Blah Blah blah, if you don't like porn don't buy it, and the tax payer are
supporting porn, they are supporting art. I am sorry that you can't appreciate
it as art,but then again there are many things I don't' recognize as art that
are called art. Thankfully we live in a society, that doesn't allow a small
minority to decide what is best for the common good. I may not get Pollock,but I
don't' try to run him out of town just because I don't either. We should seek
after all that is good, not become judgmental, and run in fear from that which
confuses us. Putting fig leaves on the statues, or repainting the classic, or
decrying it isn't art because it is nude, diminishes art, and doesn't make us
better as a society
Recognition and belief in God would to wonders for understanding these concepts.
It is always a mystery to me that people can't, won't, or don't make the
connection between the problems outlined here and how the lack of belief in God
is the primary reason we have these problems. It is as if they are so
determined to propose the faulty supposition that we can have a civil society
without Him that they will do anything to eliminate His power or influence at
any cost. Well, we are pretty much seeing that cost! To admit the reasons is
too simplistic for these 'logical' intellectuals! I'm not saying that this
professor is Anti-God and I agree with the professor's point, but wonder if he
understands what can be done to solve it. If he doesn't, he doesn't offer
anything worthwhile. Understanding the problem is not the same thing as knowing
what needs to be done to solve it.
What, specifically, does Dr. George propose to do about pornography, and how
would any such proposal fare in the context of genuinely legitimate First
Amendment issues?Do clothing manufacturers market bathing suits to
12 year-old girls that incorporate underwire and push-up features because of
pornography - or because they know that appealing to adolescent anxieties is an
effective sales tool?The objectification of women is less an effect
of pornography than it is and underlying cause of it. If you want
to eliminate porn then begin with a strong movement to recognize that women are
valued, fully equal members of our society and that the toxic sexualization of
women knows many forms, from the extreme fear of a woman's sexuality (think
burqas), to the extreme commercialization of sexuality.When a
woman's physical attractiveness is no more significant to her personal and
professional life than it is to a man's, and six year-old girls are no longer
put in make-up for beauty pageants, then you'll see a decline in the popularity
Is the Deseret News really advocating for nanny state legislation? I thought
this was the conservative paper in town. Don't conservatives claim to be lovers
Another side effect to the "lost innocence" pornography imparts on our
youth/society, it also helps to lead to a more promiscuous lifestyle in our
marriages. Our society accepts affairs as no big deal. Marriage as an
institution is in danger. Divorce rates are rising and people are more willing
to "give up" than work together to get through struggles. Society's
acceptance of divorce has undermined our next generations in everything from
their emotional development to education. Divorced parents become less involved
in their children's education, putting it off on the school's and teachers to
educate their children when they are supposed to be an active part in it as
well. Teachers are condemned for the results when they are trying to do their
job without parent involvement. The outlook is bleak. You decry the minority in
society who sees pornography as an evil, but right is still right. Curbing
pornography is what society must do, whether the majority wants to or not. The
side effects are harrowing is we do not act. The decision is ours as a society.
We can either work through this or divorce ourselves from the issue.
Morality does not come from god, let's get that straight right now, THEN we can
talk about the effect pornography has on society, and the far worse evil of
censorship in the name of 'public morality'I am an atheist, and i do not
lie, cheat or steal, I do not commit acts of violence, rape or murder. And I do
these things WITHOUT god or a fear of hell or divine retribution. Do you? Now,
imagine for a moment there is no god, would you then? If you answer 'yes' then
you must admit you are not moral. If you answer 'no' then you must admit that
morals do not, in fact, come from god.Now, pornography. In every major
city where an XXX movie has been released, incidents of rape DECREASED
noticeably.Humans are intensely sexual creatures, and to pretend otherwise
is sheer folly. No creature on earth spends as much time pondering, trying to
have, and enjoying sex as we humans do. Porn is no more than a natural outgrowth
of that sexuality. Trying to repress it is dangerous, ignorant, and evil.
I wouldn't discard constitutional rights so quickly. Society has
been down this road before. What if some important "experts" make a
case that religion is bad for society and atheism more beneficial? We wisely
decided long ago to allow individuals to make those choices for themselves and
their families not the state. If you decide to put the state in charge of social
engineering is to "sow the wind" and soon you will "reap the
bandersen, Religion is a lot like alcohol, the more you imbibe the less coherent
George's arguments are a typical totalitarian justifications for the priority of
society's "rights" over individual rights. Oddly, although George
states that "An epidemic of drug abuse, however, though constituted
by discrete, private acts of drug taking, damages the common good in myriad
ways", he then fails to enumerate those ways.How, exactly, do
private acts of drug taking "damage the common good"? And is such
damage empirically demonstrable, or is this another argument "in
principle"?George then invokes what amounts to an appeal to
majority rule, stating that a society should be able to create "the
cultural structure they think best" in the name of "the force of the
public interest". Who is "they"? Well, obviously, it is
"they" who are the majority, or "they" who "know
best" ("Christians?).George's arguments that private acts
influence "the common good" is a trivial statement of the obvious.
That is not the legal or political question. The question is whether or not the
influence of private acts so harms the public good as to be the justified
subject of legislation in a democratic society. The answer to that is obviously
No, and George fails to provide convincing arguments otherwise.
I do not even understand why this is an issue, every one is left to their
choices and thoughts. Unless your choices have a direct effect on those around
you in a genuine fashion, it shouldn't be regulated or controlled by anyone.
Ha. You won't see a decline in porn just because women are made to feel more
valuable. There will always be sexually hungry men in this world who will view
porn and there will always be women who will want the easy money by
participating in pornographic films. Eliminating young beauty pageants may help
girls with personal self-esteem issues and eating disorders, but it's not going
to affect or eliminate the porn industry.Let's face it, porn is here
to stay whether you like it or not. It's a huge money making industry. And I
have come to learn that there are actually many women who also enjoy viewing it!
If you don't like it, don't watch it. There are plenty of resources for making
sure it doesn't get into your home computers.
While I hate pornography, I don't know if the answer to it is more government
unbelievable and surprising comments. I can now empathize with he who looked out
over his beautiful city and the society that he loved and lamented, "O ye
fair ones". Thankfully my trust is not in this world.
To Arioch,There is a difference between porn and art. There are
plenty of "nudes" both is painting and sculptural forms that are
tasteful - with or without the fig leaves - art. And there are plenty of
examples of depictions, not even fully nude, that should be considered porn. In
my opinion, that which is created with the express purpose of eliciting arousal,
erotic thoughts or actions has stepped away from art and has become porn. To
compel the public to pay for such depictions against their conscious through
taxation is not right.The human body is beautiful and can be
portrayed as such either clothed or unclothed in artistic ways. But please,
don't lump the terms 'art' and 'porn' together under one banner.
Morality wrote:"pornography ...helps to lead to a more
promiscuous lifestyle in our marriages."Please provide support
for this assertion. You claim divorce rates are rising, but the data shows
otherwise. You assert that "Our society accepts affairs as no big
deal." That is not true. Most every married person whose spouse cheats on
them considers it "a big deal". Just because movies and TV shows may
portray affairs does not mean "our society accepts affairs as no big
deal." There is no basis for your claim.You assert:
"Marriage as an institution is in danger." How so? Couples can get
married now just as they could in the past. What is the threat to marriage as an
institution? If legislation continues as it has in recent years, marriage will
be expanded and made available to an even wider range of couples than ever
before. How is that a danger?bandersen,You assert that
belief in god is the solution to society's problems, including
"pornography". So are you suggesting that belief in god be legislated?
By law we must all believe in god? If so, you must believe the theocracies in
Iran, Iraq, etc. have NO social problems?
The article stated, It is the attitudes, habits, dispositions, imagination,
ideology, values and choices shaped by a culture in which pornography flourishes
that will, in the end, deprive many children of what can without logical or
moral strain be characterized as their right to a healthy sexuality.There is no more a right to healthy sexuality than there is a right to
healthcare, jobs, housing or food. Ones civil rights arent violated by one not
having any of them. Perhaps the author should move his family to a remote LDS
town and away TV, the internet and newspaper ads showing women in bras. Should we outlaw stores from selling short shorts, bikinis and dresses that
are above the knee? Selling them harms childrens right to a healthy
sexuality.Blue When a woman's physical attractiveness is no
more significant to her personal and professional life than it is to a man's..
then you'll see a decline in the popularity of porn. LDS4Hardly.
Men are visual creatures and prefer physically attractive women, often over
other substantive criteria, when choosing a date (physical or an image). Women
do the same with short men. We're all wired that way.
You can have your cake [Freedom] and eat it [restrict it] too.Freedom is a two-edged sword.I will always choose freedom, with all the good and bad that goes right along with it.ulvegaard
| 10:16 a.m. Oct. 23, 2011 Medical Lake, Washington You nailed
Athiest: It is impossible to divorce morality from God. If there is no God,
then how is rape wrong? It is not good enough just to say 'because'. Because
if you do, then all you are saying is that your 'morality' is better than your
neighbors. Without God there is no morality. Let's start with the truth. With
the truth, discussion can begin.
%bandersen; What does god have to do with it. Take responsibiliy for your own
choices and actions, you should know right from wrong with out playing the god
card; if not, then god can't do much for you.
Dear Robert P. George,Well written article. It's nice to see
intelligent discourse on this subject.However, the last 3 paragraphs
were my favorite and I wanted an entire article regarding them. I wanted more
than 'it degrades society' as I already know this. While important, I feel that
the 'individual freedoms' side of this carries equal importance and received
less attention.If you or other D.N. staff are inclined to comment, I
would appreciate further commentary or a reference to where more can be read
touching this point.
LDS Liberal,One cannot justify freedom AND the 'free exercise' of
what eventually destroys freedom.God's kingdom is free AND does not
permit evil- protecting the majority who've chosen God and the minority who
choose evil. You either live here and abide this law, or live elsewhere.
Segregating evil or succeeding from it, has one premise- choice. We choose our
laws, our kingdom. The idea that people have a right to do 'whatever they want'
anyway is an exemption from law altogether. We ordained our constitution to
protect our right to live free; 'expressing' acts that harm freedom can not be
justified by 'freedom of expression'. Threatening someone, murder, driving
drunk, etc. We CHOOSE laws which we believe threaten or destroy our freedom.Obviously no one agrees on what does, so we FREELY VOTE on what is
prohibited. If society refuses porn, drugs, and yes- even homosexuality, it is
our democratic and free right.Freedom doesn't necessitate the
anarchic premise of permitting everything. Freedom means we choose our kingdom.
Voting support for God's laws (morality) does not negate others freedom to
choose another kingdom or else vote otherwise while living and practicing
according to the laws freely chosen.
Banderson:Your position is even more tenuous than you claim mine is. You
would say rape is wrong 'because god said so'. All you have done is pushed the
question back one step. I, however, say rape is wrong because it caused
demonstrable harm.Morality is based on the elimination or prevention of
suffering. Any action that can be shown to cause suffering is bad. Read my
earlier post and you will be able to see clearly how easy it is to remove god
from morality: If there were no god, would YOU still choose to act morally?
Either you would not, in which case you are less moral than an Atheist, or you
would not, which proves that you do not need god to live a moral life.This
article is nothing more than conservative mormon propaganda, it is an appeal to
a very narrow mindset. A dangerous mindset, a mindset that would force its view
upon the rest of us, freedom be damned.
If you are for the regulation of Drugs, pornography, prostitution, etc then you
ARE NOT for unregulated free market capitalism. You can't pick and choose and
expect me to give credence to your moaning about "over-regulation" in
"It is impossible to divorce morality from God. If there is no God, then
how is rape wrong?"You realize rape isn't one of the 10
commandments, right? You realize that of all the "moral" issues, when
God decided that the Isrealites could only handle 10 of the most basic, most
important ones he didn't put rape up there but he did include saying his name
with a bad attitude. Nice morality for ya.If you're going to base
your morality on "God" you better be prepared to answer for some
pretty screwed up things in scripture.
Skeptics and athiests: How do I take responsibility for my own actions if I
don't know if my actions are right or wrong? Athiests live in a world protected
from their illogical and dangerous conclusions that God is irrelevant to choices
of right and wrong. God is the foundation of right and wrong. Without God, there
is no right or wrong. If you claim that there is a 'moral' or 'right and wrong'
without God, then what you have also said is that your 'right' and 'wrong' come
from someone or something else, a dangerous conclusion in a world where
Governments and men abound that think it is 'right' to slaughter, maim, or
pillage whoever they want. This is naivete at best, and dangerously apocalyptic
at worst. Hasn't the world come to the conclusion yet about Communism? I guess
not. Athiests are getting a free pass from those who of us who provide the
stability that allows for them to express such foolish opinions.
Sutton: Liberty can cause ignorance as well as understanding. Jesus said the
truth will set you free. If you are making the claim that pornagraphy sets you
free, I doubt any other argument will change your mindset. If you are making
the claim that there is right and wrong without God, I'm curious as to who or
what creates that right and wrong and how you will bridge the gap between God's
right and wrong and Atila the Hun's right and wrong?
@banderson"How do I take responsibility for my own actions if I don't
know if my actions are right or wrong?"I'm a Christian while
you were asking atheists but I can still answer this. You don't need religion to
have discussions about morals. It seems pretty straightforward to think through
"I would not like to be murdered, that is wrong, as such nobody should
murder anyone". After all, New Hampshire Vermont and Maine are the states
with the highest percentages of atheists... and the lowest crime rates. (Note:
While they're 1-2-3 in both categories, looking at all 50 states there's no
discernible overall trend, but I'm not trying to prove that atheists are more
moral... just that they can just as easily be moral as religious people).
"God is the foundation of right and wrong."Which god
founded morality? The Christian God? The Muslim God? They seem too recent. The
Zoroastrian God? One of the Hindu Gods? Perhaps it was Baal? Or one of the Mayan
Gods? But didn't they also dictate human sacrifice?"[H]ow [will
you] bridge the gap between God's right and wrong and Atila the Hun's right and
wrong?" I assume it is the same way that you bridge the gap
between all of the different Gods' moralities. The golden rule predates the
Judeo-Christian tradition by at least a millennium. Humans have built
civilizations based on it for longer than that. Political leaders have used the
Gods' edicts for just as long to justify genocide, slavery, rape, murder, etc.
for just as long (the Jews elimination of the Canaanites is a good example). We all know how we would like to be treated. We don't need a divine
mandate to determine that. Conversely, many have been and continue to be
manipulated by religion into performing atrocities they otherwise would be
bandersen,I you believe the moral repugnance of forced sex with
another human being depends on the existence of a fictitious creature you call
"god", then it is YOUR claim to being a moral person that is in
question, not the morality of atheists, NONE of whom I have ever met who believe
rape is not immoral and wrong.You could use some serious soul
bandersen,Western societies have built moral and legal frameworks
upon secular bases for centuries. More humans have been "moral"
without god than with god.I suggest you start by reading:Morality Without God? (Philosophy in Action) by Walter Sinnott-ArmstrongValue and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. WielenbergTHEN we can talk.
I agree with "Blue" above. How is it possible for Dr. George to have
written an entire opinion piece on pornography and not once mention male-female
relations? Viewing women as objects; viewing sex as domination of women;
valuing women only for their appearance--these are the foundations of a porn
culture. You won't get rid of the leaves until you get rid of the tree. As
culture, we must rethink what male-female relations--including
intercourse--should be. Until Dr. George is prepared to have a conversation at
that more basic level, the prevalence of pornography will not change.It's not just about the kids, Dr. George--it's about the women. Can you talk
Bandersen:Where are you getting your morals from the bible? Leviticus?
Dueteronomy? The 10 commandments? Do you know what the first four commandments
are? They are not about morality, they are about worship. And btw rape, which
you brought up, is not listed. Should we base our laws on those commandments?
Since rape is not listed, should it be legal?And what about Shari'a? Would
you be willing to live in a country with laws based on Shari'a?And I
notice how banderson pointedly refused to answer my question: If there were no
god would you lie, cheat, steal or commit acts of violence, rape or murder?
love conservatives.. they want government to stay out of people's lives but only
for issues they see fit.. otherwise they want govt to regulate it. love it.
CSWolffe:"Morality is based on the elimination or prevention of
suffering."According to you. There has been no definitively
proven morality to which all have bowed to. I believe that we are free to CHOOSE
what we believe. I am free to believe that morality comes from God. You don't.
And we are BOTH free to vote into a government that we both control."Demonstrable damage" is yet another philosophically unproven
point.All that matters is this: The assumption that someone's
beliefs trump others is a violent one. Thus why we vote democratically. Freedom
is the only universal solution if the goal is peace. We CHOOSE our
government.Our government was founded for a religious people. There
is no way around that. The design of this government was for a moral and
religious people and Adams wasn't the only one who said this. But I suppose
atheists knew them better than they even knew themselves?In my vote
to government, I suggest that without God and the accountability he holds us to,
no morality can exist.Banderson: what you said about communism and
how we provide the stability they use to destroy such a system is absolutely
If its permissible to outlaw private behaviors because they MAY affect the
public in a way the majority feels is negative, then there is no limit on what
may be outlawed. We can outlaw junk food because obesity affects insurance costs
and public health. We can outlaw shopping on Sundays because doing so inculcates
ideas of focusing on God and family rather than commercialism. We can also
outlaw guns because of their societal costs (real and potential) and disregard
individual rights and choice.Was outlawing plural marriages 125
years proper since polygamy potentially sends a bad message about the equality
of women? Let's ban religion since religion MAY lead to sacrificing virgins.Vices are not crimes. They are acts which are subjectively immoral
(sins) that in and of themselves objectively harm no one else. Outlawing sin is
contrary to the concept of men being free to act in doctrine and principle
pertaining to futurity according to moral agency. Satan advocated
violating ones right to choose sin and as I have said here before, conservatives
advocate big government to keep people from likewise choosing sin. Lets punish REAL harm, not acts that in and of themselves dont harm.
"All books can be indecent books though recent books are bolder.For
filth I'm glad to say is in the eyes of the beholder.When correctly
viewed, everything is lewd.I can tell you stories about Peter Pan.And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man." ---
Tom LehrerTom Lehrer hit the nail on the head. One person's smut is
another person's art. How can we regulate and control it if we can't even
What about "rights' of the individual? And what about "free
agency"? I am not a fan of pornography, but to suggest getting rid of it
to make marriages more successful? That is plain rubbish. If an atheist
decides to live his life with a "moral" code of life, and not believe
in God, then good for him. Some people really need God and religion in order to
keep them on a "moral" path, but let's face it, some people don't!
It's all about who we are and what we believe. We all know a lot of BAD has
been done in this world in the name of religion, so it' important to not be
naive about it. To say, without God there is no morality, is not an accurate
statement. It sounds too much like "holier than thou", in my
to Ann Amberly | 1:45 p.m. Oct. 23, 2011 Exactly right, and
well-said. You went to the heart of the issue. Kudos to you.
@bandersen:"... and how the lack of belief in God is the
primary reason we have these problems."If God would show up now
and then it wouldn't be so hard to believe in him/her/it. All we have to go by
are machinations of people think they know what God is about, what he/she/it
thinks, and what he/sh/it thinks mankind should be about. Which is why we have
thousands of different religions on the earth today, all strongly believing they
have the correct picture.-------------------------@Blue:"If you want to eliminate porn then begin with a strong
movement to recognize that women are valued, fully equal members of our
society..."I doubt that will address the issue. The Muslim
world is full of non-porn; of women who are covered from head to foot and are
valued far less than the master's camel or donkey.-----------------------@A voice of Reason:"Dear
Robert P. George, Well written article. It's nice to see intelligent discourse
on this subject."I personally have never read a more
convoluted, wordy, incoherent article.
Radical feminist's talk about (in public schools) for kid's to read books like
"Heather has two mommies" hogwash, along with the attitudes, habits,
dispositions, imagination, ideology, values and choices shaped by their own
liberal culture in which pornography flourishes that will, in the end, deprive
many children of what can without logical or moral strain be characterized as
their right to a healthy sexuality and at the same time demand more local, State
and Federal Union monies to fix the problem when it gets way to much out of
hand. In todays world, parents have enormous difficulty transmitting to their
children, they are not allowed to, about the capacity to view themselves and
others as persons, rather than as objects of sexual desire and satisfaction.
It's all about the sexualization of adolescents from K-9, even through a beauty
contest of them wearing, by peddling thong swimwear, to twelve-year-old girls as
well as depicting young people in sexually provocative poses. AMERICA is not
Thailand, where there is no public morality and constitutional rights, if
there were legal regulation the GOP would turn it into deregulation anyway.
I suppose the author would like to take his sledge hammer, go to Italy, and
smash the giant statue of Michelangelo's nude David to smithereens.Porn is bad only because people, like the author, say it's bad. If if were
considered wholesome and good, it would be wholesome and good.If
everyone went around nude there'd be no need for porn nor would there be the
perceived evil effects of porn.
There are really three arguments being made here. First, the government has a
responsibility to mediate for the common good, whenever individual freedoms
(interests, desires...) come into conflict. Second, this responsibility should
include indirect influences. Third, pornography constitutes such an
influence.Now, few would disagree with the first argument; its the
second and third that need defending. However, only the second is supported.
There is almost no explanation of why pornography is bad or how its influence
can extend beyond the bedroom. Now, I realize that most of the readers here
agree with this idea already, but if one really wants to change public policy,
he must address the beliefs of those who disagree with him. Like it or not,
there are those who dont think pornography is that bad. Personally, I believe
that problems arising from pornography are more a matter of excess than of
substance, such as is often claimed with alcohol. If one doesn't address such
beliefs, he's just preaching to the choir.
mare54,You would do well to read a great deal from Elder Oaks. He
has constantly shown how the doctrine of "free agency" is used against
Latter-day Saints to seduce them into a belief that contradicts the doctrine
altogether.Take "pro choice" for instance. The choice was
already made to get pregnant. Escaping the consequences is not protecting agency
in the slightest.Pornography is something that traps its users into
addictive patterns, leading to rape, incest, sexual abuse of children, divorce,
and many other things that only take away our freedom. Imagine a teenager that
refuses all reason based on this logic- "But I have a right to light my
hand on fire".There are two problems that many people miss with
this logic:1) Harming one's self will in reality make that person
less free.2) Making it illegal, does NOT take away God given free
agency or the state's protection to exercise the freedom of conscience. - Making
rape illegal won't stop anyone from thinking rape is okay and people will still
get raped. Free Agency isn't a permission slip; it is the right to choose your
beliefs and actions- NOT to escape their consequences.
Miss Piggie:1) The author didn't say all nude art was porn, but that
it can just as easily be pornographic as what we define as porn today.2) You're second statement would also lead to the same conclusion as this:
"Murder is bad only because people, like the author, say it's bad"Would you agree with that also, or would you revisit the logic in that
statement and provide us with a new version of your morality?3)
Regarding your third statement, there are plenty of logical reasons we don't run
around nude. If you disagree, you are more than welcome to live on a nudist
colony or go elsewhere. In the meantime, I suggest you consider one of the basic
tenants of all civil debate and discourse- know your audience.If
your intention is purely to offend or provoke, then so be it. However, if you
intended to actually make a logical point against the author or those with
similar beliefs, I'm afraid you were not successful.
I find it perplexing that the liberal will blindly support pornography,I find it equaly perplexing that the left, the liberal, will come up with
absurd conclusions about conseravtives or the right, or what they would do,How can one justifify that immorality, moral decay, obcenity, it good
for society and the nation, that is even should be publically funded, that
freedom exists only with the acceptance and embracinbg of porn and
immorality.The horrifying thought is there can be nothing wrong, no
muderous or depraved activity, in a Godless world.While you can
argue society or man can make laws and rules (which limits freedom arbitrarily),
there can be nothing intrinsicly wrong or immoral with any bad behavior, survival of the fittest is the law of the jungle in an atheistic world,
how else can one expainl the murder or starvation of tens of millions. in
communst countrties, or decaptiation of children in the french
revolution, or the slaughteer of children in bolsheivik
revolution.or confiscation of property and slaughter of jews by
national socialists, or intern of japanese, reservation of indians,
gulags, reedication camps, etc, etc, etc.morality becomes
relative.men rule by whim over other men.
Sad day when Americans are confused by the right or wrong of:1.
pornography2. a mother killing her unborn baby3. gay rights4.
marriage or living together5. coveting their neighbors property6.
choosing just leaders
What a circular, convoluted, and inane argument! Certainly one of the weakest,
and most intellectually dishonest, arguments against pr0n I've seen in a while.
While the others openly admit their motivations an reasons, this one hides
behind complex argument that essentially says apples can be compared to oranges,
because people eat both!He also avoids the real issue. The reason
even conservatives Justices error on the side of free speech, as in the recent
Supreme Court ruling on "mature" video game sale to minors, is that
there is a fear of the issue spiraling out of control. The author of this
article never attempts to define pornography, which is that is necessary for
laws against it, because there will always be someone even more prudish. Say
goodbye to all the arts and fashions you love, cause I promise you there are
loads of people that find it offensive.This wont even be an issue in
20 years. All tech savvy teens these days have seen pr0n. And give up the
argument that it causes moral decay: there is less violent crime per capita
today than there was in the 1950s. Society is better than it has ever been.
I think I just went in a circle?
"Society is better than it has ever been."Today we see a
few things different than the 50's...Father's abandon their families
moreOur divorce rates are higherTeen pregnancies are higherDrug abuse is higherChild sexual abuse is higherLess American's
voteMore people aren't assisted, but LIVE OFF of welfare today (FAR more,
fyi)People spend less time in the great outdoorsPeople spend less
time with their familiesFar fewer families even eat dinner togetherFar less people enlist to protect, more for education and job benefits.Infidelity and dishonesty is far higher and even expected in today's
"culture"Less people share the same basic value system today as
in the past (we're more divided)We have grown more indifferent to violent,
hateful, traumatizing, and quite frankly- sickening imagery on television,
gaming, and our daily activities.We have less respect for our dead today
than before, showing graphic REAL imagery to even children.This list
could go on and on. This country is falling apart in regards to moral values. I
dare say that anyone in denial of this is partly responsible for such
acceptance. I personally do NOT accept such false "moralities".
@Freedom-In-Danger:"The author didn't say all nude art was
porn, but that it can just as easily be pornographic as what we define as porn
today."Both you and the author need to make up your mind... is
nude art porn or not? If not, then all porn could logically be classified as
art."You're second statement would also lead to the same
conclusion as this: 'Murder is bad only because people, like the author, say
it's bad.'"Murder is bad because it harms another. Porn
doesn't."Regarding your third statement, there are plenty of
logical reasons we don't run around nude."There are societies
on this earth that run around nude and think nothing of it. Thus, have no use
for porn."In the meantime, I suggest you consider one of the
basic tenants of all civil debate and discourse- know your audience."How can my audience be known? I've never met the author. And posters
use mostly fake monikers."If your intention is purely to offend
or provoke, then so be it."Most posts are intended to provoke.
Anything less is mundane pablum.
Religion is in the business of selling "salvation" - specifically,
salvation from sin.But they can't sell you something you don't need,
so they have to convince you that you are a horrible sinner. You are rife with
sin. You are filthy with it. Just ask them. They will tell you all the sins of
which you are guilty.Then they will tell you they (and only they)
have the solution to your sin problem.But if there is no
"sin", then the "salvation" they offer you is worthless: who
will pay 10% of your income for something you don't need?Much
pornography is disgusting. It is fake. It is twisted. It is abusive. It is
morally repugnant. But it is not "sinful". Some people like it. Some
people can't handle it without it affecting their public lives.But
Mr. George's arguments fail to make the case for legislative action, and are a
subtle but sophisticated way to try and make pornography "sinful".
Religious people have to convince you of sin in order to stay relevant to
contemporary life.Don't buy into it.
So society has been irreprabily harmed by Gogan and the rest of the renaisance
painters since their works are of dubious value at best. I think your panties
are way too tight when you try to blame art for societal ills.
You can count the number of people who enjoy pornography as 'art' on one hand.
If that or 'individual rights' are its only defenses then it's fair to regulate
it - which doesn't mean you have to ban it. Pornography is every bit as
addictive as drugs or alcohol because it can be used to self-medicate.
Essentially to adjust your mood. Like those that addicted to substances and
inevitably use them to excess and become a drain on society, those addicted to
pornography lose their self-esteem, objectify women, and often learn habits that
are already criminalized, such as public indecency or worse.I find
it interesting that the first atheist to post indicates he is moral because he
doesn't 'lie, steal, or cheat'. The only reason these are considered universal
moral virtues are because they were in the 10 commandments, which a majority has
always believed came from God. While it doesn't mean that morality comes from
God, it is true that society can only agree on virtues if they believe they can
from God. We wouldn't be having this ridiculous discussion about pornography
being moral or not if the 10 commandments covered it.
@VoR;Until you PROVE that there is a God, you have no business
legislating based on him/her/it.Morality is not derived from
Haha, you are just making up every single one of those claims, dangerman. You are too funny. To the people that claim there is no
morality without a belief in god: don't be silly. There are many reasons to be
moral that have nothing, whatsoever, to do with religion. Get over yourselves.
@ alsatheist,I'm curious: You wrote that one of the commenters needs
some "soul searching." What is a "soul" to an atheist? This
question may sound sarcastic, but is not meant to be. I'd really like to know.
Is it just a popular figure of speech, or does an atheist have a definition for
@korn75: "Ha. You won't see a decline in porn just because women are made
to feel more valuable. There will always be sexually hungry men in this world
who will view porn and there will always be women who will want the easy money
by participating in pornographic films. Eliminating young beauty pageants may
help girls with personal self-esteem issues and eating disorders, but it's not
going to affect or eliminate the porn industry."You
misunderstand the whole issue. Not only do we need to teach girls that they are
valuable, but more importantly, boys need to be taught that women are valuable
beyond their sexual appeal. If a man truly respects women as people he won't be
inclined toward porn. Although the girls are "pretending" to be
raped, abused, or mistreated, they are still, in actuality, going through those
experiences (just as an actor "pretending" to play basketball for a
movie is still playing basketball). Education is the key, not
regulation. While porn is never going away (it's been around forever), we can
certainly help contain it.
It is apparent from the comments that many 'lie in wait to deceive', using false
logic to denigrate the author who is one of the clearest and brightest thinkers
morality in our times. Those who criticize the author's point fail to see how
the very decline of western civilization is influences by your lack of moral
conviction. Oh yes! You can think you are being open minded, that pornography
and other sinister practices have no influence on politics, economy, and
fundamentally the happiness of a society...but we see the slippery slide you
create for those of us attempting to raise children free from addictions.
Robbie512,An excellent breakdown of the arguments. Thank you. I am
not sure there is such universal agreement (in today's political environment)
reference govt. responsibility to mediate even direct negative influences but
that is a topic for another day.I think the third argument (that
pornography constitutes a negative influence) is strong. But, it is difficult
to make that argument to the general populace for two reasons. First, some
enjoy it and are willing to turn a blind eye to the negatives. Second, that
many of the resulting negatives have become so ingrained in our culture that we
do not understand them to be harmful. We think of them as simply normal. It is
extremely difficult to argue effectively what is "normal" or
"right" when the two sides do not perceive these in the same way.The Atheist,Sin is simply that which does us harm.
Specifically long-term harm (and no, not just from an eternal life perspective).
The name is less relevant.The point of religion is to not to
subjugate but to liberate and provide a way forward out of destructive
behavior.Don't need it? Okay. But please do not deny its power to
RanchHand,Until we pass laws stating that I can't vote according to
what I believe, this remains a free country. I have no more proof that you are
real than I have that God is real. I read something claimed to be the word of a
deity. I read something claimed to be the word of another commenter. All I
really know is that I wrote neither. So, I shouldn't debate based on what I
don't know is real either... therefore we are done in this discussion.See the problem?I could argue either way, but none of that really
matters. What matters is that we are FREE. I believe people should be able to
vote what their believe is right or wrong, regardless of other people who claim
moral superiority and would strike down such freedom by invalidating the vote of
those they disagree with.Would you remove my voting rights simply
because of WHY I voted the way I did, or would you rather not prevent me from
voting freely. Do you accept freedom or fight it? Because your comment there was
CERTAINLY not in support of it. So I ask you, please clarify. Free or no?
@VoR:All you have is hearsay. Someone said that "god"
said....You have no right to vote on the rights of others. No
right, unless you are willing to have others vote on your rights as well - which
you obviously refuse to do.We are FREE, yes - as long as we harm NO
others. Voting to restrict or take away the right of others HARMS those others.
You HARM GLBT couples and our families when you vote on OUR rights.When I have the right to vote on YOUR marriage, then, and only then, do you
have the right to vote on mine.
Will legislating pornography include removing most of the romance novels from
the market? You know, the ones the women read while they are complaing about men
viewing pornography? Just saying ....
Hey Editor, it's your site so you have the right to censor how you want but
that's it for me. I'll be voting with my feet now.
Normal Guy society can only agree on virtues if they believe they can from
God. LDS4No, people can agree that individual freedom is good
and should be maximized, thereby maximizing agency. Restrictions on actions
should be limited to things that objectively cause harm to others. Consider a
few quotes from the prophets on restricting the rights of others to get them to
behave A man may act as his conscience dictates so long as he does
not infringe upon the rights of others. (David O. McKay, General Conference,
October, 1938)There is not a being upon the face of the earth...
that would be deprived of the free exercise of his agency so far as he does not
infringe upon other's rights. (Joseph Fielding Smith)You are free to
choose exactly what you want to do, as long as it does not restrict or impose on
the rights or liberties of others..(N. Eldon Tanner - General Conference, April
1970)Men may think as they please, but they have no right to impose
upon others their ... views. (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball)Forcing morality on others was Satans plan. Why do so many want to advocate
*Utah No. 1 in online porn subscriptions, report says By Elaine Jarvik
03/03/09 DSNews That's the conclusion of a Harvard economics
professor who tracked subscriptions to online porn sites. Utah ranks No. 1 in
subscriptions, according to Benjamin Edelman, who reported his findings in the
article "Red Light States: Who Buys Online Adult Entertainment?,"
published in the most recent edition of the Journal of Economic Perspectives. Moderator, this is from your own paper. Utah has one of the
most 'anti-smut' laws in the country. And, one of, if not the
highest usage of online pornography. 'Public Morality' is fiction,
as the public cannot even agree on one faith, let alone morality.
The continued focus against pornagraphy is what leads to drastic usage in other
venues. As, with prohibition, it only leads to Utah be the leader in
other 'black market' materials. Which, is perfectly legal if you are
a consenting adult. Strange that such groups choose to focus on
this, and not the removal of inividual freedoms to Americans.
The right for a little girl to walk safely down the street exceeds the right to
view porn. And yes, I am linking porn with pedophiles.It's an ugly, dirty
industry that does lots of harm and zero good.
We stopped advertising cigarettes on TV years ago and for what purpose??? We
stopped the advertising to save young people from becoming smokers. Many young
people still smoke but what would have happened if the Marlboro Man would have
continued on TV advertising? The same must be true for porn. There must be some
acknowledgment that porn destroys and is a huge negative on a persons mental and
physical health and thus some sort of mandated regulation must be legislated.
Voluntary filters aren't enough as seen by the stat's of porn site for young
people and older. A free society will destroy itself without laws and
patriot:The Marlboro Man is gone, but it is still legal to smoke.
It is a personal right - as long as it does not affect others.Porno
has not been advertised. I do not allow it in my house. That is what I can
control. I do not ban it from my neighbor's house. That is their right and I
do not need to run their house. As long as the highest court in our country
says that it falls under our constitution, I will not try to make my neighbors
live by my standards.Why are you trying to? What type of country
are you looking for? Do you really want the government to enforce your
religious beliefs? Is that why you would vote to restrict others in their own
homes? I do not understand this thinking. Could you explain why to me?
'Many young people still smoke...' - patriot | 11:55 a.m. Oct. 24, 2011 You completely shot your argument in the foot with this statement. Advocating in support of banning pornography, alchohol and smoking may
have all logical arguments (sometimes) to support it's merit... but
still creates a 'nanny state' that restricts the personal liberties of American
citizens. We restrict what affects other people. Murder, theft,
assault, etc. But we CANNOT restrict what others do, that does NOT
have a factual effect on another person's life. Smoking at home,
consuming alchohol at home, watching pornography, gay marriage, etc.
Examples are: 'Gay marriage wins rulings in pair of federal
challenges' - By Denise Lavoie - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/08/10
'The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married
couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.'
You spend part of your editorial in trying to equate drug use and pornography,
but drug use can not claim an association with the Constitution, pornography
can. The argument does not fit.Your comments on pornography and
marital sex in relation to the Constitution are weak as well. The US Supreme
Court has ruled on many pornography cases. It has been recognized as free
speech under the 1st Amendment. Your comments about art are simply a
miss-direction in stare decisis. The US Supreme Court has also struck down a
Texas law on sodomy as unconstitutional, indicating what happens in the privacy
of the bedroom is not subject to government interference. (Utah has yet to
repeal its sodomy law, although it is also unconstitutional.) You make a long
case against pornography and try to diminish the role of judges in this matter.
But, it is extremely difficult to overturn US Supreme Court decisions, and I
believe that, as well intentioned as this editorial may be, it is going down a
dead end road. Like it or not, pornography is here to stay. The best solution
is to teach your kids about sex and the potential impacts of pornography.
Pagen, Utah is also going through a transformation with a high
number of out of staters moving in. It's not quite the same Utah I once lived
in.It's all George Bushes fault.
This breaks no rules and responds to posts!Ranch: Let's be clear and
candid, okay? You left the LDS church because of your homosexuality. You have a
clear antagonistic attitude regarding your former church because they preach the
unadulterated version of the gospel of Christ.You can have sexual
relations with whomever you choose, I guess as long as they are legal. But let's
not confuse your chosen behavior with marriage. Homosexuality is not, nor will
it ever be, marriage.You have lds4homosexualmarriage confused along
with you thinking that you have a "right" to get married to another of
the same sex. It's not a "right" otherwise there would be absolutely
no restrictions on marriage by the state.For LDS folks to not see
the harm that porn does on the family, marriages and society is to turn a blind
eye to reality. Frankly, it's disturbing to see so many blinded by the adversary
with their moral relativism.Dear Atheists, your posts are so comical
yet sad. You claim there isn't a God but you have no answers for anything
regarding life, death, science, etc. You also have no morals because you don't
believe in right or wrong.
'You can have sexual relations with whomever you choose, I guess as long as they
are legal. But let's not confuse your chosen behavior with marriage.
Homosexuality is not, nor will it ever be, marriage.' - @Charles | 7:28 p.m.
Oct. 24, 2011 Six states disagree with you. And
considering MA was the first one in 2004, that's almost one state per year. I dosen't have to be YOUR marriage. But you have no right to dictate
another persons marriage. You rights and with your person. It does not BEGIN
with another's marriage options. Also, let's not be offensive and
claim that people have no MORALS because they do not agree with you.
I will never, ever, understand how those who claim religious reasons to be
against gay marriage can insult others by claiming they have no morality, or
they are sinners, or they are sad... and people like the moderator
think that throwing these insults every day somehow make it part of 'civil
discourse.' Saying 'I disagree with you because...' is one thing. Claiming the person you are arguing against has no morals because they
disagree with you? Is an insult.
@CharlesYou have lds4homosexualmarriage confused along with you thinking
that you have a "right" to get married to another of the same sex.
It's not a "right" otherwise there would be absolutely no restrictions
on marriage by the state.LDS4There is absolutely no objective
reason to oppose gay marriage. You can't bring up the issue of them not being
able to produce children or you'd have to prevent the aged and infertile from
marrying as well. You can't bring up subjective religious/moral beliefs because
this is not a theocracy and many others have religious and moral beliefs
allowing gay marriage.All you have left is the "ick
factor"...that you personally find it disgusting. I feel the same way
about hard boiled eggs and/or blue cheese dressing in a salad, but I'm not going
to sue Texas Roadhouse to prevent them from offering them.People
should be able to marry the consenting adult of their choice, even if they are
of another race, social class or religion or even the same sex. There is NO
objective reason to deny any of them.
It appears to me that one of the problems we have is defining harm. For example
it is assumed that women are abused more than men in marriage and other
relationships because sexual and physical abuse (which are both physical of
course) are considered REAL abuse causing REAL harm rather than psychological,
verbal, and emotional abuse which women must surely be as guilty of in not more
than men.This is where the God and spiritual issue becomes
important. When you believe in God you consider all aspects of being a human
being and not just the ones you can see and hear. You will consider a wife
emotionally abusing her husband just as bad as him sexually abusing her and you
will be as prone to legislate (or not) the one as you would the other. (I hope I
don't sound like I support rape in any way).My point is, we need to
understand there is more to things than "meets the EYE". Even unseen
things cause real damage.
Kudos to Voice of Reason for your comments! I enjoyed the article. "We call
upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote the
measures designed to strengthen and maintain the (traditional) family as the
fundamental unit of society." I will use my freedom to vote for leaders and
laws that do just that - protect and strengthen the traditional family.
"You have no right to vote on the rights of others. No right, unless you
are willing to have others vote on your rights as well - which you obviously
refuse to do."Ranchhand: The United Nations just said that
"internet access is a right". STATE INVOLVEMENT of marriage is
something that I vote on and have every right to. The state could just as easily
not get involved in all marriages altogether. The fact that this option even
exists PROVES that state recognition isn't a right, but a choice of the people.
But I guess liberal arguments are perfect and exempt from all debate... because
us conservatives don't have the right to vote what we believe now?"He won't endorse me, so I'll make it so he can't vote anymore!"Don't you see that liberals are the ones destroying freedom?And if you think I'm crazy for believing in God... that is your right. But I
have just as much right to think your crazy for not. What makes us free is that
we can believe and voice that belief freely. If you can't agree with that, then
you disagree with our current constitution and it's protected freedoms.
Freedom-In-Danger says:"... because us conservatives don't have the
right to vote what we believe now?""Don't you see that
liberals are the ones destroying freedom?""And if you
think I'm crazy for believing in God... that is your right. But I have just as
much right to think your crazy for not. What makes us free is that we can
believe and voice that belief freely."---(1) You do
not have the right to Vote on the rights of other Citizens, regardless of your
"belief". Unless you give those others the SAME right to vote on your
rights. (2) Conservatives are the ones destroying freedom - you
TAKE THE FREEDOM of others away and then complain that they are "destroying
freedom" - hypocritical and Orwellian.(3) Believe whatever
floats your boat. Keep it to yourself. Enacting laws based on your fiction is
wrong because it infringes on the rights of others. You use your
"god" to deny Freedom to others. When you believe others are not free
to do the same things you do then you are being a hypocrite. BTW, Jesus
condemned the hypocrite right along with the "sinners".
'The fact that this option even exists PROVES that state recognition isn't a
right, but a choice of the people.' - Freedom-In-Danger | 8:01 a.m. Oct. 25,
2011 And when that opinion turns on you? *'Gallup Poll:
Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews -
05/20/2011 This is contradicted by another poll just six months
later: *64% dont support gay marriage new poll says Deseret News
10/12/2011 Gary Lawrence is the president of Lawrence Research in
Santa Ana, Calif., and is very familiar with both the topic and the polling. His
company conducted polls in 2008 for the "Yes on 8" campaign, which
successfully pushed for the passage of Proposition 8 in California to define
marriage as between a man and a woman. Which, has been largely
discredited. *Gay marriage poll touted by Mormons seems dubious By
James Peron Huffinton Post 10/14/2011 Pollster Gary Lawrence
responded to DeGroote's email by suggesting that I buy his book on Mormonism
instead. He offered no information as to the demographics of his survey.'
If the Atheists are right then none of this and their banter matter. If the God
believers are right then all the pontificating from the other side is a moot
point. Either way, the Atheists and religion haters don't really have a stand
when it comes to moral matters. In the end they will not be able to bring
meaning to their arguments one way or another without one of them playing God
and deciding what is moral and what is not which is what they accuse the God
believers of doing.God is obvious and all the words and rhetoric to
diminish this fact won't change it one bit. It is only because of God that the
non-believers have the right to choose as they will.Again, if the
Atheists are right then all of this and our existence is nonsense and doesn't
After reading the posts, it is evident that there are two points of view: 1. We don't need God. We don't need laws. We don't accept help in
choosing what is "right".2. We need God. We need
direction. We accept help in choosing what is "right".It
all depends on the goal. From the posts that those who accept laws
limiting access to porn are those who believe in strong, traditional families,
where there is a Father and a Mother who want their children to be protected
from all sexual deviation. From the posts that those who reject
laws limiting porn are those who have rejected traditional families, who want
homosexual "partners" to be considered married, who think that it is
perfectly acceptable for children to be raised in a home where homosexual
relations are practiced.It's quite clear that there is a division.
It is clear why there is a division. It is clear who accepts the concept of
limits and law just as it is clear who rejects limits and law.Those
of us who believe in God accept the doctrine of absolute law and of His
requirement that we curb our "natural" desires.
Pagen/Pagan,Does the 'Episcopal Church' speak for God? Is their
leader His prophet to the world? When did that happen?Does any
"association" have the right to set eternal laws? Who gave them that
authority? Why would anyone accept their judgment, except those who want
"an authority" to speak in favor of their sexual desires?Do you know that "curb your natural desires" means no sex outside of
marriage? That is means No sexual relations with anyone of the same sex at any
time. That it means care and consideration for your wife or husband? That it
means NOT viewing porn because of the respect that you have for your wife or
your husband? That it means NEVER looking at the naked body of anyone to whom
you are not married?Yes, "curb" means NO homosexual
activity by anyone at anytime, inside a "homosexual marriage" or
outside a "homosexual marriage".
That there is morality without god is not a new idea. Plato's
"Euthyphro" argued persuasively that religion is not needed for
morality. Socrates puts the point thusly: "Do the gods love something
because it is pious, or is something pious because the gods love it?"Whether from evolutionary development or from the demands of sociality,
we humans have an intuitive sense of right and wrong that trumps even the
commands of god. We have the ability to judge which of the gods is good or bad.
So, even if god did not exist, we could fend for ourselves in matters of
conscience. Ethics, not divine revelation, is the better guide to life.Only if you accept and obey EVERYTHING contained in the Old Testament can you
possibly disagree with this. To reject one idea from religious scripture is to
exercise your superior moral judgement against "god's word."We cannot count on either God or morality to back up our personal preferences
or clinch the case in any argument. Morality as a weapon against the
nonbelievers has been notoriously immoral. Perhaps we should no longer be in the
business of trying to derive "ought" from "is".
Without God and a belief in the next life none of the blathering even matters. I
figured this out when I was 8 years old. If when you die there is nothing then
nothing really matters now. You live and then you die -- who cares what happens
-- really who cares? Do you really think that I would care about your position
on abortion or gay rights if there is no afterlife? If there is no judgment then
I will do as I please -- if I want to be seen as nice then I will do that
according to what I believe (it still won't matter) -- if I want to be seen as
intellectual then I must really not be in touch with what I believe.Blather on non-believers but if you are right your arguments are meaningless.
Who cares if you were a "good and moral person" or even an "evil
person". In the end it all ends and then there is nothing. The pathetic
meaning you find now will end in a few short years and then who cares?
8plex wrote:"Without God and a belief in the next life none of
the blathering even matters...If when you die there is nothing then nothing
really matters now."There is no more sinister, immoral, and
unethical notion than this. What a selfish, horrible idea.Nothing
matters?My relationship with my beautiful wife still matters.Helping an elderly person feel important by a visit to a nursing home
still matters.A rich, thick chocolate shake still matters.Passing legislation that will improve the economic and unemployment conditions
in this country still matters.Reading the Grapes of Wrath while
sipping hot Jasmine Oolong Tea on a winter evening still matters.Breaking the Curse of the Bambino still matters, as does Jeter's 3000th.A trip to Indonesia to help following the 2004 tsunami still matters.What an impoverished and pathetic life it would be if nothing mattered
without some belief in a fictitious magician watching over everything!Believe me when I tell you, it all matters! Human life matters!
Dear Vanka: the reason that all mankind knows good from evil is because of the
light of Christ that is given to all, even atheists. Human life matters only
because their is a God and afterlife! :)"15 For behold, my
brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and
the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the
daylight is from the dark night.16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ
is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto
you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade
to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore
ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.17 But whatsoever
thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and
serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for
after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no,
@Charles;Proof please. Otherwise its all just blah, blah, blah.
BalancedFulfilledLife "We call upon responsible citizens and
officers of government everywhere to promote the measures designed to strengthen
and maintain the (traditional) family as the fundamental unit of society."
I will use my freedom to vote for leaders and laws that do just that - protect
and strengthen the traditional family. KJKThe prophets have
stated that the only official doctrine of the Church is in the standard works
and that everything else is commentary and opinion. They've stated that if even
their own words contradict scripture, scripture prevails. The quoted statement
above was they rallying cry against SSM. 1 Cor. 10:29 & D&C
134:4 denounce the use of one's morals as justification to infringe upon the
rights and liberties of others. In the case of CA's prop.8, where gays DID have
the right/liberty to marry, the call to strip gays of those rights was therefore
in objective violation of those verses. No ifs, ands, or buts.The
Proc. isn't scripture and in the case of Prop.8, that last paragraph you quote
is objectively false doctrine.You may not agree, but I'd appreciate
you showing me where my logic and/or scriptural interpretation is wrong.
"Let's face it, porn is here to stay whether you like it or not."Actually, it's not here to stay. There will come a day when people will
weep bitter tears over their actions, participating in porn, viewing it and
supporting it, wishing they had chosen differently.... and it IS a CHOICE. I happen to believe our morals do come from God and there are consequences for
our thoughts and actions. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.
The worst part of all of this is reading many of the comments in here,talking
about rape, porn and sexuality in a nonchalant way as if there's no harm done.
You people are part of the problem. Why don't you try talking to someone who is
actually addicted to porn, maybe you'll find out it's not so glamorous.
@StandAlone;As you can also see reading many of the comments,
addiction to religion isn't so glamorous either.
@Ranch:You believe and do what you want to do, I'll do the same, and
let the pieces fall where they may. Fair enough?
@RanchFor proof -- look at your hand. Go outside and look at the
earth, the moon and the stars.Watch a baby be born.Read
the Book of Mormon.Talk with others who have experiences beyond the
grave.If you need further proof then explain life. If you can
explain it then create it. If you can't you have your proof. If you can't create
life and yet all you would have to do is copy it then explain how the universe
supposedly created life by chance when you can't on purpose.
Ranch: What would you accept as proof? I highly doubt anything except your final
PPI will be sufficient for you. At that point in time, all things will be
brought to your remembrance and it will be too late.Everything
around you denotes there is a God. Life, plants, animals, Earth, Sun, moon,
stars, everything. All things testify of God. If you want to deny
God and all things that He has created just because He rejects and disapproves
of your chosen lifestyle, then so be it.We are all still waiting for
any God-denier to cogently detail on what basis you have morals. If there is
good and bad or right and wrong or whatever you want to call it then you are
admitting that there is a higher power. If you deny their is a higher power then
you are stating that man is the end all be all of the universe.So,
which is it?Vanka: where did you run off to????
@8plexThe proof you propose can easily be disputed. The examples you
present can be disputed. The Book of Mormon can be disputed. Experiences beyond
the grave can be disputed. God can be disputed. There are naturalistic
explanations available. There are other explanations available. Our knowledge is
incomplete. Even if science cannot explain some event or object, it is not
reasonable to believe or assume that a god is responsible for the event or
object. The mere fact that we cannot explain something is not a valid
justification to rely upon something else, even more mysterious, as an
"explanation." Filling the gaps in our knowledge with God is not
certain proof. We have no certain proof.As for pornography....when a
person has an addiction to pornography that is creating a problem.....the
problem doesn't lie in the pornography, but rather with the person viewing it.
Take blame for your own actions and stop blaming the source. You can eliminate
it yourself rather than making the government do it for you. Yes, porn can be
harmful to various people, but to claim it is harmful to ALL people is false.
8plex says:"For proof, look at your hand. Go outside and look
at the earth, the moon and the stars.+ -- BTDT"Watch a baby be
born." -- BTDT"Read the Book of Mormon." --- BTDT"Talk with others who have experiences beyond the grave." ---
Don't know any ghosts."If you need further proof then explain
life. If you can explain it then create it. If you can't you have your proof. If
you can't create life and yet all you would have to do is copy it then explain
how the universe supposedly created life by chance when you can't on
purpose." --- Biology 101 - a good place to start@Charles; Again, Bio 101I'll accept that God exists
when HE/SHE/IT comes and talks to all of us. If there is a God he/she/it
doesn't need a mouthpiece."We are all still waiting for any
God-denier to cogently detail on what basis you have morals." -- Do unto
others... (basis of morality) needs no Diety.
@Joggle"it is not reasonable to believe or assume that a god is
responsible for the event or object."To whom? It is not
reasonable to me to believe that there is not a God. We can explain things with
God it's just without him that they are not explainable. That is exactly the
point.I get that it requires faith to believe but faith is present
every time someone trusts another or believes in their character i.e. character
witnesses for court.For some reason atheists still refuse to see the
absurdity in them being a moralist. It is the height of hippocracy to claim
Christians have it wrong on pornography or homosexuality from an atheistic view.
I don't expect you to see the absurdity - but I state again -- if you are right
then all of this talk is meaningless.Atheists must live for today,
there really is no future for them or anyone, this means that the morality of
the day or claiming that something is right or wrong based on the passing fad of
the day is an absurdity. Morals come and go but they are here and then -blip-
they are gone.
@CharlesYou and others have certainly not demonstrated that an
objective morality exists, and the burden of proof is on you.The
simplest explanation for morality in human society is the fact that human social
groups need predictable rules and behavior to function. Morals have evolved and
changed over time rather than being exclusively made from religion or belief in
God. We cannot make responsible, moral choices without having reasoned through
our choices and the consequences of what we do. This applies to everybody,
including atheists. This means that a truly moral system must emphasize the
importance of the intellect and reason as much as love and compassion. A truly
moral choice cannot be made on the basis of seeking rewards and certainly cannot
be made in hopes of attaining an eternally blissful afterlife. If a person does
things merely for a reward, their choice is based upon selfishness, not moral
values. Real morality, cannot be mere obedience: for a person to be morally
responsible, they must be able to reason out their choices and decide for
themselves. Morality is as integral to human society rather than being in the
exclusive realm of a god.
@8plexThe process of becoming an atheist usually involves
questioning a great deal of what a person has taken for granted in the past.
This means that many atheists not only end up questioning beliefs about
religion, but they also question many popular political and social beliefs
often beliefs which themselves tend to be justified or defended with religious
arguments. Atheists are thus perhaps among the least likely people to simply
follow along with the crowd and accept whatever "whims" society has
established for behavior and morality, much less anything else. This myth acts
as an effective way of dismissing what atheists have to say because few people
will be interested in listening to anyone who simply follows "whims,"
regardless of where those whims originally come from. People who promote this
myth communicate the idea that atheists shouldn't be listened to when it comes
to ethical or social issues, but without actually addressing any of the
arguments atheists make. It's a cheap way of getting out of having to offer
anything substantive and promotes false assumptions and myth. I suggest you
educate yourself on atheism to dispell the false assumptions you perpetuate.Your argument is understandable, but is still absurd.