Posted on 12/18/2010 8:01:19 AM PST by IbJensen
You said my premise was wrong, so why would I need to look at your post to find my premise?
when was porn illegal? We’ve had pinup girls since the World War.
Im pretty sure I did not misstate my own premise.
For my part, I have no problem in morally condemning pornography, though there are degrees of degradation.
But as a Christian I also believe that people have the right to sin and freedom is defended only at a cost.
Sharia law is the enforcement of moral behaviour - our law is about preserving freedom and limiting the excesses of damaging behaviour. It sounds good but look where it leads.
Nor is it wise to ban that which cannot be enforced in a pluralist society.
Me? I like some porn, that is why I steer clear of it. I have to pluck my eye out as it offends me. Gets bloody but that's the cost of following Jesus.
This is different from the *preconditions* which is a description of the situation under consideration.
Cheers!
OK, so pro repleal of laws against incest among consenting adults then, as is currently being debated in Switzerland?
I think we're getting to see the fault lines in the term "conservative" here quite nicely. You are really a libertarian / libertine, not a conservative. Would you agree?
Nope, just mistaken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
Natural law or the law of nature has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.
The handy-man at the 400 unit apartmnet building I lived in in the 1980s was an interesting old fellow. He's played drums in big bands in the Buddy Rich era, but didn't quite have the chops to make it big time. He drifted down to Florida in the 1950s and was making porno. He was arrested, tried and convicted and went to prison for a number of years. To this day (if he's still alive he is a felon whose crime was pornography).
It wasn't that long ago this was the norm in almost all parts of the USA. Larry Flynt, famously, was tried for pornography. Ed Meese, Reagan's attorney general attempted to prosecute some of the more disgusting pornographers.
I guess a lot of libertarian pseudo-conservatives think that this part of Reagan's legacy was wrong. I suppose of lot of them are supporting DADT repeal too.
“How consenting adults choose to exercise that freedom should be their choice, and they should live with the consequences.”
This.
Boy, folks who think all Conservatives think alike should stop by and browse one of these threads sometime. Or, one of the evolution threads.
Pro-porn is the lefty position, and it is one of the great victories of the radical left since they started winning in the 1960s.
originally 1 mile in every 5 was to be straight, so that is could potentially be used as a runway.Urban legend.
Please explain the moral basis behind Roe v Wade.
Agree with you there...conservatives aren’t prudes...they just hate the over the top sexualized everything all the time.
Yeah... us guys.
Perhaps you haven't noticed the recent slippery slope we've all been sliding down when you cede just an inch of authority to the Govt in the name of "Homeland Security." We're also sliding down another in the name of "health care."
Next up is the slippery slope of "Internet Security" to prevent a future Julian Assange, or so they tell us.
How slippery do you think a slope will get if we cede an inch or two to the clowns in DC on legislating morality... who's morality... Pat Robertson's, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Fred Phelps, or maybe Jeremiah Wright's under this Administration?
That's why we have a Constitution. FMCDH.
Who is arguing with that?
the porn industry hurts a lot of people, including women and children...that’s where the complaint is..no one is arguing about banning Playboy.
the Stoics asserted the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe (a divine or eternal law), and the means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this order was the natural law, which spelled out action that accorded with virtue.
Christians believe that "rational and purposeful order to the universe" is created and controlled by God. They believe, based on the revelations of the prophets going back to Abraham, that there are clear moral precepts that are required as part of this rational order.
Vikings believed the the there was a purposeful order to the universe, controlled by a pantheon of Gods. These Gods had their moral precepts, but they were quite different from the Christian ones.
If you try to deduce laws from nature would your 'natural law' include the Judeo/Christian "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" or would it support the Viking 'fight and kill as many men as possible to secure your place in Asgarrd, take the spoils of those you defeat as your choose'?
If you really tried to discern laws from nature (purely) you would be a materialist. People like Hitchens and Dawkins take exactly this approach in their defense of atheism.
The "social darwinist" believes in natural law. At the height of that rejection of god-based morality and in favor of natural law someone with the pseudonym Ragnar Redbeard wrote the book "Might is Right", which posits that the only natural law is "might makes right" and the will to power, in the sense Neitzsche uses it.
The article you linked goes on to explain that "natural law" as used in the West is really "Christian Natural Law" as developed in the middle ages and codified into English law in the second millenium.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.