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just re-assign them, but lay them off completely, their budgets abolished, and the legislation enabling their authority repealed entirely) in exchange for accepting polygamy and gay marriage, I would take the deal.
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just re-assign them, but lay them off completely, their budgets abolished, and the legislation enabling their authority repealed entirely) in exchange for accepting polygamy and gay marriage, I would take the deal.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.
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.