Live and let live, right?
To be fair this was an old interview they have dug up so would be wise to wait to hear his response before drawing any conclusions...
That isnt going to save families because that isnt the problem.
Porn is taking care of it by itself by starting to charge for premium videos and leaving dreck still free.
We need to get men respected again in order to get them off porn.
Just by his comments he does not have a clue why families are on the decline.
Tim Ryan looks like a MAGA candidate in his commercials which are numerous.
Vance is stupid if he believes this nonsense will help his campaign. Try again, JD.
No-fault divorce and normalizing broken marriages has had an outsized effect, too.
Vance is nuts. Everything that’s banned is still available. I can’t think of any contraband that has actually been eliminated.
Van is exactly right. By the way about all mass murderers are homosexuals addicted to pornography. Look it up. It’s fact.
I believe porn ravages lower income demographics the worst.
He's not wrong but there's never going to be a government ban on porn.
That horse left the barn a long time ago.
Ideally, we'd be a country where porn producers go out of business because there's no market for their product but this is equally unlikely.
Having said that, this appears to be some kind of hit piece on JD since he's now the Republican candidate for Senate.
Deseret cited as their source a HuffPo article, which, in turn referenced a Crisis Magazine article talking about a panel discussion from a Intercollegiate Studies Institute conference held in Alexandria, VA, last summer. He also delivered a keynote address, linked here. It was a very solid talk and I recommend it. The only "radical" thing he said was proposing altering the power structure so that parents with families would have more of a voice than people without families...obviously this would take a Constitutional amendment. He has thrown some shade in the direction of Willard Romney and that may be why Deseret decided to do a piece with HuffPo as its primary source.
The quote in Crisis Magazine is given without context...you don't know if the Crisis author was casually joking with him and he made some off-the-cuff statement; you don't know if this was a sit-down interview, there's no video or audio, so you just don't know. Crisis Magazine is a solid outlet, so I don't think it's a hit piece.
Bottom line is now that JD is the nominee, there needs to be some context come out on this.
This is not a good message to send before an election. He needs to walk this back.
Let the Democrats remain the party of censorship and authoritarianism.
For those who actually read the article, he never called for an outright ban.
If it’s about saving families, ban no fault divorce.
That would do far more good.
Vance is working to lose this to Ryan. First, he looks like a porn star with his thug beard. Suburban moms are not going to vote for a person who prioritizes porn and looks like a porn actor.
ANYONE who thinks that porn is OK is a VERY MORALLY SICK person. NOTHING GOOD comes out of PORN....NOTHING....it’s ALL BAD and BLACKENS YOUR SOUL.
I like him even MORE now!
End communism. That will take care of every little problem that has over the last generation or so become a big problem. Our enemies do everything they can to undermine Western Civilization; this includes promotion, de-stigmatizing, and dissemination of everything that weakens the fabric of society - like drugs, divorce, pornography, debt, all kinds of vice, etc.
They like it when we argue about whether porn should be “banned” because at those times we’re just concentrating on a side problem, not the real problem, which is communism/collectivism.
Globalist bankers enable those things that weaken us by making the criminals who do those things rich. Concentrate on getting rid of collectivism and porn - with a lot of other things - will go back to being a small, relatively unimportant problem.
Prostitution always causes a problem in any community. Even if you like hookers, you don’t want them living next door to you.
If they are going to regulate behavior when it comes to health due to public impact, e.g. excise taxes on tobacco because of medical expenses, then you could do the same here - target things that lead to the dissolution of the family due to the impact to other public expenses, like assistance to single mothers or dealing w/orphans.
I don’t support this particular move, but I don’t support those excise taxes on tobacco either while most folks will accept one but not the other.