What is sinful about looking at pornography?

[Seeker2010]

The whole point is that the sex industry objectifies people, makes sex into a commodity to be bought, sold, or bartered over and the same for human bodies.

Sex sells. It always has, and it always will. So what? That’s just reality.

Your admiration for the people in the pornography industry is based on what? Pray, do tell. I’m dieing to know how you could possibly admire those who sell themselves so shamelessly in public.

The ones of which I speak are personal friends. We break bread together. We hang out and go to comedy clubs. And, occasionally, we party like rock stars. I see no reason whatsoever that shame should be associated with their work.

As for ‘drug infested, abusive, and sexually diseased’ I can only offer my own, anecdotal observations. I know, personally, more than a handful of adult industry folks. Actors and actresses, producers, publishers, the folks I know run the gamet. I’ve never known any to have an STD, and despite the fact that I’ve interacted sexually with some of them, have never caught one myself. Beyond alcohol and marijuana, I have never personally witnessed any drug use, and I most certainly have never met anyone who is being forced to participate, nor have I ever picked up on any ‘I’m here but don’t really want to be here’ vibes. That said, pretty much all jobs have people who hate them. I personally know more than a handful of cops, and of those there are a couple who absolutely hate their job.

So what?

The Church guides, teaches and instructs its **members **on matters of morality.

(Bold added by me.)

And that’s absolutely fine! The problem comes when it tries to instruct non-members on how to act, which it routinely does, or at least tries to do. You need look no further than this very discussion to see evidence of it. You endorse the criminalization of pornography, because your church finds it immoral. The problem is, were you to be successful that you’re restricting people from viewing something they want to view who are *not *members of your church. Your church does not (or at least *should *not) have that authority.

Then I’ll know who to send a congratulatory email to, thanking them for standing up for human decency and dignity in a world where both are in decline.

Why do you wish to impose a theocracy upon the rest of us? What you see as a decline of decency I see as a return to normalcy, as human behavior has been artificially repressed due to religious influences for centuries. As it becomes more and more clear that religion is false, more and more people are no longer influenced by their rules. Tis only natural.

There is no such thing as ‘absolute’ freedom in any civil society.

True. So what?

As for pornography, it does not get the protection you think it does. In California it has some protection according to Case Law, but not according to Statute. The Supreme Court in Ginsberg v. New York: 1978 ruled that minors must be protected from pornography. In Miller v. California: 1973 the Supreme Court decided that communities should decide what constitutes pornography. Again, as you picked, “obscenity” is not protected. All it will take is for someone, or some group, to make a challenge to pornography and to cite its ills.

Good luck with that, considering the Child Online Protection Act was struck down as unconstitutional. You are right, the '73 Miller case defined obscenity with these words:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

Under that ruling, for example, something consider ‘acceptable’ by the standards of say, New York City, might nonetheless be verboten in rural Georgia. However, the world has changed since 1973, and the courts have recognized that as evidenced by the result of COPA. ‘Local’ standards cannot be applied to a global medium such as the web, and they recognized that reality.

You still haven’t answered my original question, which is why do you persist on CAF?

Yes, I did, several posts back.

Those values obviously conflict, even contradict, your own values, so why do you persist?

Because, as you’ve so clearly shown, proponents of your value system want to ram it down everyone else’s throats, ultimately at the point of a gun, which, at the end of the day is the only real tool laws have to enforce compliance. For whatever reason, ‘live and let live’ doesn’t seem a reasonable compromise to folks like you.

There can be no freedom without constraints. If you want a very simple little example of that, go look up the covenant your very own original Pilgrims drew up and signed almost as soon as they got off the Mayflower.

You mean the ‘Mayflower Compact’? The communistic document that almost got them all killed? Not a very good example.

It is the case that demonstrable harm emanates from pornography and as such there is a good case for its banning. And banning it, by your own admission, wouldn’t harm your freedom one iota.

First, you have made no such case, only declared it so. Second, it would harm my freedom as I am a user, albeit an infrequent one. Third, it would not matter if I were a total non-user, I would still argue in favor of freedom, even if I did not intend to take advantage of it.

 

[karoleck]

Seeeker
Who are you kidding with your denial of the obvious–the question should be asked would you like your sister,mother,father,brother to pose or participate in lurid poses and for the sole purpose of being used to make money?

That is just a question on a natural level–I mean would you be proud of your mother or if you had a sister involved in the sex pornograph “industry”–would you be keen to show all and sundry–“look, here is my sister or mother being degraded”!

Is it a sinful activity–well does this activity please God?No, it offends The Creator of all that is good–since the beginning of the salvation history of mankind–as told in the Bible–God always punished and destroyed unrepentant people who committed the sin of lust.So why would God change–just because you do not think it is a sin? Are you greater than the God who created you out of nothing?

Jesus always forgave those who turned from their sins of lust–(the woman caught in adultery for example)however, His death on the Cross will not help those who persist in sin and hardenning their hearts with this type of filth.

If you are really seeking the truth ,you would be wise to take to heart the advise that John and the splendid arguements that other catholic posters have provided–it will save you from your clear enslavement to your stated life of sin and debauchery–God Bless.

Jesus,have mercy on me,a sinner,Amen.

 

[John21652]

Sex sells. It always has, and it always will. So what? That’s just reality.

The reality is sex is sold and bought as a commodity by those who don’t respect it and by those who don’t respect themselves nor others.

The ones of which I speak are personal friends. We break bread together. We hang out and go to comedy clubs. And, occasionally, we party like rock stars. I see no reason whatsoever that shame should be associated with their work.

You see no reason for shame because you have none yourself. You have none because you operate inside a selfish, self centred moral vacuum. The so called ‘friends’ of yours are running an abusive, dangerous industry.

As for ‘drug infested, abusive, and sexually diseased’ I can only offer my own, anecdotal observations. I know, personally, more than a handful of adult industry folks. Actors and actresses, producers, publishers, the folks I know run the gamet. I’ve never known any to have an STD, and despite the fact that I’ve interacted sexually with some of them, have never caught one myself. Beyond alcohol and marijuana, I have never personally witnessed any drug use, and I most certainly have never met anyone who is being forced to participate, nor have I ever picked up on any ‘I’m here but don’t really want to be here’ vibes.

This one passage highlights just how hedonistically self centred and selfish you are. I provided links to the esperience and evidence of others and that was just the tip of the iceberg. But you, you rely solely on your own limited experience. Your experience is more important than the sad evidence of many others. Your evidence is more important than the judgement of health authorities. You really are a case…

That said, pretty much all jobs have people who hate them. I personally know more than a handful of cops, and of those there are a couple who absolutely hate their job.

So what?

Again, you generalise from your own limited experience and in your arrogance, you then extrapolate to suggest that because people in one type of job might be unhappy, that so therefore it means nothing when others have been hurt and harmed by another industry. You really are an intellectual lazy.

And that’s absolutely fine! The problem comes when it tries to instruct non-members on how to act, which it routinely does, or at least tries to do. You need look no further than this very discussion to see evidence of it. You endorse the criminalization of pornography, because your church finds it immoral. The problem is, were you to be successful that you’re restricting people from viewing something they want to view who are *not *members of your church. Your church does not (or at least *should *not) have that authority.

No one ever said otherwise. You dare come here, denigrate the Church and its teachings and then when someone defends those beleifs, you accuse the Church of speaking for others. You are the non-member here whose moral degradation is being rebutted and then you say no need to look past this discussion. You intellectual numbness is mind blowing Seeker. You are making quantum leaps in logic, you can’t even see nor understand that if pornography were to be banned , it wont be banned by the Catholic Church. It will be banned by the legislatures and that will be because the people want it banned. Yet you, in your intellectual and moral vacuum, would blame the Church!! Not very bright Seeker.

Why do you wish to impose a theocracy upon the rest of us?

Another illogical comment. Where is it written that anyone is trying, let alone wants to, impose a theocracy on you or anybody else? If any legal changes are made to ‘morality’, it will be because the people’s chambers bring about the change. Can’t you get that?

What you see as a decline of decency I see as a return to normalcy, as human behavior has been artificially repressed due to religious influences for centuries. As it becomes more and more clear that religion is false, more and more people are no longer influenced by their rules. Tis only natural.

Funnily enough, you are behind the times. There is a big swing in all western countries towards what you would probably call theocratic morality. The swinging lifestyle you espouse is a relic of the past. You are stuck in a time warp, but your selfish hedonism wont let you see it. What you espouse has always been indulged in by minorities down through the ages.You are still in a minority and always will be.

As for saying “as it becomes more and more clear that religion is false” is just a bland, empty statement of your own making, so sweeping in its banality it is laughable.
If you ever bother to check facts before you put your mouth into gear, you would find that religious observance in the US and other western nations has actually increased over the past few decades.

So I ask again Seeker, why do you persist in coming onto CAF? What’s your point?

Because, as you’ve so clearly shown, proponents of your value system want to ram it down everyone else’s throats, ultimately at the point of a gun, which, at the end of the day is the only real tool laws have to enforce compliance. For whatever reason, ‘live and let live’ doesn’t seem a reasonable compromise to folks like you.

Point of a gun?!! Are you saying ou only obey laws because a stronger power can enforce them? You are one sick puppy Seeker. If you don’t like anyone answering the absurdities that are your posts, why come here?

First, you have made no such case, only declared it so.

Wrong. I posted links to demonstrate the harm. If you weren’t so lazy, you’d find even more evidence. Oh, I forgot, you aren’t brave enough to confront your own moral emptiness.

 

[Seeker2010]

The reality is sex is sold and bought as a commodity by those who don’t respect it and by those who don’t respect themselves nor others.

Oh, I see. People who view their sexuality differently than you do aren’t respecting it. And you accuse me of arrogance?

The so called ‘friends’ of yours are running an abusive, dangerous industry.

They’re not ‘so-called’ friends, they’re real friends. And of them, only one could even remotely be described as ‘running’ the industry, the rest are merely cogs in the machine. And uniformly, they enjoy what they do. Yes, you have posted links to people who have had bad experiences, the problem is you are jumping to the conclusion that because one or two people had a bad experience, that must mean everyone is. Unfortunately, that’s absolutely false.

you can’t even see nor understand that if pornography were to be banned , it wont be banned by the Catholic Church. It will be banned by the legislatures and that will be because the people want it banned.

The only people I see calling for the ban of pornography is your church. Others likely are as well, but their publicity machines have not risen to my attention. As for what ‘the people’ want, porn is a $10 Billion industry and growing, despite the economic times, so it seems pretty clear ‘the people’ want it to stay.

It’s also important to remember that we do NOT live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic, and said constitution has been found to not grant government the power to ban pornography. They’ve tried, multiple times, and in multiple ways, and have been smacked down by the courts every time. Changing the constitution to grant government the authority is possible, of course, but would require a super-majority the likes of which you’ll never get.

Your time is over. There was a day that your morality ruled, but that time has passed.

Where is it written that anyone is trying, let alone wants to, impose a theocracy on you or anybody else?

The very fact that you would legislate morality ‘because god said so’ is all the evidence needed to support such a claim.

There is a big swing in all western countries towards what you would probably call theocratic morality. The swinging lifestyle you espouse is a relic of the past.

Really?? Then why is church membership falling while swinging is growing? Do you have any idea how many millions of your fellow countrymen maintain profiles on lifestyle websites? It would shock you. It sure did me.

If you ever bother to check facts before you put your mouth into gear, you would find that religious observance in the US and other western nations has actually increased over the past few decades.

Really? What research is that, for a simple google search finds multiple references that the exact opposite is occurring. 31% of Americans surveyed were raised as catholics, but only 24% still are. While the raw numbers of self identifying christians rose 5% between 1990 and 2000, that actually represents a per capita loss as the population rose over 13% during that time. And those who self-identify as secular or non-religious rose over 100% during the same time period.

Methinks you are deluding yourself.

Wrong. I posted links to demonstrate the harm.

The links you posted are as anecdotal as my personal experiences. Actually, even more so, as the sample size of people that I personally know is larger than the number of people who’s tales of woe you can find.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Yes, sinful. You would be making objects of yourselves and lusting after the image. Just because 2 people consent to the sin and it doesn’t involve anyone else, does not make it right.

Lust is not the same as desiring your wife or husband in a non-sinful way. I am sure it is easy to confuse the terms these days, as self-gratification is rampant in our world and lust is part of that. Lust is lascivious. Lust involves only oneself, not a relationship. Lust is selfish. Lust is usage of the other person.

Married desire is a desire to be close to the other person and also open to the creation of life through sex. Lust destroys relationships and leave the other person feeling alone and used.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

As far as Seeker being here - he is either a supreme example of trolldom…just wanting to yank y’all’s chains whenever and wherever he can…

Or he’s trying to justify his beliefs to himself because he really does have a conscience and it’s bothering him. Else why come to this forum insisting that he doesn’t care what the Catholic Church says, sin is not sin if everyone’s doing it? Methinks the lad doth protest too loudly.

I think it’s the latter, so I’m going to pray extra hard for him.

 

[graceandglory]

Uhm, no its not. Because you get off WITH your spouse. And you can’t not lust them while that is happening

I’m pretty sure its okay to get ‘excited’ shall we say, with your spouse. It is healthy and normal.

A guy cannot get to where he ‘needs to be’ to make some babies without lusting after his wife. I’m not going to say it but I hope you figure it out. Either way, do not debate me on this.

Also too, we are animals and have instinct to reproduce.

Actually, our Church AND the BIBLE does in fact teach that LUST is a sin. It is a sin against the virtue of chastity. Every married couple is commanded to remain chaste in their marriage. Marriage is holy and pure. A Catholic husband is not making his bride unchaste by having relations with her.

“Getting off” with your spouse is the definition of lust, and it is using one another. It is not loving as God calls us to love one another. Inviting a second woman in to watch, or even a second couple, is degrading to our human dignity. God created sex for babies and bonding. Sex is unitive and procreative. Sex is not just an outlet for someone to “get off.” Man is higher than the animals. If sex were just for us to “get off” that wouldn’t be in keeping with our dignity as human beings, and it wouldn’t image God. We are created in God’s image. Animals are not.

The marital union is a symbol of the trinity. Man + Woman + God = 3 persons. Man and woman become co=creators with God when they create a new life.
Exploiting another human being (from the porn industry) so you can “get off” is using that person, and not for what that person was designed by God to do.

An awesome read for you to understand sex in marriage from a Catholic perspective (It’ll blow your socks off, and will totally change your thinking, which you picked up from the porn industry, tv, and the rest of the world)

is:

Good News About Sex and Marriageby Christopher West.
amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_32?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=good+news+about+sex+and+marriage&sprefix=good+news+about+sex+and+marriage

The same author has some really great articles online at
christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=15

Another good place to find information combatting porn is:
chastity.com/chastity-qa/pornography-etc/pornography/whats-wrong-with-loo
**

What does pornography do to a man? For starters, because it cripples his ability to love, it robs him of the capacity to be a man.

The essence of manhood consists in readiness to deny oneself for the good of a beloved. This is why Saint Paul reminds husbands in his Letter to the Ephesians that their love must be like that of Christ, who allowed himself to be crucified for the sake of his beloved, the Church (Eph. 5:21–33).

Pornography defeats this calling. Instead of denying himself for the good of the woman, a man, through the use of porn, denies the woman her dignity in order to satisfy his lust. In essence, pornography is a rejection of our calling to love as God loves. It is no wonder that those who use it are never satisfied. Only love satisfies. One marriage therapist noted, “People who use pornography feel dead inside, and they are trying to avoid being aware of that pain. There is a sense of liberation, which is temporary: that’s why pornography is so repetitive—you have to go back again and again.”[1] **

 

[Abu]

Seeker2010
Freedom to publish whatever you want to publish is (almost) absolute. True, you cannot knowingly publish false defamatory material, and ‘obscenity’ (whatever that means) has been ruled as unprotected (though I repeat my objection that I see no exception for that in the constitution), but regardless pornography (at least the conventional stuff that I THINK we’re both talking about) has specifically been ruled as protected speech. As it should be.

That argument is inconsistent as it presupposes a moral obligation to respect “freedom to publish” and of “speech” as a matter not of mere convention, but of law based on natural justice or natural rights – a moralistic critique of moral objectivity.

But “freedom” is not license and “if man is free from any standards of practical reasonableness, which is to say, morality, then as Nietzsche” [God is dead] “put it, ‘all things are permitted’.”

As “America’s greatest statesmen, from Thomas Jefferson, to Lincoln to Martin Luther King Jr……and the central philosophic tradition of which they were in turn, our nation’s principal bearers – argued that the basis of civil rights and liberties was natural law and the natural rights that derive from the natural law….the proponents of natural law from Aristotle to St Thomas, from the Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke, to Jefferson to Lincoln, and, not least King – would probably all have been appalled to hear that natural law thinking is irrelevant or dangerous….” (Dr Robert P George of Princeton, The Clash Of Orthodoxies, ISI Books, 2001, p 156-7).

Your church does not (or at least should not) have that authority. As it becomes more and more clear that religion is false, more and more people are no longer influenced by their rules. Tis only natural.

As with all selfists, this one makes his own “religion” of anything goes which suits his prejudices, feelings, desires.

The abject failure to recognise that in free democratic societies, the Catholic Church has as much right as any other organization to offer reason and faith to bear on matters of vital concern to the society, signals a frightful disregard for law and order – for the common good.

But the non-sequitur that “religion is false” is a cop-out generality that smacks of Richard Dawkins. Of course there is some falsehood in man-made religions, and in some ecclesial communities, but as the Christ predicted and proved that He is God by His multi-witnessed Resurrection, and as His Church has exposed every man-made problem of morality and belief, and shown the solution through reason and faith, this is especially pathetic.

This is especially so as the Catholic Church built Western civilization. And, “In any society, careful deliberation by citizens committed to the common good and informed both by sound moral judgment and prudent practical understanding, needs to be brought to bear in the effort to, at the same time, preserve honorable liberties and protect public morality.” [See *The Clash of Orthodoxies, Robert P George, ISI Books 2001, p 123].

 

[Seeker2010]

That argument is inconsistent as it presupposes a moral obligation to respect “freedom to publish” and of “speech” as a matter not of mere convention, but of law based on natural justice or natural rights – a moralistic critique of moral objectivity.

Actually, what I wrote was not so much ‘argument’ as it was ‘fact’. In fact, freedom to publish anything is virtually absolute, with only a handful of well defined exceptions. (Note: I’m speaking of civil law in the US, if that matters.)

As with all selfists, this one makes his own “religion” of anything goes which suits his prejudices, feelings, desires.

Do be kind enough to talk TO me and not ABOUT me.

The abject failure to recognise that in free democratic societies, the Catholic Church has as much right as any other organization to offer reason and faith to bear on matters of vital concern to the society, signals a frightful disregard for law and order – for the common good.

Expressing an opinion is one thing, forcing non-catholics to follow catholic rules is quite another. Fortunately, courts have found laws based on nothing more than ‘God said so’ to be abhorrent to the constitution.

Of course there is some falsehood in man-made religions

Some?? The very founding statements of the church is demonstrably false. There was no Adam, there was no Eve, ergo there was no ‘Original Sin’, and humans have most certainly been around for much longer than your timeline allows for. There was no flood, there was no ark.

The earth literally stopped rotating for 24 hours???

Please.

This is especially so as the Catholic Church built Western civilization.

And the US was founded by people fleeing the tyranny of the church, and I don’t mean ‘The Founding Fathers’, I mean the ones that fled England on boats in the 1600’s. And now you’ve chased down their descendants and want to repress them all over again. Ridiculous.

 

[fbl9]

And the US was founded by people fleeing the tyranny of the church, and I don’t mean ‘The Founding Fathers’, I mean the ones that fled England on boats in the 1600’s. And now you’ve chased down their descendants and want to repress them all over again. Ridiculous.

You had better get a history lesson the people came to the US. with there own brand of religion and they weren’t fleeing the Catholic Church but the other churches.These same people would have strung you up as a witch.

 

[Seeker2010]

These same people would have strung you up as a witch.

Indeed they would. Good thing we’ve evolved beyond such religious ridiculousness, huh? And to differentiate between ‘pure’ catholicism and the Church of England regarding what I previously said is picking at nits.

 

[fbl9]

Indeed they would. Good thing we’ve evolved beyond such religious ridiculousness, huh? And to differentiate between ‘pure’ catholicism and the Church of England regarding what I previously said is picking at nits.

,Them nits would about your size.

 

[Seeker2010]

Huh?

 

[John21652]

Oh, I see. People who view their sexuality differently than you do aren’t respecting it. And you accuse me of arrogance?

Another example of you making a sweeping statement based on a quantum leap in logic. The subject here was people who buy and sell sex. The topic was not about people who view their sexuality differently to me. Are you bright enough to see the distinction? Let me explain it to you just in case you aren’t bright enough. I never posted my view of my sexuality, so for you to make a post on it means, very obviously, that your logic is, well, illogical!

They’re not ‘so-called’ friends, they’re real friends.

I’m not sure you would know what “real” friends are. And it sounds to me you hang out with them as some type of fawning sycophant. And of them, only one could even remotely be described as ‘running’ the industry, the rest are merely cogs in the machine. And uniformly, they enjoy what they do. Yes, you have posted links to people who have had bad experiences, the problem is you are jumping to the conclusion that because one or two people had a bad experience, that must mean everyone is. Unfortunately, that’s absolutely false.I told you I posted a few links and that those links were just the tip of the iceburg. If you weren’t so intellectually lazy you’d discover more for yourself. The Global HIV/AIDS pandemic is being blamed on the sex industry. So too is the multi-billion dollar global sex slave trade.So too is the global paediphile trade. And the sex industry is being blamed for the increasing addiction to sex being displayed around the world, which is wrecking marriages, wrecking relationships through the distortion of the values of young people and fuelling the problems already listed. If you are able to overcome your intellectual laziness, you will discover that health authorities brand the sex industry as dangerous. And that branding of it as dangerous is global. Now, most of us know that such authorities base their conclusions on a broad analysis of a target group, so therefore it is impossible for you to suggest that the sample population is too small.

The only people I see calling for the ban of pornography is your church. Others likely are as well, but their publicity machines have not risen to my attention

Another example of your extreme selfishness and self centredness. Unless something comes to your attention, it isn’t a problem. You live in a little caccoon which you build around yourself because you can’t face the reality of your own moral degeneracy.

Just to help you overcome your intellectual laziness, here are a few links to people and organisations other than the Catholic Church wanting to ban pornography -
South African Minister calls for porn ban
Child experts call for ban on porn
Scottish MPs back pornography ban
Singer and goodwill ambassador for the Japan Committee for UNICEF Agnes Chan calls for tighter ban on child pornography
South African official calls for outright ban
Ukrainian women call for ban on pornography
Texas republican Party platform:Criminalize gay marriage, sodomy, outlaw strip clubs and ban pornography
Australian political leader calls for ban on pornography
Online Petition to ban porn in US

Now there, that’s brought a few other than the Catholic Church to your attention and that’s just the tip of the iceburg.

.

As for what ‘the people’ want, porn is a $10 Billion industry and growing, despite the economic times, so it seems pretty clear ‘the people’ want it to stay.

Now that’s a great argument for legalising all drugs. The drug industry is worth a lot of money, so the people must want it. What warped logic.

It’s also important to remember that we do NOT live in a democracy,

Well then, you don’t count!!

Your time is over. There was a day that your morality ruled, but that time has passed.

Church attendance in Britain is rising and Catholic Church attendance in the US increased last year as well. Your day is going the way of the dinosaur - an experiment gone wrong. Knowing your lifestyle, disease will probably claim you.

The very fact that you would legislate morality ‘because god said so’ is all the evidence needed to support such a claim.

Your cynicism is again showing how intellectually vacuous you are. Show me where someone has written morality should be legislated because God said so. It will be legislated because the people say so. You make up trashy comments to avoid the reality of your own suffering from the intellectual pain of your own moral degeneracy.

And that is why you come to this site.

 

[Seeker2010]

I never posted my view of my sexuality, so for you to make a post on it means, very obviously, that your logic is, well, illogical!

The fact that you wish to impose your morality onto people who don’t share it is more than enough evidence of your view of sexuality. It’s not enough for you to live a chaste lifestyle, everyone else much as well. Who do you think you are???

I’m not sure you would know what “real” friends are.

And you basis that judgment upon what?

“Real” friends will not only bail you out of jail, they’ll likely be in there with you. And I have a number of folks who meet that definition. Regardless, real friends are about sharing love, and that is something I truly enjoy sharing. As do they.

The Global HIV/AIDS pandemic is being blamed on the sex industry.

By whom? The same people who preach that using protection (from HIV/AIDS) will send you to hell? Seems a conflict of interest, no?

And the sex industry is being blamed for the increasing addiction to sex being displayed around the world, which is wrecking marriages, wrecking relationships through the distortion of the values of young people and fuelling the problems already listed.

Again, I ask by whom. What is sexual addiction? And why is it ‘wrecking marriages’? For if anyone could be labeled a sex addict, it is me, and my marriage is in great shape.

It’s about expectations, and having them unmet. If you expect unreasonable things from your spouse, you’ll be disappointed. And vice versa. OTOH, if you’re honest with each other about what you want, and deliver what you’ve promised, all will be good.

You live in a little caccoon which you build around yourself because you can’t face the reality of your own moral degeneracy.

I can only observe what I can observe. And amongst those observations are persons who choose, of their own free will, to make a living as part of the adult industry. And enjoy and prosper from it.

And you tell me they’re faking it?

I think I’ll choose to believe them when they tell me they’re not.

Just to help you overcome your intellectual laziness, here are a few links to people and organisations other than the Catholic Church wanting to ban pornography -

Thanks for giving me a list of anti-freedom groups I need to keep an eye on. I’d remind you that the courts have found, routinely and repeatedly that banning porn is not something our government is empowered to do. In order to do so will require a constitutional amendment, or a complete constitutional rewrite. Neither of which is likely.

Now that’s a great argument for legalising all drugs. The drug industry is worth a lot of money, so the people must want it. What warped logic.

Not warped at all. In fact, I agree with you, based on the behavior of people, as well as the idea of personal freedom, drugs should be legal. They’re not good for you, from what I know, but that’s not a good enough reason for them to be banned, as many things are (and should be) legal that are bad for you.

Your day is going the way of the dinosaur - an experiment gone wrong. Knowing your lifestyle, disease will probably claim you.

If disease were going to claim me, it already would have. As for my day going the way of the dino, by all available measurements people who think like I do are growing, whereas people who think like you do are shrinking.

Wonder whose ideas will prevail? Pretty sure it’s not yours.

Show me where someone has written morality should be legislated because God said so.

Any time someone endorses banning porn it’s because god said so. For there are no legitimate, secular reasons to do so. And you have called for it more than once in this thread.

It will be legislated because the people say so.

Given the propensity of ‘the people’ to be porn customers, not haters, I find that highly unlikely. Regardless, even if I’m wrong the courts have found, repeatedly, that porn is NOT subject to regulation of the state, as the state has been granted no such power.

Which is, as I have said repeatedly, as it should be.

 

[Seeker2010]

Very interesting that the proposals you posted from the Texas Republican Party have already been explicitly been found as unconstitutional.

Laws against (private) sodomy are not allowed.

Laws against (private) use of sex toys are not allowed.

Sorry.

You live in a free country. You are, of course, free to move elsewhere, should you wish to do so.

Of course, by my way of thinking, ALL places should have such protections. You should not have the right to enforce your moralities on others who do not share them. Fortunately, in the US, that is true, unfortunately it’s not universally true. Hopefully it will be soon.

 

[karoleck]

Very interesting that the proposals you posted from the Texas Republican Party have already been explicitly been found as unconstitutional.

Laws against (private) sodomy are not allowed.

Laws against (private) use of sex toys are not allowed.

Sorry.

You live in a free country. You are, of course, free to move elsewhere, should you wish to do so.

Of course, by my way of thinking, ALL places should have such protections. You should not have the right to enforce your moralities on others who do not share them. Fortunately, in the US, that is true, unfortunately it’s not universally true. Hopefully it will be soon.

You give your “persona”(acceptable person!) as" spiritual but not religious"----a spiritual person I would define as someone who is not carnal(sexual,fleshy;unsancified,worldly)----is concerned with sacred things,imbued with the spirit (inner soul)–opposite to being a materialist
.I wonder why you put that in of yourself–are you in denial about your own views which contradict your self description–is it a “feel good"thing(dualism)? You mentioned” true" twice in your last line–do you mean 'your subjective truth" or objective truth or gospel truth?
Jesus’s “persona” was I am The Way,**The Truth **and The Life.

A true spiritual person had as a first basis that-------
(1 ) God exists
(2) Man has a soul,intellect, and free will
(3)Man is social by nature–therefore he seeks a government basing it’s laws on truth.
(4)There exists in man a natural law
(5)Reason asserts that God as known through creatures is man’s utimate goal.
(6)God is present to us by His essence(an existence).We should therefore not feel alone,lonely ,or deserted.
(7) There exists a kindly divine providence.
(8) Revelation makes known to us the fact of man’s elevation by grace and his sharing in the nature of God.
(9)Grace brings God into our souls as into His own temple.We can,therefore,speak to Him as one friend speaks to another friend.
(10)Man’s goal is to see God face to face as He is in Himself and not through the mere medium of creatures.
(11)As God is man’s absolutely ultimate goal,man should exercise religion.
(12)Conformity to God’s will does not mean individual passivity or inertia.
(13)God actually wills the crosses that come into our lives.Crosses are,therefore,not evil.
(14)Conformity to God’s will removes the basis for psychic depression.
(15)Nature points the way to peace and calm.
(16)Lack of conformity to God’s will is a cause of conflicts.
(17)Conformity to God’s will excludes anxiety and fear,inferiority feelings,begets true wisdom in man’s life,makes us Godlike.
(18)Complete conformity with God’s will is not easily achieved(hence the daily striving to perfection,with the assistance of prayer.)
(19)Using natural and supernatural means to seek the truth which will resolve their conflicts.

So **Seeker,**my friend,either you aspire to the truth of a spiritual person which means avoiding and actively promoting pornography or why not just change your persona to “materialist but not religious”?is that not closer to the truth–you are in danger of a serious sexual neuroses; which may well turn you into a sexual psychotic(if you are not that already!)
St.Michael The Archangel,defend us from evil spirits.Amen.

 

[John21652]

Actually, what I wrote was not so much ‘argument’ as it was ‘fact’. In fact, freedom to publish anything is virtually absolute, with only a handful of well defined exceptions. (Note: I’m speaking of civil law in the US, if that matters.)

Do be kind enough to talk TO me and not ABOUT me.

Abu can write anyway he pleases. After all, freedom to publish whatever you like…

Expressing an opinion is one thing, forcing non-catholics to follow catholic rules is quite another. Fortunately, courts have found laws based on nothing more than ‘God said so’ to be abhorrent to the constitution.

You persist in this statement about 'forcing non-Catholics to follow Catholic rules. Show us where this is written, or stated, or else stop telling gross untruths.
Also show us where the courts have stated where “God said so” is declared abhorrent to the Constitution. The founding Fathers wrote a Constitution expressly recognising Natural Law rights. The Catholic Church’s Catechism is a Natural Law document. So please, show us how one Natural Law document is abhorrent to another Natural Law document.

Some?? The very founding statements of the church is demonstrably false. There was no Adam, there was no Eve, ergo there was no ‘Original Sin’, and humans have most certainly been around for much longer than your timeline allows for. There was no flood, there was no ark.

Demonstrably false? OK, start demonstrating. Now you would have us beleive you are a theological expert, when in actual fact your lack of logic, your intellectual laziness and your total moral degeneracy tells us otherwise.

And the US was founded by people fleeing the tyranny of the church, and I don’t mean ‘The Founding Fathers’, I mean the ones that fled England on boats in the 1600’s. And now you’ve chased down their descendants and want to repress them all over again. Ridiculous.Seeker, how about being honest, if nothing else. or maybe that’s impossible for you. The US Constitution gaurantees freedom from religious persecution. When it suite you you will try and tell everyone the Constitution gaurantees almost absolute freedom, yet here you are suggesting that the Constitution will somehow allow persecution. I susopect you are less than truthful about a lot of things. Your illogical responses, which by the way, are becoming even more so, give you up as an empty headed, disengenous hypocrite. You have a screwy marriage, you neither respect yourself or anyone else, beleive in nothing except your own self centredness and it shows in your posting.

So again, I ask why you persist in coming to this forum?

 

[John21652]

Very interesting that the proposals you posted from the Texas Republican Party have already been explicitly been found as unconstitutional.

Seeker you are being totally dishonest yet again. You specifically stated that no groups wishing to ban pornography other than the Catholic Church had ever come to your attention. I provided lists of groups other than the catholic Church who want pornography banned. It does not matter one iota that the Texas proposals are not constitutional. The fact is, they want it banned and last I looked, the Texas Republican party was not the Catholic Church.
I gave links to other groups and from right round the world. None of them are the Catholic Church. I also stated that the links I posted were but the tip of the iceburg. You have ignored all that and tried to deflect us from the fact that your own self centredness has caused you to be caught out writing drivel.

Have the manliness to apologise.

Laws against (private) sodomy are not allowed.

Laws against (private) use of sex toys are not allowed.

Sorry.

I’m bet your sorry. Sorry for being caught out trying to label the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church as wanting pornography banned.

You live in a free country. You are, of course, free to move elsewhere, should you wish to do so.

Yes I di live in a free country. Thankfully, it is in tha main free from such hypocrisy as you display. Strangely, you are the one who wrote you don’t live in a democracy. The whole world thinks the US is a democratic nation. All America thinks it is a democratic nation. All except Seeker. Maybe you should move.

Of course, by my way of thinking, ALL places should have such protections. You should not have the right to enforce your moralities on others who do not share them. Fortunately, in the US, that is true, unfortunately it’s not universally true. Hopefully it will be soon.

Show us where morality is being forced on you, or anyone else. C’mon Seeker, have the gonads to furnish proof of this.

 

[Seeker2010]

You mentioned" true" twice in your last line–do you mean 'your subjective truth" or objective truth or gospel truth?

‘True’ as I used it was interchangeable with ‘fact’. In fact, in these United States of America, in order for the government to ban something, it must show a compelling state interest. Which is to say, it must demonstrate that there’s a good reason for whatever is being banned to be banned, and ‘because god said so’ has not been deemed sufficient justification. In fact, in other places in the world, this is not the case. So laws banning, for example, private sodomy, have been found to lack any compelling state interest, and are therefore not allowed here. In other places of the globe, they may be.

A true spiritual person had as a first basis that-------
(1 ) God exists
(2) Man has a soul,intellect, and free will
(3)Man is social by nature–therefore he seeks a government basing it’s laws on truth.

So far, so good.

(4)There exists in man a natural law

Here, we likely divert. For my idea of ‘natural law’ and yours (assuming yours is similar to what I’ve seen asserted elsewhere on this board) are likely different. For you use ‘natural law’ to claim that things like contraception or homosexuality are evil, and they are not.

(11)As God is man’s absolutely ultimate goal,man should exercise religion.
(12)Conformity to God’s will does not mean individual passivity or inertia.
(13)God actually wills the crosses that come into our lives.Crosses are,therefore,not evil.
(14)Conformity to God’s will removes the basis for psychic depression.

For brevity, I snipped the points leading up to these, as they merely built up to this. I believe that we’re not meant to know or understand god. That we’re literally not even capable of it, even if someone ‘in the know’ were to brief us on the topic. I believe all tomes and other information given to us on the nature of god are merely the opinions of their authors, and as such, are no more authoritative than a Steven King novel. Ergo, I believe ‘exercising religion’ is an exercise in futility, as any ‘truth’ that any given religion has is only through blind luck. After all, even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time.

We cannot conform to god’s will because we don’t know what it is. We don’t know why we’re here. And despite the fact that I have a theory about that, it is, and almost certainly always will be, impossible to verify.

So **Seeker,**my friend,either you aspire to the truth of a spiritual person which means avoiding and actively promoting pornography or why not just change your persona to “materialist but not religious”?

This pre-supposes that we are in possession of knowledge of god’s will, when we are not. The bible is a work of man.