Posted on 06/09/2006 5:07:23 PM PDT by wagglebee
"there would be no practical way to enforce a ban on the domestic consumpiton of imported porn without undermining the Fourth."
You keep making the argument that, since enforcement could not be perfect, we should endorse pornography by making it legal.
That argument has no validity.
We can't stop people from committing any category of crime at all, from cannibalism to mooning. That simply does not constitute grounds to stop trying, or to stop registering our disapproval.
Murder should be illegal, even though there's no way to enforce a ban short of immobilizing everyone alive. Pornography should be illegal, even though there will still be some around. At least those who buy it will understand that they are doing a bad thing.
"Further, I fail to see how it is somehow worse for someone to watch a video of a few couples having sex than for the person to pick up a stranger in a bar for a one-night stand."
It is worse, as a general thing, but before I explain why, let me ask what that comparison has to do with anything? Some crimes are worse than others, but that doesn't mean we should legalize the lesser crimes.
It is worse to watch the video because the people in the video are engaged in prostitution, and when you watch, you become the person paying them to degrade themselves (and put their immortal souls in deadly peril). Futher, they are often being exploited and even extorted into performing.
"I don't think "normal" porn (as opposed to rape porn, child porn, etc.) is the problem."
Nothing is "the" problem. Some things are "a" problem, or a part of a problem, and pornography is certainly an element in our social problems today.
"but there are many, many other factors as well."
That doesn't mean we should endorse any of those elements. We should oppose them all.
"Women's lib has made it much harder to find a good wife, and much riskier to get married."
Too true, too true.
"IMHO, the popularity of alternative sexual outlets is a result of that, rather than the cause."
As with so many things, once the cycle gets running, it is both cause and result, feeding upon itself.
And if I had had three sons I would feel no differently about porn but I might feel even more strongly about the rape of young boys countenanced by the church hierarchy and swept under the rug for years, a practice which persists today.
It isn't an anti-catholic sneer, it is a knock against child-rape. It is you who have co-mingled the two, an understandable mistake I suppose.
Pornography poisons the soul and weakens and deforms the attributes of the soul, will and intellect.
Lust darkens the intellect.
But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Who in time past were not a people: but are now the people of God. Who had not obtained mercy; but now have obtained mercy.
Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, to refrain yourselves from carnal desires which war against the soul
One can see the effects of pornopgraphy all over this thread. It was not long ago that anyone deserving of the name "conservative" would not have been caught dead defending pornography publicly. Even if they gave into the weakness of the flesh and looked at pornography and abused themselves, they never defended their sins. They were ashamed of their weakness.
Whether educated or simply imbued with a sense of moral normalcy, "conservatives" acted as though they has just read LaRochefoucald,... Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue... Now, look at this thread. Look at how "conservatives" are now publicly defending perversity and there is the proof that so many on here are denying - that pornography is violent and destructive. It has violently severed our attachment to moral absolutes. It has made us defenders of evil. It has seduced us into calling evil good. It has destroyed the ethos of conservatism.
How does a defender/practicioner of pornography, one who has given themselves permission to violate one of the tenents of Universal Morality, avoid the charge of hypocrisy when they try and castigate, say, homosexuals, for their actions? I would think the homosexual would have every right to object - "who are you to tell me what I am doing is wrong when you yourself do not think it a sin to view pornography and abuse yourself?"
And the same would go for a counterfiter, a thief, a slanderer etc etc etc
"I might feel even more strongly about the rape of young boys countenanced by the church hierarchy and swept under the rug for years, a practice which persists today."
The problem was caused by the infiltration of homosexuals into the priesthood. Accordingly, the vast majority of the offenses were seductions of teen-age boys. While the infiltrators "countenanced" that, the Catholic Church itself never did.
Boise may be a hotbed of theological liberalism and liturgical abomination, but at least I haven't seen any obvious pickle-smoochers among the priests.
Do you really think that a steady diet of pictures and movies objectifying sex and depicting the sadistic usage of women and children don't have a damaging effect on society?
"It has violently severed our attachment to moral absolutes. It has made us defenders of evil. It has seduced us into calling evil good. It has destroyed the ethos of conservatism."
Well said. So many of us have yet to realize that morality (and conservatism is nothing if not moral) is a seamless garment, not a cafeteria line.
As a person grows in conservatism he must give up, one by one, ALL the vices into which Satan has seduced liberals. He must reject Satan and ALL his works, not just "all but this one."
Amen, brother
While the infiltrators "countenanced" that, the Catholic Church itself never did."
Who let them in?
[objectifying sex and depicting the sadistic usage of women and children]
I made no mention of sadism or children.
I have noticed the argument against pornography is not what pornography is, but what it might LEAD to -- violence and child abuse.
This is exactly the same argument that gave us alcohol prohibition. Banning pornography would be doomed to fail just as banning alcohol was doomed as a policy, and for the same reason.
You keep making the argument that, since enforcement could not be perfect, we should endorse pornography by making it legal.
The problem isn't that enforcement won't be perfect. The problem is that enforcement could never realistically catch even 0.1% of violations without serious abridgements of the Bill of Rights.
We can't stop people from committing any category of crime at all, from cannibalism to mooning. That simply does not constitute grounds to stop trying, or to stop registering our disapproval.
If a law cannot be enforced well enough that reasonable punishments will significantly deter the prohibitted activity, that implies pretty strongly that it is a bad law.
It is worse, as a general thing, but before I explain why, let me ask what that comparison has to do with anything? Some crimes are worse than others, but that doesn't mean we should legalize the lesser crimes.
Well, since picking up strangers at a bar is perfectly legal (and IMHO is worse), the question would be why a less-damaging activity should be treated more harshly than a more-damaging one.
It is worse to watch the video because the people in the video are engaged in prostitution, and when you watch, you become the person paying them to degrade themselves (and put their immortal souls in deadly peril). Futher, they are often being exploited and even extorted into performing.
The contribution of one viewer to the industry pales in comparison to the contribution of an individual to the morals of a woman whom he takes on a one-night stand. Being one of many thousands of people to watch a woman perform a particular immoral sex act would seem to pale in comparison with being the one individual with whom a different woman performs an immoral sex act.
As with so many things, once the cycle gets running, it is both cause and result, feeding upon itself.
That is, to some extent, true but I would maintain that attacking symptoms of societal problems is still often ineffective and at times counterproductive. Even if one is successful at completely eliminating a particular symptom, another is almost guaranteed to emerge; in many cases, the new one may be worse than the old one.
The fundamental problem is that women's lib has made the proper method for sexual release (i.e. sex within wedlock) impractical for many people to obtain in timely fashion. Trying to curtail all forms of sexual release is generally neither effective nor helpful. If porn is eliminated, men will release their sexual energies in some other way; I see no reason to expect that to be an improvement.
Should everything immoral be prohibitted?
God gave people free will. His desire was that people, even when given the opportunity to lead immoral lives, would nonetheless lead moral ones. I see no indication that God intended for people to be confined to the straight and narrow path. All indications I've seen indicate that he wants people to follow that path voluntarily.
Further, any societal benefit that could be gained from enforcing prohibitions against private sodomy or private viewing of pornographic materials could be obtained much more cheaply, and with less expansion of government power, by attacking some of the root causes of familial decay including, but not limited to, anti-male bias in divorce and family courts, an evil welfare system, and the erosion of traditional male/female roles.
IMHO, those who would expand government power to attack pornography are either more interested in expanding government power than in ending societal decay, or else they are the unwitting dupes of others who are.
Wow. Quite a screed there, Socrates. Very righteous of you. Hee hee!
Liberal? Me? That's funny as hell, seeing as I've voted straight-ticket Republican since I was old enough to vote.
“The problem isn't that enforcement won't be perfect. The problem is that enforcement could never realistically catch even 0.1% of violations without serious abridgements of the Bill of Rights.”
What abridgements? The BOR doesn’t protect pornography.
“If a law cannot be enforced well enough that reasonable punishments will significantly deter the prohibited activity, that implies pretty strongly that it is a bad law.”
Wait a minute, there. You just said that reasonable punishments will not be forthcoming because the wrongdoers won’t be caught. You can’t make both those arguments at the same time.
Besides, it is not always the case that a widespread willingness to break a law indicates that it is a bad law. It might, or it might indicate widespread moral depravity.
“Well, since picking up strangers at a bar is perfectly legal (and IMHO is worse), the question would be why a less-damaging activity should be treated more harshly than a more-damaging one.”
It is not worse, because prostitution is worse than fornication. Besides, the profusion of pornography is far more damaging to the nation’s moral fiber than private fornication.
“The contribution of one viewer to the industry pales in comparison to the contribution of an individual to the morals of a woman whom he takes on a one-night stand.”
That’s not the way the moral calculus factors out. Each viewer of pornography bears a 100 percent share of the blame.
“That is, to some extent, true but I would maintain that attacking symptoms of societal problems is still often ineffective and at times counterproductive.”
It doesn’t matter if it’s ineffective. A moral society will still take a stand, even if they die on that hill.
“Even if one is successful at completely eliminating a particular symptom, another is almost guaranteed to emerge; in many cases, the new one may be worse than the old one.”
Yes, Satan is a busy fellow. That doesn’t mean we should cede any of these fights to him. Nobody ever won anything through preemptive surrender.
“Trying to curtail all forms of sexual release is generally neither effective nor helpful. If porn is eliminated, men will release their sexual energies in some other way; I see no reason to expect that to be an improvement.”
As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. Whether it is an improvement or not would depend on how those men are bent. Perhaps, sufficiently deprived, they would sublimate their sexual energies by wiping Islam from the face of the earth. Or maybe they’d go down to South America and clean out the commies and drug cartels.
Or, heck, maybe they’d go to our own big cities and clean out the commies and drug cartels.
"IMHO, those who would expand government power to attack pornography are either more interested in expanding government power than in ending societal decay, or else they are the unwitting dupes of others who are."
Expand government power? Fer corn's sake, porn was legalized during my adult life. Admitting and reversing that mistake is hardly a headlong rush to tyranny.
Matthew 13...*Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it
Galataians 5...Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God
There is a difference between saying people should follow the narrow path, and saying that they should be forcibly prevented from leaving it.
The Internet also came about in your lifetime. How do you reasonably propose to effectively enforce a law against the electronic importation of pornography without undermining the Fourth Amendment or severing all Internet connections to the outside world?
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.