could occur because pron has become ingrained in the collective of many ppl. Laws can't simply be dished out at whim, they need to be created through a consensus of ppl. When ppl disapprove of such things, then laws can be established, but by then it might not be necessary.
By being on the dole, she's already a type of whore. If she doen't like the job she would be required to take, she can always go off welfare.
Basically, this woman is saying she's too good for a certain job, but not too good to mooch off the taxpayers.
I'd rather see her being screwed by the taxpayers than the other way around.
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.