Rick Santorum vs. porn industry

[kbachler]

It is not only a religious issue. I quoted the Catechism because it answers what you previously proposed about laws limiting pornography.

No, it didn’t. You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. Quoting the Catechism doesn’t help because I’m not for forcing our beliefs on others.

I did not equate pornography as being exactly equal in wrongness to other sins. It is however objectively wrong. Rape for example may not be as wrong as murder, however it is bad enough. Rape and Murder are not religious issues although our religion rightful holds them as being wrong.

And there are many that would argue that it isn’t objectively wrong, which is the point. You haven’t built your argument.

I can not envision circumstances of porn being of little harm. I can envision myself rationalizing it as being of little harm(cause I have in the past), but objectively knowing what it does to men, women, families and people involved in the industry, it is indeed incredibly harmful.

Again, this is your stated belief. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing for porn. But I am arguing that if your going to make this argument, it can’t be based ONLY upon your personal belief.

Consider the “boudoir photography” that is more popular today. A wife goes and gets racy pictures professionally done for her husband. She may or may not be fully clothed. Is it porn? Is it harmful? Your generalizations are too sweeping.

The problem with that is someday - someone AFTER Santorum (or whomever promotes this restricted approach) will use those restrictions in a way originally unintended. THAT is the issue.

Ahollars, I have heard of the xxx domain. I think that it would be very helpful if this got enacted in the US.

 

[Brendan]

No, it didn’t. You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. Quoting the Catechism doesn’t help because I’m not for forcing our beliefs on others…

How is this different from legislation on prostitution? Is that also not regulating morality? Is not forcing beliefs on two consenting adults who would otherwise not object?

 

[whm]

And there are many that would argue that it isn’t objectively wrong, which is the point. You haven’t built your argument.

There are people who believe slavery, murder, cannibalism are not objectively wrong either. The doesn’t change the fact that it is. Since this is a Catholic Forum I did not see the need to write a 10 page thesis on why pornography is wrong.

Consider the “boudoir photography” that is more popular today. A wife goes and gets racy pictures professionally done for her husband. She may or may not be fully clothed. Is it porn? Is it harmful? Your generalizations are too sweeping.

Get racy pictures of you wife is morally questionable in my mind. But what I have been talking about over and over and over again is enforcing the hardcore bans that exist in print and dvds to the internet. I am not talking about playboy (although that is also morally reprehensible)

The problem with that is someday - someone AFTER Santorum (or whomever promotes this restricted approach) will use those restrictions in a way originally unintended. THAT is the issue.

Again the restrictions already exist in other media. Where is the slippery slope. I believe the last ban of obscene material for dvd’s and magazines (the one that bans extreme closups of private areas during intercourse and such) took place back in 1996.

 

[Nate13]

How is this different from legislation on prostitution? Is that also not regulating morality? Is not forcing beliefs on two consenting adults who would otherwise not object?

That is what I asked, as well as whether the president was trying to legislate morality when he said the Christian thing to do was to raise taxes…

 

[kbachler]

There are people who believe slavery, murder, cannibalism are not objectively wrong either. The doesn’t change the fact that it is. Since this is a Catholic Forum I did not see the need to write a 10 page thesis on why pornography is wrong.

I am providing the need. With the things you list above whether it is or is not slavery, is or is not murder is relatively clear, and so is the harm. Pornography is less clear. A better analogy is probably to the use of alcohol, but you haven’t built your argument this way.

Get racy pictures of you wife is morally questionable in my mind. But what I have been talking about over and over and over again is enforcing the hardcore bans that exist in print and dvds to the internet. I am not talking about playboy (although that is also morally reprehensible)

Then you need to be more spefic and apply more clearly. Your discussion and the discussion has been generally broader.

And event then, there still might be some fine lines, and some of what you listed above is still not completely clear.

Let’s take it a step further. If we ban - for argument sake - a pornographic snuff film (something that I find reprehensible) then on what basis do we not ban all movies, TV shows, books etc. in which someone is murdered for “capricious” reasons?

Again the restrictions already exist in other media. Where is the slippery slope. I believe the last ban of obscene material for dvd’s and magazines (the one that bans extreme closups of private areas during intercourse and such) took place back in 1996.

I am unaware of such a ban. My understanding is that the Miller Test, which is the Supreme Court’s test for pornography, does not ipso facto make showing close-ups of genitalia in copulation obscene. See the Larry W. Peterman case from Provo, Utah.

The case you should be intersted in is United States of America v. Extreme Associates.

 

[kbachler]

How is this different from legislation on prostitution? Is that also not regulating morality? Is not forcing beliefs on two consenting adults who would otherwise not object?

There are those who would argue for that reason that prostitution should not be illegal, and some jurisdictions in the U.S. and other countries apparently agree. I personally believe that there is sufficient evidence that the radical objectification of a person for purely sexually reasons is at least inadvisable if not downright harmful to society, and also the individual. BUT, I would also so that prostitution does not provide a reason to legislate against pornography.

I’m not here defending a behavior. I’m here saying that when we choose to limit behaviors, we need to be able to clearly and rationally articulate why - not just say “it’s objectively wrong.”

 

[bmaj]

… Don’t be fooled by someone who shouts about Catholic teachings on sexual matters but ignores the Bishops in the areas that don’t fit in his far right wing political view.

Joe

Joe,
In what areas have you seen where Rick Santorum is ignoring the Bishops? I hadn’t heard any of that and am wondering what I’ve missed since he seems to be pretty solidly aligned with Catholic teachings from what I can tell. Unfortunately, it appears he doesn’t have much of a chance for the nomination, but I’m real glad his views are being made known anyway. This country needs all the help it can get to help bring it back on track toward family values.

 

[yogicat]

Ok - would homemade porn become illegal? That’s what I really want to know - would couples taping themselves be arrested for making porn?

 

[Tampa_Rays]

I have a question that is related to the subject. I noticed a couple of times about recording sex between spouses for personal use. I always thought that it was no different than any other type or porn in the eyes of the Church but it seems as some in the thread are talking as if they are not. What is the morality of this?

 

[whm]

I have a question that is related to the subject. I noticed a couple of times about recording sex between spouses for personal use. I always thought that it was no different than any other type or porn in the eyes of the Church but it seems as some in the thread are talking as if they are not. What is the morality of this?

Well it does not meet the definition of porn in the catechism unless it is to be shown to third parties. I must say it seem like a really strange idea to me and could have vary embarrassing consequences. However, whether it is sinful or not would depend on the purpose of it. If it is for some sort of pleasure that does not end in relations open to life, then it would likely be a problem. If it is to try and solve some sort of difficulty (and you erased it when solved ,yikes!) it might be ok.

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

 

[eliminate1337]

I think banning porn would be useless. The government tried to filter the internet before; how’d that turn out? Even if a law was made, in practice it would be very sparely enforced. Under wiretap laws the government can’t look through your internet without a warrant.

 

[Tampa_Rays]

Well it does not meet the definition of porn in the catechism unless it is to be shown to third parties. I must say it seem like a really strange idea to me and could have vary embarrassing consequences. However, whether it is sinful or not would depend on the purpose of it. If it is for some sort of pleasure that does not end in relations open to life, then it would likely be a problem. If it is to try and solve some sort of difficulty (and you erased it when solved ,yikes!) it might be ok.

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

Ah now I see. Technically it wouldn’t be porn according to the church but it still seems like lust is an issue when viewing it again. And I noticed that revealing sex acts is a requirement, doesn’t that make some softcore porn like playboy not porn in the eyes of the church? not looking for excuses by any means as it would still be sinful (lust) Im just a little confused by the definition.

 

[whm]

Ah now I see. Technically it wouldn’t be porn according to the church but it still seems like lust is an issue when viewing it again. And I noticed that revealing sex acts is a requirement, doesn’t that make some softcore porn like playboy not porn in the eyes of the church? not looking for excuses by any means as it would still be sinful (lust) Im just a little confused by the definition.

I think it said real or simulated. I didn’t see “revealing”.

 

[Tampa_Rays]

By revealing I meant showing to third parties